Re: teleconverter experiment
> Teleconverters, by default, always DEGRADE image quality; never improve > I'm also beginning to suspect that in some circumstances, my camera > body may be a limiting factor. > It depends on the light. If you are able to step down to the sweat spot of the lens/TC combo you will generally get good results, When you aren't able to step down enough, cropping often are a better alternative, and in these situations, the body often is the limiting factor yes. One more thing. The debate very often is about resolution and contrast alone. But there are more than that to concider, ie. bokeh and abrivations. Very often the lens/TC combination suffers from both. -- MaritimTim -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: teleconverter experiment
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Christian wrote: > Larry Colen wrote: > >> Another factor that also played a part is the 20km or so of atmosphere >> that I was shooting through: > > Yeah I guess I wouldn't be doing those kinds of images. Atmospherics are > always a problem. > >> I certainly don't claim that the experiment was definitive. About all >> that I proved was that if you don't do it right, teleconverters won't >> improve the image quality. The next step is to figure out "what doing >> it right" is. > > Teleconverters, by default, always DEGRADE image quality; never improve it. > Anytime you put something between your lens and your camera you are going > to lower image quality. The question is: by how much? With matched > converters like I have, not by that much, but with crappy third-party > inexpensive TCs you are going to suffer greatly. >> That's not always the case. Putting a 1.4x or 1.7x converter on the Nikon 70-200VR for example actually improves IQ due to the weakness of that lens at the edges on Full-frame. Since the TC essentially crops out the edges of the lens's image circle, the overall IQ is actually better. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: teleconverter experiment
Teleconverters, by default, always DEGRADE image quality; never improve it. Anytime you put something between your lens and your camera you are going to lower image quality. The question is: by how much? With matched converters like I have, not by that much, but with crappy third-party inexpensive TCs you are going to suffer greatly. Not necessarily. For instance, if you have a lens that vignettes a little or suffers from a little edge softness, and a very high quality teleconverter, the combination might actually improve evenness of illumination and emphasize the center, sharp section of the lens' image circle. I'm also beginning to suspect that in some circumstances, my camera body may be a limiting factor. A 6Mpixel DSLR body is perfectly all right for ultra telephoto work. After a certain point, atmospheric degradation limits image resolution regardless of how good a lens or how many pixels you have. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: teleconverter experiment
> Teleconverters, by default, always DEGRADE image quality; > never improve > it. Anytime you put something between your lens and your > camera you are > going to lower image quality. Compared to what? If you want the perspective that the teleconverter gives you you have, as I see it, 3 options: 1. use a lens of the same focal length that the TC gives you. But do you have such a lens, and is its quality comparable with your TCed lens? 2. Take a photo without the TC and crop it to give you the perspective you want. This is likely to be lower quality than using the TC 3. Use a smaller negative/sensor with a lens that gives you the perspective and aov you want. This is much the same as cropping - does the smaller format yield better quality than the TCed lens at the print / viewing size, and do you have the appropriate equipment? If you just want to get closer and don't care too much about the perspective you also have 3 options: 1. get closer to the subject 2. bring the subject closer to you 3. a bit of both Only the second set of options is guaranteed to produce better optical quality, but as with so many things there are other tradeoffs which may mean that a TC gives you better image quality than the alternatives. "Compared to what?" is always a very interesting question to ask. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: teleconverter experiment
Larry Colen wrote: Another factor that also played a part is the 20km or so of atmosphere that I was shooting through: Yeah I guess I wouldn't be doing those kinds of images. Atmospherics are always a problem. I certainly don't claim that the experiment was definitive. About all that I proved was that if you don't do it right, teleconverters won't improve the image quality. The next step is to figure out "what doing it right" is. Teleconverters, by default, always DEGRADE image quality; never improve it. Anytime you put something between your lens and your camera you are going to lower image quality. The question is: by how much? With matched converters like I have, not by that much, but with crappy third-party inexpensive TCs you are going to suffer greatly. I'm also beginning to suspect that in some circumstances, my camera body may be a limiting factor. Not a chance. The Sigma 50-500 is an "ok" lens but is nothing spectacular. Put a TC on it, and it lowers it's quality even more. -- Christian http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: teleconverter experiment
