Best Telephoto lens converters for Canon sx40

[Endorya]

I seek ways to increase my Canon sx40 optical zoom. At the moment I'm thinking on getting the Raynox 2020/5 x2.2 lens but I have two questions:

1 - Can the Canon sx40 handle the weight of such lens?
2 - Are there better alternatives?

Thanks. This is my first post.
Greetings to everyone!

 

[Railphotog]

Do you really need to zoom beyond the extreme 840mm the camera already does? I have the SX30 with the same lens, and find it quite adequate. How would the Raynox attachment fit onto the end of the lens? There is very little thread on the end of my lens, will barely keep a polarizer filter on, I need to keep my hand near it all the time so it doesn't fall off. I imagine a heavier one would be even more difficult. Then there's the added weight on the end of the lens and the lens mechanism, wouldn't try it myself.

 

[Endorya]

The point is not about me or anyone discussing if going beyond 840mm is needed but what would it take to go beyond it, in case someone wants to. So we have the implication of holding such lens. That was not surprising, I mean, the thread is small and the lens are heavy. There is this video on you tube of a guy using such lens in a Canon sx40, but he does not mention anything regarding the way it is attached to the camera. I think the lens includes a 58mm converter so it can be attached to the Canon sx40. But I really would like to hear the opinion of someone who actually knows for sure how it can be done and what implications might arouse from it.

There are other alternatives with lens far more lighter and smaller. I'm just wondering what better choices might be there. Any suggestions?
Thanks for replying me.

PS: I have the Raynox 250 lens for the Canon sx40 and it does not fall from the thread at all.

 

[Railphotog]

Maybe contact the fellow with the YouTube video and ask him.

 

[Destin]

Over 840mm? Buy a telescope, a dale, and an adapter to make the two work together. Or get the canon 1200mm prime lens that costs about $12,000.

You will not get good results from any teleconverter that threads onto the front of the lens. they will give poor image quality, impair autofocus, and not let in enough light for a reasonably fast shutter speed in anything but the most direct sunlight.

 

[Endorya]

Railphotog
Maybe contact the fellow with the YouTube video and ask him.

Already did that. No answer.

Destin
Over 840mm? Buy a telescope, a dale, and an adapter to make the two work together.

Mmmm... Interesting. How does the whole thing work? I mean, is there a specific type of telescope and adapter required for this?
But most important what will work with my Canon sx40?

Sorry for the noob questions. Thanks for the replies.

 

[Big Mike]

Might be better off to do everything you can to maximize the sharpness without any added lens (use a tripod & self timer etc.) Then just crop the image if that doesn't get you enough reach.

 

[Destin]

Already did that. No answer.

Mmmm... Interesting. How does the whole thing work? I mean, is there a specific type of telescope and adapter required for this?
But most important what will work with my Canon sx40?

Sorry for the noob questions. Thanks for the replies.

No you'd need a dslr with interchangeable lenses. And a fairly high end, bright telescope. It's going to be expensive, heavy, and awkward to work with. But there is really no other way to get insanely long focal lengths. The longest lens I know of is canons 1200mm. On a crop body, that would be an 1800mm lens. But you're talking $15,000 or more to get set up with a kit like that.

If you want to get over 800mm with good image quality, you have spend some serious, serious money.

 

[Endorya]

Might be better off to do everything you can to maximize the sharpness without any added lens (use a tripod & self timer etc.) Then just crop the image if that doesn't get you enough reach.

I really don't believe that cropping an image will offer better quality than having a lens convertor, judging by the quality of my camera on 1x1 and when comparing the quality of the image samples I've seen using this type of lens. This also gets off topic.

 

[Endorya]

No you'd need a dslr with interchangeable lenses. And a fairly high end, bright telescope. It's going to be expensive, heavy, and awkward to work with. But there is really no other way to get insanely long focal lengths. The longest lens I know of is canons 1200mm. On a crop body, that would be an 1800mm lens. But you're talking $15,000 or more to get set up with a kit like that.

