Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
I did take a shot of the heron that is very much like yours. It was in PUG, August I think. My light angle was slightly different, but not to any great degree. I was using my SMC 400/5.6 with the A2XS. I think I was at f8. That lens has a built-in hood, so it was probably fully extended. (That's assuming I was paying attention to what I was doing :-). Yep, the snow has receded. It's time for a photo hike. Paul Mark Cassino wrote: > > At 06:30 AM 3/29/01 -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > Great pics. I'm no expert, but I do have a few thoughts on what I > > saw. I > > think the odd bokeh on the shot of the cardinal is actually lens > > flare. > > Ditto on the Blue Heron (who I recognize :-). The overly detailed > > bokeh > > on the grass shots look like it might just be the result of a fairly > > small ap. Speaking of our friend the Heron, we ought to do a > > Michigan > > PDML photo hike when the weather warms up a bit. > > Hi Paul - > > I think you took almost the exact same shot (sans ugly bokeh) that > day! As for the cardinal shot - the sun was directly behind me when > that was taken, so I doubt flare was the cause of that. I have a TC-6 > 2x and I might do some comparisons of that with the 2x-L. > > We should for a Michigan expedition again - now that the snow is > nearly gone its getting to be time! > > - MCC > > - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino > Kalamazoo, MI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - - - - - - - - - - > Photos: > http://www.markcassino.com > - - - - - - - - - - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
At 02:15 PM 3/29/01 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: What a great post, a picture is worth a thousand words. "Jay Ablaze" has to be one of my favs on your site, any idea where the aperture was set for the image "Great Blue Heron"? I'm pretty sure that was shot wide open. It was a hot summer day and we got to the heron around noon. Though the sun was shining the humidity was typical "hazy hot & humid" summer weather and even wide open I was not getting the shutter speed I was hoping for. But I shoot a lot of wide open shots with this setup and don't get the same problem. BTW my 2X-L screws were also quite loose. I was shocked at how wobbly my rig was before I tightened the screws. I just discovered that when cleaning things up a couple of weeks ago - I'll be interested to see if it makes a difference. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
At 06:30 AM 3/29/01 -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote: Great pics. I'm no expert, but I do have a few thoughts on what I saw. I think the odd bokeh on the shot of the cardinal is actually lens flare. Ditto on the Blue Heron (who I recognize :-). The overly detailed bokeh on the grass shots look like it might just be the result of a fairly small ap. Speaking of our friend the Heron, we ought to do a Michigan PDML photo hike when the weather warms up a bit. Hi Paul - I think you took almost the exact same shot (sans ugly bokeh) that day! As for the cardinal shot - the sun was directly behind me when that was taken, so I doubt flare was the cause of that. I have a TC-6 2x and I might do some comparisons of that with the 2x-L. We should for a Michigan expedition again - now that the snow is nearly gone its getting to be time! - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
Brian wrote: > > On 28 Mar 2001, at 17:53, Frank Wajer wrote: > > > I'm looking for the best telelens investment, filling the 300-600mm focal > > range. > > I like my A* 600-F5,6... but they are kinda hard to come by, I > don't think they are still in production. Heck, I like the 250-600/f5.6, too. But unless you can find an amazingly good deal on a used one, it would be difficult to describe it as the best telelens investment. If you do manage to get lucky, though, it does fill the 300-600mm focal range extremely well, with a bit over. -- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silicon Graphics, Inc. (650)933-82952011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991 (650)932-0828 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