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 03:54:09PM -0500, Christian wrote: # Really those are all pretty bad. I wouldn't be happy with any of them. I'm certainly not. I should probably also post some uncropped versions. # Perhaps it is also the white on white subject and your tripod/head # combo might not be steady enough. Wind will play a factor too. I think that all of those played a hand in it. The tripod isn't bad, much better than previous ones I've had, but perhaps not up to the job. There doesn't seem to be any good specifications for judging a tripod's performance though. It was also a bit breezy, not quite windy. Also, it did cloud over a bit while I was shooting. Another factor that also played a part is the 20km or so of atmosphere that I was shooting through: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=855+Embedded+Way,+San+Jose,+CA+95138&daddr=Lick+Observatory,+Santa+Clara,+California+95140&hl=en&geocode=&mra=ls&sll=37.343056,-121.637222&sspn=0.010031,0.009549&gl=us&g=Lick+Observatory,+Santa+Clara,+California+95140&ie=UTF8&z=12 It's a 22 mile drive according to the directions. # # I think getting better magnification with lenses and TCs is better # than That's what my experience has been in some cases. I need to learn which ones. I seem to have better luck with the moon and both TCs than just the bigma. # just cropping the image. Use higher ISO so you can stop down and use # faster shutter speeds. Get a better platform to shoot from. Yes, higher ISO would help. # # Here is what 500mm +1.4x TC sharpness should look like :-) # http://birdofthemoment.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-from-south-texas.html Yup, that's much better. I've gotten a couple of decent birdshots with bigma and 1.4x. I certainly don't claim that the experiment was definitive. About all that I proved was that if you don't do it right, teleconverters won't improve the image quality. The next step is to figure out "what doing it right" is. I'm also beginning to suspect that in some circumstances, my camera body may be a limiting factor. Granted, it's more often the photographer that limits the camera than the camera that limits the photographer. -- Photographs are like sentences, the best ones have both subjects and verbs. Larry Colen l...@red4est.comhttp://www.red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: teleconverter experiment
Really those are all pretty bad. I wouldn't be happy with any of them. Perhaps it is also the white on white subject and your tripod/head combo might not be steady enough. Wind will play a factor too. I think getting better magnification with lenses and TCs is better than just cropping the image. Use higher ISO so you can stop down and use faster shutter speeds. Get a better platform to shoot from. Here is what 500mm +1.4x TC sharpness should look like :-) http://birdofthemoment.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-from-south-texas.html -- Christian http://404mohawknotfound.blogspot.com/ Larry Colen wrote: I did a quick experiment yesterday with my bigma and teleconverters, and posted some examples and my notes at dpr: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=31052869 The question was, for extreme telephoto am I better with cropping, or using a teleconverter, or multiple TCs. The answer seems to be "it depends". It seems to depend on a lot of factors, and I bet that the results would be different with a 14mp K20 than with my 6mp K100, or a D700. Despite the rig being on a tripod, I also probably should have tried bumping the ISO, or maybe even under exposing some more. I think I still got motion blur. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157614103063616/ I could also try some tests at night, with a resolution chart target and a flash to minimize motion blur. Then again, there's optical performance and real world performance. It's still fun to play with. The real result is that if you need that much magnification, you aren't going to get clear photos "on the cheap". It's still fun to experiment with to get some idea what the limits really are. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverter
Cotty wrote: > On 9/5/08, drew, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> I have a Vivitar 2x Teleconverter > > If you buy a K20D and try and use it on there, apparently you'll have to > trash the camera as it's crap. > Yes, and at least by DL can meter properly with M lenses. Drew. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverter
Thanks Godfrey, I think I will just reserve this for the film body then... it does have a little extra rotary pin affair that just protrudes into the body. I wouldn't fancy trying to force it off the camera if it got hung up. Cheers, Drew. Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On May 9, 2008, at 2:39 PM, drew wrote: > >> I have a Vivitar 2x Teleconverter that came with a P30 I bought ages >> ago. I have just tried it on my *ist-DL but it does not appear to >> meter >> correctly, Every shot is overexposed and the aperture does not display >> on the camera. It calls itself a PK-A/R-PK. >> I suppose by question is, should the camera be able to display the >> aperture and should it be able to meter correctly with an A lens? > > A proper Pentax-A series lens should allow the body to use all > metering modes and control the aperture from the body with the lens > aperture ring locked on the A setting. The marking on the > teleconverter suggests that it ought to ... PK-A == Pentax-A, R-PK == > Ricoh-Pentax K ... but not all of them work correctly. > > Be careful with lenses that have the PK/R-PK markings ... there are > various permutations of this marking. They can jam on the lens mount > because Ricoh has a pin that slides into a hole it shouldn't connect > to on Pentax-KAF mounts. > > Godfrey > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverter
