Adjusting a teleconverter lens

[JDArt]

The teleconverter introduces yet another lens element in the image capturing process. It's one more thing to be concerned about if you find yourself getting soft images.

Yet how many of us have taken pains to ensure that the teleconverters we're using are performing to spec?

Have you ever sent a teleconverter in for "alignment"? If so, were the results better?

[scoundrel1728]

I can understand why teleconverters are less likely to be sent in for alignment:

1. Optically, they are much simpler, with perhaps 6 elements instead of 15. These devices are thus much simpler to build, align, and test.

2. No moving parts to speak of, so they can be mechanically rugged. No focusing or zooming rings or moving internal elements. This also contributes greatly to their ease of manufacture and testing.

3. Confounding of the lens' failure as opposed to the teleconverter's. If a bad image occurs, is it the teleconverter's fault or the lens'? And is it a problem with all teleconverters of this particular design or is this just a defective copy? This isn't an easy question for the consumer to answer, who would probably chalk up imperfect perfomance to the design rather than a manufacturing defect, or perhaps even blame the lens the teleconverter was being used with.

[nsurit]

This isn't exactly on topic, however it is close enough.

Vivitar made a Macro focusing 2X teleconverter which produced great results. Anyone who still shots 35mm film or digital cameras with their 35mm lenses might find this to be worth a look. Bill Barber

[blumesan]

Additional considerations are the cost and quality of such a service. Teleconverters, with a few exceptions, are not very expensive. The cost of an alignment could easily approach the cost of a new converter.

Mike.