On 28 Mar 2001, at 17:53, Frank Wajer wrote: > Hi, > > has anyone tested the Pentax (F)A* 300mm f2.8 with the Pentax > teleconverters. > > I'm looking for the best telelens investment, filling the 300-600mm focal > range. > This lens plus teleconverters would give me: > > 300mm f2.8 > 420mm f4 > 600mm f5.6 > > The 300 f4 lens gives 600 f8, which is a bit slow. > Any opinions? > > Frank Wajer I like my A* 600-F5,6... but they are kinda hard to come by, I don't think they are still in production. Some shots made with this one http://www.bc-photo.com/images/blueheron.jpg taken with 600-F5.6 + Kenko 1.5x TC, scanned from a heavily-cropped 8 x 10 print http://www.bc-photo.com/images/robinintree.jpg taken with 600-F5.6 + Kenko 1.5x TC, scanned from an 8 x 10 print Couldn't find anything recent I shot with the lens only. I find the lens quite sharp, even wide open (I think the robin was shot wide open (i.e. 900mm F8) but I can't remember... oh well. Cheers! Brian - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
Hi Mark, Great pics. I'm no expert, but I do have a few thoughts on what I saw. I think the odd bokeh on the shot of the cardinal is actually lens flare. Ditto on the Blue Heron (who I recognize :-). The overly detailed bokeh on the grass shots look like it might just be the result of a fairly small ap. Speaking of our friend the Heron, we ought to do a Michigan PDML photo hike when the weather warms up a bit. Paul Mark Cassino wrote: > > I bought the 400 f2.8 with the intent to generally use it with > teleconverters. In controlled tests, the sharpness of the lens, even > with the 2x-L teleconverter, is phenominal. > > The only issue that I have run into is that at times the > teleconverters wreak havoc on the Bokeh. It's weird, but sometimes I > get beautiful bokehs, sometimes I get odd bokehs were there is > destinct details in the background (even though they are faint) and > other times the bokeh looks like a bad mirror lens. Some examples: > > Nice Bokeh: > > with the 1.4x: > http://www.markcassino.com/0002/0002n01.htm > > with the 2x: > http://www.markcassino.com/0007/gallery2/0007nbk.htm > > Odd Bokeh: > > with the 1.4x: > http://www.markcassino.com/0007/gallery1/0007ne.htm > > with the 2x: > http://www.markcassino.com/0007/gallery2/0007nbu.htm > > Ugly Bokeh: > > 2x - > http://www.markcassino.com/0007/gallery2/0007ndx.htm > > I don't have any uglies with the 1.4x > > The other draw back to the teleconverters is that they do introduce > another element of camera shake. I was particularly having problems > with the 1.4x-L but found that is was just plain loose, and tightening > a screw helped a lot. > > - MCC > > At 05:53 PM 3/28/01 +0200, you wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > has anyone tested the Pentax (F)A* 300mm f2.8 with the Pentax > > teleconverters. > > > > I'm looking for the best telelens investment, filling the 300-600mm > > focal > > range. > > This lens plus teleconverters would give me: > > > > 300mm f2.8 > > 420mm f4 > > 600mm f5.6 > > > > The 300 f4 lens gives 600 f8, which is a bit slow. > > Any opinions? > > > > Frank Wajer > > > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > > - - - - - - - - - - > Mark Cassino > Kalamazoo, MI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - - - - - - - - - - > Photos: > http://www.markcassino.com > - - - - - - - - - - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
I see that the (F)A* 300 f2.5 works with both the L and S converters. Is there any difference in performance? I really would like the combi with the S converters because I could use these on my other lenses aswell. However, I don't want to loose performance on the 300. Frank - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
On 28 Mar 2001, at 23:16, Mark Cassino wrote: > The only issue that I have run into is that at times the teleconverters > wreak havoc on the Bokeh. It's weird, but sometimes I get beautiful > bokehs, sometimes I get odd bokehs were there is destinct details in the > background (even though they are faint) and other times the bokeh looks > like a bad mirror lens. Some examples: Snip > The other draw back to the teleconverters is that they do introduce another > element of camera shake. I was particularly having problems with the 1.4x-L but > found that is was just plain loose, and tightening a screw helped a lot. Hi Mark, What a great post, a picture is worth a thousand words. "Jay Ablaze" has to be one of my favs on your site, any idea where the aperture was set for the image "Great Blue Heron"? BTW my 2X-L screws were also quite loose. As an aside, does anyone have a 1.4X-L for sale or trade, seriously. (I have some interesting gear up at eBay at the moment too) Cheers, Rob Studdert (eBay ID: distudio) PO Box 701 HURSTVILLE BC NSW 1481 AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please check my current eBay auctions: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/ebay/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
