Re: Long Lens Technique (was RE: TC--I am frowning!)
Mark, Interesting note, Thanks for the tip! Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I just got an A*300F2.8 and A2X-L converter. I have made some very sharp pictures and some not-so-sharp pictures with the same subject, same aperture (wide open), and same shutter speed, and same (solid) tripod. The article at the link below helped me out a lot http://www.naturephotographers.net/bh0201-1.html --Mark >> - 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 .
Long Lens Technique (was RE: TC--I am frowning!)
I just got an A*300F2.8 and A2X-L converter. I have made some very sharp pictures and some not-so-sharp pictures with the same subject, same aperture (wide open), and same shutter speed, and same (solid) tripod. The article at the link below helped me out a lot http://www.naturephotographers.net/bh0201-1.html --Mark Kevin wrote- I had a similar experience with my A*300/2.8 w/ the 2x-s. I have since verified that I can take sharp pictures with this setup but I don't know what the problem was. I was focussing near minimum distance, near wide open on Supra 400. My PUG entry this month is one of the offending "softies". My retest was also near minimum distance but with the lens set to f/8 and the film was supra 100. Both the problem roll and the retest were take from a sturdy tripod. Would the 2x-L do better? Is this combo known to be soft when wide open? Anyone know? - 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: TC--I am frowning!
I just compared most of my teleconverters, so I could choose which ones to use with my 300/2.8. The best two were fine wide open. They became excellent one stop down from wide open. The TC's were tested on a Tokina 300/2.8 AT-X manual focus lens. Note: none of them except the Albinar caused any vignetting or significant light fall-off in the corners. Here's my impressions: Excellent: Kiron 2x (MF) Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter Good: Kenko 1.5x AF Promaster (Kenko) 1.7x AF Not so good unless stopped to f8: Kiron 1.5x (MF) Unacceptable (serious barrel distortion) Albinar 2x Macro Focusing TC Note: The excellent Pentax XL convertors won't fit this lens. Darn. I heard good things about the Kiron 2x manual focus teleconvertor, so when I had a chance to get one recently, I did. It is even better than I expected. It was the best TC of the lot, slightly better than the Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter. I believe this Kiron 2x TC rivals any K-mount manual focus TC out there, except for the Pentax XL series. The Pentax 1.7x AF Adaptor was good at f2.8, very good at f4, and excellent at f5.6. After being impressed with the Kiron 2x TC, I had high hopes for the Kiron 1.5x TC. But I was disappointed. The 1.5x is probably matched well to some lens, but it's sure not this Tokina 300/2.8. The el-cheapo Promaster 1.7x AF TC ran a close third in the tests. But it loses so much light that it hunts in AF mode on my F* 300/4.5, so I stick with the Kenko 1.5x for an AF teleconvertor. As for the original poster's problem with out-of-focus images, I would think that any TC that gives exceedingly soft images should be tested further to isolate the problem. Even a bad TC should not cause completely out-of-focus images unless there is some alignment or other mechanical problem somewhere in the lens/TC/camera system. -- Happy Trails, Texdance http://members.fortunecity.com/texdance http://members1.clubphoto.com/john8202 - 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: TC..I am frowning!
I never had any problems with mine, but I would usually use it on subjects within 15 feet. Could be that it's not so great at or near infinity. tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pat White Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 11:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TC..I am frowning! I used the K T6-2X teleconvertor with my K 45-125 and M 200/4 with very good results. I had previously used a Vivitar TC with terrible results. Perhaps the T6-2X works better with longer lenses than 50mm. Pat White - 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: TC--I am frowning!
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 14:50:39 -0700 (PDT), Dave Weiss wrote: > >If anyone has any examples on pug or other web site that used a TC, could >you email me and I could check it out? My "Wild Konik horses" in the March gallery used the A* 300mm + 1.4X-L converter. I'll have plenty of TC shots in my USA-2001 tour gallery, available in a few weeks from now ... 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: TC--I am frowning!
I use the Pentax 1.4 X-S (on 70-210mm F & 300mm f4.5 FA) and 1.4X-L (on 600mm f4.0 FA) often and can't see any degradation at all. Ken Waller - Original Message - From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 6:33 PM Subject: RE: TC--I am frowning! > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Weiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:51 PM > > To: pentax-discuss > > Subject: Re: TC--I am frowning! > > > > > > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:03:33 -0400 > > From: Tom Rittenhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: TC--I am frowning! > > > > Tom said: > > > > Even the best tele-converters do not work well until you > > stop the lens down quite a bit. If you stop the lens down to > > f8 (gives f16 with a 2x converter) or smaller they usually > > work ok. > > - --Tom > > > > I just can't believe something with a Pentax label on it > > could not cut the mustard! I thought the kt6-2x had a good reputation. > > > > If anyone has any examples on pug or other web site that used > > a TC, could you email me and I could check it out? > > I've used the A 1.4-L with the A* 300/2.8. Even wide open it's > hard to spot any image degradation; stop the lens down to f4 and > there's no way you can tell there's a teleconverter being used. > > -- > John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 > MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 > > 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 . > > - 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: TC--I am frowning!
