Crystal optics

Hello all again,

I am here to ask more newbie questions:

So there I was surfing the net and looking for explanations about the quality of various telephoto lenses when I run into a lens:
Crystal Optics HIGH RESOLUTION PRO TELEPHOTO LENS

for $500 whereas we see all sorts of "high definition" telephoto lenses for under the $200 mark. Google was of no help except to say that crystal optics is a field of using crystals as magnification elements as opposed to using glass.

Has anyone run into such lenses before? There is not a way (while still staying married to my wife...) that I could spend that kind of money on a X2 telephoto lens - but it piqued my curiosity...

Many thanks

Telephoto add-on lenses are less poor than wide angle adapters, but "Pro" is every bit as much a marketing term as "high resolution" in this case. Add in the "Crystal Optics" marketing-selected brand name and you've got, not one, not two, but three scoops of, um, well, bovine excrement, in the name.

Some of these lenses do a pretty good job for what they are intended and the price. But to use words like "Pro", "High Reslolution" and "Crystal Optics" is just plain hogwash!

Personally, I think you're over thinking this whole thing. I would suggest that you forget all the deep technical end of it, at least for a while, and learn the basics of how your camera works. You know, things like exposure, lighting etc., then go take some nice pictures! Your manual alone has enough info in it to keep you busy for quite some time!

That site doesnt even give you any specs on it. How did you find that it was even a 2x?

I agree with Gary. You are looking into this too much. I only find I want/need more zoom then the S3 already has about 1% of the time. It has amazing zoom already. Play around with the camera for awhile and you will probably find out that you dont even need something as powerful as 2x. Alot of people find canon's 1.5x lens is great.

Thanks for all your input. Yes, I expected the "bovine offal" statement - but since I am new to the ins and outs of this - I wanted to check. Before all of this I started first checking into attaching monoscopes to my A95 (of which I still love very much, but am starting to love my S3 even more), so telephoto is very interesting to me - but the problem is also that there is very little information for the consumer (in contradistinction, if you wanted to know what the best CPU for running computer games was, you'd have a billion sites explaining their methods of measure etc)

Anyway, thanks for the friendly and patient input.

Unfortunately there are too many people out there with point and shoot cameras that dont have the money for a good lens. This is why there are so many places selling crap out there. Its a HUGE market. And unfortunately, so far (for the most part), it is only by trial and error that you find out what works, and what does not. The only reason I have a teleconverter lens is because it came with my fisheye. It hardly ever gets used (and rarely gives decent shots). I really should take it out of my bag come to think about it. There is no place where you can go and try these things out before you buy them. Even the canon lenses are not stocked at most camera stores. They have to be special ordered.

I my opinion, the Canon 1.5 teleconverter works very well. There is some light fall off, but nothing serious. Focus is fast, and I have found that I can get very good shots, even handheld. I had a 300MM Canon lens for my film SLRs that weighed more than my S2 with the teleconverter combined, and was twice as long, but got no better results than my S2. Of course, it was not a top of the line lens either.