If you want to get over 800mm with good image quality, you have spend some serious, serious money.

well, since I my camera is not a DSLR...

 

[Markw]

Might be better off to do everything you can to maximize the sharpness without any added lens (use a tripod & self timer etc.) Then just crop the image if that doesn't get you enough reach.

I really don't believe that cropping an image will offer better quality than having a lens convertor, judging by the quality of my camera on 1x1 and when comparing the quality of the image samples I've seen using this type of lens. This also gets off topic.

Well, honestly, to be completely blunt, you're wrong. Cropping an image doesn't degrade the quality at all. It just shows how bad it was in the first place, better. Putting anything infront of the lens will degrade the quality. That much is inherent simply because the photos will have more glass to go through. No matter how minimal, it's true. And it's not getting off topic. You want to extend your reach, he's trying to tell you how.

No you'd need a dslr with interchangeable lenses. And a fairly high end, bright telescope. It's going to be expensive, heavy, and awkward to work with. But there is really no other way to get insanely long focal lengths. The longest lens I know of is canons 1200mm. On a crop body, that would be an 1800mm lens. But you're talking $15,000 or more to get set up with a kit like that.

If you want to get over 800mm with good image quality, you have spend some serious, serious money.

well, since I my camera is not a DSLR...

Since your camera is not a DSLR, you can actually reach 840mm at all without spending $15,000. So, you're the lucky one. But, since your camera is not a DSLR, you can't crop to 1:1 and have great image quality. You really have to think about what you're trying to do, and think about what is reasonable. Most of us on the forum can't get past 300mm without a teleconverter (and $3,000-8,000 worth of kit!). You're trying to push 1000mm with a $400 camera, and a $50 screw-on magnifying glass and get superb image quality. Sorry, but that isn't going to happen any time soon in the photographic world.

If you want to get remotely serious about this, though, you could always get a Nikon D3000 for less than you paid for your SX40, and a Sigma 300-800mm (which turns into a 450-1200mm) as your walkaround lens. It'll only cost you $8.5k. But, that's cheap in the photo world for that kind of reach and image quality.


Mark

 

[DiskoJoe]

Might be better off to do everything you can to maximize the sharpness without any added lens (use a tripod & self timer etc.) Then just crop the image if that doesn't get you enough reach.

I really don't believe that cropping an image will offer better quality than having a lens convertor, judging by the quality of my camera on 1x1 and when comparing the quality of the image samples I've seen using this type of lens. This also gets off topic.

You missed his point. If you take a better quality picture then you can crop it and get a closer framing that is a better quality and not have to spend any money at all.

 

[Endorya]

Might be better off to do everything you can to maximize the sharpness without any added lens (use a tripod & self timer etc.) Then just crop the image if that doesn't get you enough reach.

I really don't believe that cropping an image will offer better quality than having a lens convertor, judging by the quality of my camera on 1x1 and when comparing the quality of the image samples I've seen using this type of lens. This also gets off topic.

You missed his point. If you take a better quality picture then you can crop it and get a closer framing that is a better quality and not have to spend any money at all.

I understood what he meant. If I wanted to crop I wouldn't open a thread titled: "Best Telephoto lens converters for Canon sx40".

Anyway, thank you for your posts.

 

[PixelRabbit]

So what you are saying is that you would prefer to spend money to get a lower quality end result than you would if you spent your time to improve your photography skills and learn a different method to achieve the same thing?
You should have said that right off the hop so he didn't waste his time.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I really don't believe that cropping an image will offer better quality than having a lens convertor, judging by the quality of my camera on 1x1 and when comparing the quality of the image samples I've seen using this type of lens. This also gets off topic.

You missed his point. If you take a better quality picture then you can crop it and get a closer framing that is a better quality and not have to spend any money at all.

I understood what he meant. If I wanted to crop I wouldn't open a thread titled: "Best Telephoto lens converters for Canon sx40".

Anyway, thank you for your posts.

You still dont get it.