Panasonic DMW-LT55 1.7 vs Pixco 2.0 Tele Converter (with samples)

Review of the Panasonic DMW-LT55 1.7 vs Pixco 2.0 Tele Converter with samples.
Both need an adapter tube to be mounted on the Panasonic FZ82, in my case the Kiwi LA-55FZ70 (€ 20) cheaper than the Panasonic Lumix DWA-LA8 (€ 40).Because of the big difference in price, I decided to give this Tele Pixco 2.0 High Definition Tele Converter (17€) a try and ordered one to test it out here is the video.
© Javier Rullan Ruano All rights reserved 2020
Visit my blog:
www.javrullan.es/en/Welcome.html
www.javrullan.es/es/Bienvenida.html

[@JubbLaRacing]

I didn't expect it to be that bad! But i was wondering how it looks when it isn't zoomed that much because it looks kinda cool.

[@emmanuels5095]

Thank u for testing

[@JavierRullanRuano]

Thanks!

[@jeffslade1892]

I have the FZ200, this requires the LA7 adapter or copy. I have a Polaroid 2.2xTC, 58mm fitting thread. This requires a 58-55mm step-down adapter ring. The results are a lot better than the Pixco but inferior to the Panasonic TC as shown here. The Panasonic lens for the FZ200 is the DMW-LT55 as here with 55mm fitting thread. The issue appears to be that adapter ring sites the Polaroid TC at the wrong distance from the ocular, a TC needs to be tuned to the lens it is on. The camera /must/ be set to use the tele conversion lens in the Rec menu, this alters the focusing. Otoh the FZ200 is so long that a TC is unnecessary. Crop factor is 5.6, FZ200 lens is 4.5-108/2.8 but digital zoom extends to 96x. at 108mm it is "24x" equivalent to 600mm FF, at 96x then it is rocking 2400mm. Dodgy TC not needed. Ultra long lenses are not for extreme distance, too much environmental distortion, but for increased magnification at middling distances.

[@FranciscoRodriguez-zn3pz]

Hola Javier, gracias por tus vídeos. Veo recomendable el DMW-LT55 para ciertos momentos.

[@JavierRullanRuano]

Totalmente, en algunas ocasiones es necesario.

[@perakesson1346]

Thanks for the test Javier! It was very clarifying both optically and economically . Even if the cheaper teleconverter costs only 1/10 of what Panasonic's teleconverter costs, it does not matter. The € 17 is a complete waste of money for the deplorably poor optical quality you then get. Not even as a toy, it is worth the money, while Panasonic's teleconverter actually provides extremely good optical quality for only 170 € + about 40 € for the adapter. 👍👍👍👍 --------------------- ¡Gracias por la prueba Javier! Fue muy clarificador tanto óptica como financieramente. Incluso si el teleconvertidor más barato cuesta solo 1/10 de lo que cuesta el teleconvertidor de Panasonic, no importa. Los 17 € son una completa pérdida de dinero por la calidad óptica deplorablemente pobre que obtienes. Ni siquiera como juguete, vale la pena el dinero, mientras que el teleconvertidor de Panasonic en realidad ofrece una calidad óptica extremadamente buena por solo 170 € + alrededor de 40 € por el adaptador. 👍👍👍👍

[@JavierRullanRuano]

Thanks!

[@lamarbravia]

Ademas de poca nitidez, cambia los colores y distorsiana los bordes, un desastre total, gracias por subir el video!!!

[@JavierRullanRuano]

Gracias!

[@marinoviejo]

No sé cómo venden semejante objetivo, se ve muy borroso y además no es 2X, se ve más pequeño que el 1,7, buena prueba like 😍😍😍!!!

[@JavierRullanRuano]

Exacto!

[@olafgraf73]

Pixo ist much better than the original Panasonic lense.

[@hevix22]

Parece que no va bien el Pixco, sale muy borroso, buen video!

[@JavierRullanRuano]

Gracias!

[@hansgruber3495]

Holy shit, this is bad, even for 17€ Thanks, you should have compared without Tele Converter but Digital Zoom, probably still better than this Pixco thingy.

[@JavierRullanRuano]

You are welcome

[@neilpinkett]

An expensive paper weight. thats what the Pixco is

[@JavierRullanRuano]

Yes indeed 😁

[@pirateandoelmar]

Realmente muy malo el Pixco, una prueba para evitar errores, gracias por aportar amigo like!!

[@JavierRullanRuano]

Por eso lo he subido, gracias!

[@sambanguirane4580]

Tous

[@donjose4656]

Avec le Pixco, la qualité finale n'est pas très bonne...c'est le moins que l'on puisse dire ! Très décevant !

[@JavierRullanRuano]

En fait, bien que bon marché, cet objectif est de mauvaise qualité.

[@ricardoalves8313]

"high defenition" 😂😂😂

[@JavierRullanRuano]

Jajaja

[@DuderinoDeux]

You get what you pay for.

[@JavierRullanRuano]

Yes

[@148bus]

What a load of rubbish, save your money! Ifanyone says this lens is brilliant then they are a lier. TOTAL RUBBISH