> -Original Message- > From: Dave Weiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:51 PM > To: pentax-discuss > Subject: Re: TC--I am frowning! > > > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:03:33 -0400 > From: Tom Rittenhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: TC--I am frowning! > > Tom said: > > Even the best tele-converters do not work well until you > stop the lens down quite a bit. If you stop the lens down to > f8 (gives f16 with a 2x converter) or smaller they usually > work ok. > - --Tom > > I just can't believe something with a Pentax label on it > could not cut the mustard! I thought the kt6-2x had a good reputation. > > If anyone has any examples on pug or other web site that used > a TC, could you email me and I could check it out? I've used the A 1.4-L with the A* 300/2.8. Even wide open it's hard to spot any image degradation; stop the lens down to f4 and there's no way you can tell there's a teleconverter being used. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 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: TC--I am frowning!
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:03:33 -0400 From: Tom Rittenhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: TC--I am frowning! Tom said: Even the best tele-converters do not work well until you stop the lens down quite a bit. If you stop the lens down to f8 (gives f16 with a 2x converter) or smaller they usually work ok. - --Tom I just can't believe something with a Pentax label on it could not cut the mustard! I thought the kt6-2x had a good reputation. If anyone has any examples on pug or other web site that used a TC, could you email me and I could check it out? thanks dave ___ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ - 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: TC--I am frowning!
Can't answer your question except I had less than satisfactory results when I try my A2X-S on A50/1.4 and A50/1.7 few years back. Then I bought a FA100/2.8 Macro and never look back. regards, Alan Chan >Well, just got pics from my trip out west (Badlands, Custer, Estes, Arches, >Garden of the Gods) and I am happy with the results EXCEPT > >it seems to me that when I was using the TC (kT6-2x) coupled with my >a50f1.4 >I got really blurry pictures, like worse than a good pocket camera. No >where are the pictures in focus. What gives? I thought this to be a good >TC. Could I be focusing incorrectly? This was done on a super program. I >did notice that when using the TC, the infinity focus is not where it >normally is, that is, using the focusing prism, you would end up say, >focusing to 50 ft (per the lens markings) instead of at the infinity >symbol. >Is this normal? Does anybody have an example using a TC that I can compare >mine to? > >I am especially unhappy because today I used said TC combo (before I got my >vacation pictures back) to take some HIE pictures of tall ships parading >around the breakwall in Cleveland that I hope are not all blurry. > >I will be testing my theory this weekend but would appreciate any >info/opinions in the meantime. > >thanks > >dave _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: TC--I am frowning!
Even the best tele-converters do not work well until you stop the lens down quite a bit. If you stop the lens down to f8 (gives f16 with a 2x converter) or smaller they usually work ok. --Tom Kevin Thornsberry wrote: > > I had a similar experience with my A*300/2.8 w/ the 2x-s. I have since verified >that I can take sharp pictures with this setup but I don't know what the problem was. > I was focussing near minimum distance, near wide open on Supra 400. My PUG entry >this month is one of the offending "softies". > > My retest was also near minimum distance but with the lens set to f/8 and the film >was supra 100. > > Both the problem roll and the retest were take from a sturdy tripod. > > Would the 2x-L do better? Is this combo known to be soft when wide open? Anyone >know? > > -Original Message- > From: Dave Weiss [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 7:48 PM > To: pentax-discuss > Subject:TC--I am frowning! > > > Hi all; > > Well, just got pics from my trip out west (Badlands, Custer, Estes, Arches, > Garden of the Gods) and I am happy with the results EXCEPT > > it seems to me that when I was using the TC (kT6-2x) coupled with my a50f1.4 > I got really blurry pictures, like worse than a good pocket camera. No > where are the pictures in focus. What gives? I thought this to be a good > TC. Could I be focusing incorrectly? This was done on a super program. I > did notice that when using the TC, the infinity focus is not where it > normally is, that is, using the focusing prism, you would end up say, > focusing to 50 ft (per the lens markings) instead of at the infinity symbol. > Is this normal? Does anybody have an example using a TC that I can compare > mine to? > > I am especially unhappy because today I used said TC combo (before I got my > vacation pictures back) to take some HIE pictures of tall ships parading > around the breakwall in Cleveland that I hope are not all blurry. > > I will be testing my theory this weekend but would appreciate any > info/opinions in the meantime. > > thanks > > dave > > ___ > Send a cool gift with your E-Card > http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ > > - > 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 . > > > >Part 1.2Type: application/ms-tnef >Encoding: base64 - 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 .