I bought the 400 f2.8 with the intent to generally use it with teleconverters. In controlled tests, the sharpness of the lens, even with the 2x-L teleconverter, is phenominal. The only issue that I have run into is that at times the teleconverters wreak havoc on the Bokeh. It's weird, but sometimes I get beautiful bokehs, sometimes I get odd bokehs were there is destinct details in the background (even though they are faint) and other times the bokeh looks like a bad mirror lens. Some examples: Nice Bokeh: with the 1.4x: http://www.markcassino.com/0002/0002n01.htm with the 2x: http://www.markcassino.com/0007/gallery2/0007nbk.htm Odd Bokeh: with the 1.4x: http://www.markcassino.com/0007/gallery1/0007ne.htm with the 2x: http://www.markcassino.com/0007/gallery2/0007nbu.htm Ugly Bokeh: 2x - http://www.markcassino.com/0007/gallery2/0007ndx.htm I don't have any uglies with the 1.4x The other draw back to the teleconverters is that they do introduce another element of camera shake. I was particularly having problems with the 1.4x-L but found that is was just plain loose, and tightening a screw helped a lot. - MCC At 05:53 PM 3/28/01 +0200, you wrote: Hi, has anyone tested the Pentax (F)A* 300mm f2.8 with the Pentax teleconverters. I'm looking for the best telelens investment, filling the 300-600mm focal range. This lens plus teleconverters would give me: 300mm f2.8 420mm f4 600mm f5.6 The 300 f4 lens gives 600 f8, which is a bit slow. Any opinions? Frank Wajer - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
Jan van Wijk wrote: > BTW: I recently saw a A* 400mm 2.8 for sale for about $3200 but that > is a real heavy beast to lug arround ... KEH in Atlanta (http://www.keh.com) has one left in "ex" condition. Price has been dropping since last August from USD$3100 to $2899 as of this week. They also have two of the A*300/2.8 ED IF -- one "ex+" and one "ex" -- just reduced to USD$2370 and $2029 respectively. The "ex+" also has the 112mm clear SMC protective front "filter," which costs the world (for a do-nothing piece of glass) if bought separately. And yes, the 400/2.8 is one heavy s.o.b... Regards, Stephen Moore - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:53:15 +0200, Frank Wajer wrote: >has anyone tested the Pentax (F)A* 300mm f2.8 with the Pentax >teleconverters. > Yes, I have been using the A* 300mm 2.8, in itself a superb lens! Combined with the 1.4x L converter (the gray one with a "snout") it is still very good, no vignetting even wide open. Still waiting for a 2x L converter to show up 2nd hand :-( I also tested the lens combined with the new SIGMA APO 1.4x and 2x AF teleconverters. The sharpness and contract is acceptable, maybe slightly less than the Pentax 1.4x L. Both APO converters do strongly vignet though when used wide open, this makes them almost useless for my type of shooting (wildlife). >I'm looking for the best telelens investment, filling the 300-600mm focal >range. >This lens plus teleconverters would give me: > >300mm f2.8 >420mm f4 >600mm f5.6 > Yes, that is what I am aiming for too, just need the 2xL converter ... >The 300 f4 lens gives 600 f8, which is a bit slow. >Any opinions? Yes, although the lens is quite good (the F(A) 300mm 4.5 might be even better) it is too slow to use with the 2x converters. BTW: I recently saw a A* 400mm 2.8 for sale for about $3200 but that is a real heavy beast to lug arround ... Regards, JvW - Jan van Wijk; www.fsys.demon.nl - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: (F)A* 300 f2.8 plus teleconverters
Frank Wajer wrote: > > Hi, > > has anyone tested the Pentax (F)A* 300mm f2.8 with the Pentax > teleconverters. > > I'm looking for the best telelens investment, filling the 300-600mm focal > range. > This lens plus teleconverters would give me: > > 300mm f2.8 > 420mm f4 > 600mm f5.6 > > The 300 f4 lens gives 600 f8, which is a bit slow. > Any opinions? I've used the A* 300/2.8 with the 1.4X-L, and with the AF 1.7 adapter (which gives me an auto-focus 500/f4.5). I'm well satisfied with the results. I don't (yet) have a 2.0X-L, but everything I've heard would suggest that this works very well with the 300/2.8, too. If you're looking for the best bang for the buck it's worth considering the Tamron 300/2.8. I used to own one of those (plus 1.4x & 2x TCs), and optically it's practically indistinguishable from the Pentax. It's a lot cheaper, though. The main drawback is that fitting and removing the Tamron teleconverters isn't quite as simple as using the Pentax ones. -- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silicon Graphics, Inc. (650)933-82952011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991 (650)932-0828 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