Thanks Brian, This thing seems to break communication of the aperture completely, When I put the lens into A the camera spots it that has happened because the F-stop display becomes underlined, but the actual display shows -- no option to set it. Thanks, Drew. Brian Walters wrote: > On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:39:24 +0100, "drew" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >> I suppose by question is, should the camera be able to display the >> aperture and should it be able to meter correctly with an A lens? >> > > > Depends on how you use it. > > If you set the aperture on the lens in Av mode, the camera fires with > the lens fully open no matter what aperture you set. You need to set > the lens on 'A' and adjust the aperture via the dial on the camera body. > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney, Australia > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverter
Thanks, Sounds like you findings are the same as mine, works on film bodies but not on digital. I would say your hypothesis re. Richo is correct. Thanks. Drew. P. J. Alling wrote: > The A/R would indicate that it's a Ricoh as well as Pentax A mount > compatible. I've got an CPC 2x adapter, (made by Pentax according to > Boz's site), which seems to work fine on my MZ-3 and ZX-5n, (well > electronically at least, the optics are a different story), but never > worked correctly on either *ist-D or Ds. I believe that the R(icoh), > part of the specification probably breaks the A protocol as far as the > DSLRs are concerned. I just learned to live with it, (not like I use it > much). Hell, I paid $3.00 for that particular converter so I guess I > can't complain much. > > drew wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have a Vivitar 2x Teleconverter that came with a P30 I bought ages >> ago. I have just tried it on my *ist-DL but it does not appear to meter >> correctly, Every shot is overexposed and the aperture does not display >> on the camera. It calls itself a PK-A/R-PK. >> I suppose by question is, should the camera be able to display the >> aperture and should it be able to meter correctly with an A lens? >> >> Thanks, >> Drew. >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverter
On 9/5/08, drew, discombobulated, unleashed: >I have a Vivitar 2x Teleconverter If you buy a K20D and try and use it on there, apparently you'll have to trash the camera as it's crap. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverter
On May 9, 2008, at 2:39 PM, drew wrote: > I have a Vivitar 2x Teleconverter that came with a P30 I bought ages > ago. I have just tried it on my *ist-DL but it does not appear to > meter > correctly, Every shot is overexposed and the aperture does not display > on the camera. It calls itself a PK-A/R-PK. > I suppose by question is, should the camera be able to display the > aperture and should it be able to meter correctly with an A lens? A proper Pentax-A series lens should allow the body to use all metering modes and control the aperture from the body with the lens aperture ring locked on the A setting. The marking on the teleconverter suggests that it ought to ... PK-A == Pentax-A, R-PK == Ricoh-Pentax K ... but not all of them work correctly. Be careful with lenses that have the PK/R-PK markings ... there are various permutations of this marking. They can jam on the lens mount because Ricoh has a pin that slides into a hole it shouldn't connect to on Pentax-KAF mounts. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverter
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:39:24 +0100, "drew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I suppose by question is, should the camera be able to display the > aperture and should it be able to meter correctly with an A lens? > Depends on how you use it. If you set the aperture on the lens in Av mode, the camera fires with the lens fully open no matter what aperture you set. You need to set the lens on 'A' and adjust the aperture via the dial on the camera body. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverter
Forgot to mention that my CPC converter is an A/R compatible as well. P. J. Alling wrote: > The A/R would indicate that it's a Ricoh as well as Pentax A mount > compatible. I've got an CPC 2x adapter, (made by Pentax according to > Boz's site), which seems to work fine on my MZ-3 and ZX-5n, (well > electronically at least, the optics are a different story), but never > worked correctly on either *ist-D or Ds. I believe that the R(icoh), > part of the specification probably breaks the A protocol as far as the > DSLRs are concerned. I just learned to live with it, (not like I use it > much). Hell, I paid $3.00 for that particular converter so I guess I > can't complain much. > > drew wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have a Vivitar 2x Teleconverter that came with a P30 I bought ages >> ago. I have just tried it on my *ist-DL but it does not appear to meter >> correctly, Every shot is overexposed and the aperture does not display >> on the camera. It calls itself a PK-A/R-PK. >> I suppose by question is, should the camera be able to display the >> aperture and should it be able to meter correctly with an A lens? >> >> Thanks, >> Drew. >> >> >> > > > -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverter
