Anyone here use a Panasonic DMW-LT55 Teleconverter?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Paul Ciszek, Jan 16, 2010.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix
    FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger
    than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is
    still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my
    options?
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jan 16, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul Ciszek

    Peter Guest


    Try a square polarizer. Of course, you will need an adaptor. Decent ones are
    manufactured by Cokin and Tiffen. there may be other brands, but I have
    never used them. And no, they are not cheap.
     
    Peter, Jan 16, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul Ciszek

    Better Info Guest

    Get a good quality 55mm polarizer with a strong filter-ring mount. You
    mount the polarizer between teleconverter and camera. Be sure to get a
    polarizer that can hold up to the weight of the lens hanging off of it and
    that it won't pull the polarizer apart from the stress. A rotating-ring
    filter mount is not as sturdy as a solid one-piece construction
    filter-ring. Or just be very astute to always support the lens properly
    when you are using a polarizer in this manner.

    There's a reason that teleconverters for P&S cameras are made so large in
    aperture. At the widest aperture setting of the camera it will not diminish
    the camera's own f/ratio one bit no matter what zoom setting you use. The
    same cannot be said of teleconverters which go between lens and dSLR
    cameras, which halve the effective aperture. Making them all but useless
    except on a sturdy tripod.
     
    Better Info, Jan 16, 2010
    #3
  4. Paul Ciszek

    SMS Guest

    You should get the Nikon TC-E15ED and the appropriate adapter instead.
    This is what many Panasonic owners do. The Nikon adapter is threaded for
    filters. It's only 1.5x rather than the LT55 which is 1.7x. There's also
    a Nikon TC-E17ED but these are very expensive (used).

    You do realize of course that you're spending all this money on
    teleconverters and adapters, essentially trying to duplicate the
    functionality of a D-SLR. Been there, done that. You'll never achieve
    anywhere close to the quality of a D-SLR with these converters and
    adapters, and by the time you're done you'll be carrying around just as
    much weight. Time to cut your losses and get a D-SLR.
     
    SMS, Jan 17, 2010
    #4
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Is this sort of stuff documented somewhere? For example, even with
    the Panasonic teleconverter, the adapter needed depends on the model
    of the camera, and the FZ35 isn't listed in a lot of places because
    it's new. The Panasonic manual tells me which Panasonic converter
    and adapter works with the FZ35; it sure ain't gonna tell me which
    Nikon parts to use. Or is the Nikon converter made to match the
    Panasonic camera?
    I may have misunderstood this, but I thought that in order to acheive
    a telephoto capability comparable to my 18x zoom plus the teleconverter
    on an SLR, I would have to get a lens the size of a fireplace log,
    costing thousands of dollars. Is that not the case?
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jan 17, 2010
    #5
  6. Paul Ciszek

    Peter Guest


    Depends on the quality you need/are looking for. Nikon makes a perfectly
    acceptable 70-300 zoom, without bells and whistles:

    http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-6G-Nikkor-Worldwide/dp/B00008B0Z6.

    I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos for
    between $50 and $750.
     
    Peter, Jan 17, 2010
    #6
  7. Let me be the first to apologize for all the dSLR-Trolls in these
    newsgroups.

    First of all, not one of them even owns a camera. They only know of their
    existence from ads, reviews, and manuals that they download off the net.
    Second, their experience with cameras is just as delusional. They love to
    live vicariously through others, trying to convince others to buy the
    cameras they wish they could have, never realizing that those "dream
    cameras" are not what everyone makes them out to be. They also always try
    to convince everyone to post photos so they have something to look at, they
    are that desperate for any glimpse of the world beyond their
    basement-bedroom walls. They know not of what they speak when it comes to
    real-world situations and real cameras. They use these newsgroups like some
    role-play adventure game. They think they win if they can convince someone
    they have ever held a real camera in their lives. Reading their posts and
    advice, it becomes quickly obvious that that has never been the case.

    And yes, you are correct about lenses and cameras. Many many superzoom and
    other P&S cameras today easily beat the optics and image quality from many
    dSLRs and any of their available lenses. The P&S lenses consistently win in
    CA performance, field-flatness, and especially in aperture at long focal
    lengths. So much so that they can't even be made at those apertures and
    focal lengths for dSLRs unless you consider an 18" dia. catadioptric
    telescope weighing in at over 250 lbs to reach the equivalent focal-lengths
    and apertures available to a super-zoom P&S camera. These role-playing
    dSLR-Trolls just don't want to admit any of this. Because then all those
    manuals they downloaded, all those ads and reviews that they studied for
    years to play their role-play pretend-photographer game was all for naught.
    It's all very sad. You just have to know more than they do from real-life
    photography experience to see through their role-playing schtick.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jan 17, 2010
    #7
  8. Paul Ciszek

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Go away, asshole troll.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 17, 2010
    #8
  9. Ray Fischer, one of the most well-known pretend-photographer resident
    trolls, right on cue! LOL
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jan 17, 2010
    #9
  10. Paul Ciszek

    Bruce Guest


    There's obviously a very wide variation in what different people would
    find "acceptable".

    The AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G is one of Nikon's worst ever telephoto
    zooms. with its only redeeming feature being the very low price. You
    get what you pay for, and this is a junk lens at a junk price.


    I bet her other camera is a Lomo. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jan 17, 2010
    #10
  11. Paul Ciszek

    Peter Guest

    I woder if you have ever used that lens.
    Optically at f8-f11 the lens is nice and crisp. It is not a professional
    lens tha twill stand up to abuse.

    D70 is her only camera.
    I repeat. Have you ever used this lens? If so for what? If not, don't
    believe all the nit picking reviews.
     
    Peter, Jan 17, 2010
    #11
  12. Paul Ciszek

    Bruce Guest


    I have not only used it, but had it bench tested for a magazine
    review. We couldn't believe how bad it was, and obtained another
    sample. That was, if anything, even worse. It's a pile of junk.


    Even the worst lenses can produce reasonably sharp images at f/8 or
    f/11. Even some of the horrors that Cosina have produced - among the
    worst lenses ever made for 35mm SLRs - are almost acceptable at those
    apertures.

    The problems start when you use the lens at wider apertures. Wide
    open, the lens is desperately bad. At focal lengths over 200mm it is
    unusable. Unusable, unless of course you have extremely low
    standards, as so many amateur photographers do.


    It isn't even a competent lens. It is truly dire. Without doubt, one
    of the worst lenses ever to wear a Nikon badge.


    The D70's 6 MP sensor is hardly going to test a lens, is it? She
    really would get better results with a Lomo.


    Why would I not believe them? I wrote one of them. Other reviewers
    seem to agree that this is a very poor lens, although their reviews
    are laced with varying degrees of politeness.

    I say it's junk, but it's obviously more than good enough for you -
    and your "professional" friend with her 6 MP DSLR. ROTFL!!

    One thing that never ceases to surprise me is just how low some
    people's standards are.
     
    Bruce, Jan 17, 2010
    #12
  13. Paul Ciszek

    Peter Guest

    You just made my point. If a person can make good shots within that limit,
    why spend extra money.
    Unfair comment. See above


    The original, pre-AI 35-70 f3.5, was much worse.
    Again, the combinatin works for her. People pay good money for her shots and
    she is recognized as an artist. It does not matter that some think it is a
    crap lens. It does the intended job.
    You are forgetting that the purpose of a camera and lens is to satisfy the
    maker, not a reviewer.
    While I agree that all too often standards are low, in this case it is the
    right tool for the right job. BTW that combo certainly beats many P&SO
    boxes.
    Some may say a pinhole image is junk. Many others agree it can very well be
    art.


    All I know is that she makes nice prints, that sell and is well recognized
    and accepted in the art community. (She was invited to put on a one person
    exhibit, but has no time.) I guess she squeaks by on her composition and
    lighting techniques. Whether a higher end combination would bring in more
    dollars is debatable.
     
    Peter, Jan 17, 2010
    #13
  14. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    I have searced around. What is the appropraite adapter for putting
    a Nikon TC-E15ED onto a Lumix FZ35? Nikon sells adapters for putting
    the Nikon TC-E15ED on their cameras--and there are a different
    adapters for different models. Panasonic sells adapters for putting
    their teleconverter on their cameras--again, different adapters for
    different models. So far, no site I have seen mentions which
    adapter(s) are needed to consumate the star-crossed union of a Lumix
    FZ35 and Nikon TC-E15ED. Note that these adapters are not just sizing
    rings, they have length as well.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jan 17, 2010
    #14
  15. Paul Ciszek

    Bruce Guest


    Thank you for establishing just how low your standards are. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jan 17, 2010
    #15
  16. Paul Ciszek

    Peter Guest


    Are you claiming that one cannot produce art with a pinhole?
     
    Peter, Jan 17, 2010
    #16
  17. Paul Ciszek

    Bruce Guest


    I would never claim that I could produce art with any kind of camera.
    You can claim whatever you want to.
     
    Bruce, Jan 17, 2010
    #17
  18. Paul Ciszek

    Peter Guest

    Please answer the question.
     
    Peter, Jan 17, 2010
    #18
  19. Paul Ciszek

    Bruce Guest


    You can probably produce art with your asshole.
     
    Bruce, Jan 17, 2010
    #19
  20. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    I have that trollouter guy killfiled, but he is right about one
    thing: See how this has devolved into a pissing match? Meanwhile,
    my question about which adapter would properly join the Nikon
    teleconverter to the Lumix FZ35 goes unanswered, so I guess I'll
    just have to stick with the Panasonic teleconverter.

    BTW, as for the polarizer question, there is a sub-optimal solution:
    Since the lens of the camera is zooming back and forth within the
    connecting barrel and is not attached to anything, I can still put
    a rotatable polarizer on it. (Yes, there is enough clearance; I
    checked.) It means figuring out the right orientation of the polarizer
    (which, for sky dimming, is not always going to be the same) before
    putting the teleconverter on, but oh well.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jan 18, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.