The A/R would indicate that it's a Ricoh as well as Pentax A mount compatible. I've got an CPC 2x adapter, (made by Pentax according to Boz's site), which seems to work fine on my MZ-3 and ZX-5n, (well electronically at least, the optics are a different story), but never worked correctly on either *ist-D or Ds. I believe that the R(icoh), part of the specification probably breaks the A protocol as far as the DSLRs are concerned. I just learned to live with it, (not like I use it much). Hell, I paid $3.00 for that particular converter so I guess I can't complain much. drew wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a Vivitar 2x Teleconverter that came with a P30 I bought ages > ago. I have just tried it on my *ist-DL but it does not appear to meter > correctly, Every shot is overexposed and the aperture does not display > on the camera. It calls itself a PK-A/R-PK. > I suppose by question is, should the camera be able to display the > aperture and should it be able to meter correctly with an A lens? > > Thanks, > Drew. > > -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
Sure, was talking about the rest but obviously at f/8 it won't work :) Should have been more precise. 2005/9/8, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Another problem with the mirror is most are t-mounts and most t-mounts, > >> (all I've seen in fact), are painted. The Pentax autofocus system needs > >> a metal lens mount to short the right contacts to autofocus. > > > The Tamron 500mm SP with a KA adaptor should work nicely then :) > > I know KA adaptors are (censored) difficult to find in good condition > > and not cheap at all. > > The Tamron K (i.e., "pre-Ka") adaptor is also unpainted shiny metal (at > least the ones I've seen). And, on a mirror (with a fixed aperture), and > with the K adaptor, the lack of the A contacts is not such a great loss. > > Fred > > -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
RE: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
I have one myself. The reason I bought it was to convert a mf telezoom into af. Now I find myself using it a lot in other setups. It's a very god TC. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -Original Message- > From: Marco Ferrari [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 7. september 2005 14:32 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment? > > Dear all, > > have you ever used this Teleconverter? > Have you some comments? > > I shot slide films, and I'm interested in converting a mirror lens and the > SMC-A 50/1.4 (both > manual focus) in a long telephoto and a 85/2.38 autofocus lenses. > > Thanks, > > marco > > > > __ > TISCALI ADSL 1.25 MEGA > Solo con Tiscali Adsl navighi senza limiti e telefoni senza canone Telecom > a partire da 19,95 Euro/mese. > Attivala entro il 31 agosto, il primo MESE è GRATIS! CLICCA QUI. > http://abbonati.tiscali.it/adsl/sa/1e25flat_tc/ > > > >
RE: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
Yes. I love it. It works brilliantly and gets you VERY sharp shots due to accurate focusing at large distances. It's the best TC I ever tried. (never tried annother genuine Pentax TC though). Highly recommended if you own some very good MF lenses. The best spent 100 USD ever. Regards Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Marco Ferrari [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. september 2005 14:32 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment? Dear all, have you ever used this Teleconverter? Have you some comments? I shot slide films, and I'm interested in converting a mirror lens and the SMC-A 50/1.4 (both manual focus) in a long telephoto and a 85/2.38 autofocus lenses. Thanks, marco __ TISCALI ADSL 1.25 MEGA Solo con Tiscali Adsl navighi senza limiti e telefoni senza canone Telecom a partire da 19,95 Euro/mese. Attivala entro il 31 agosto, il primo MESE è GRATIS! CLICCA QUI. http://abbonati.tiscali.it/adsl/sa/1e25flat_tc/
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
AF essentially stops working when the effective F-stop drops smaller than f5.6. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Marco Ferrari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:31 AM Subject: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment? I shot slide films, and I'm interested in converting a mirror lens and the SMC-A 50/1.4 (both manual focus) in a long telephoto and a 85/2.38 autofocus lenses.
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
>> Another problem with the mirror is most are t-mounts and most t-mounts, >> (all I've seen in fact), are painted. The Pentax autofocus system needs >> a metal lens mount to short the right contacts to autofocus. > The Tamron 500mm SP with a KA adaptor should work nicely then :) > I know KA adaptors are (censored) difficult to find in good condition > and not cheap at all. The Tamron K (i.e., "pre-Ka") adaptor is also unpainted shiny metal (at least the ones I've seen). And, on a mirror (with a fixed aperture), and with the K adaptor, the lack of the A contacts is not such a great loss. Fred
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
Thibouille wrote: The Tamron 500mm SP with a KA adaptor should work nicely then :) I know KA adaptors are (censored) difficult to find in good condition and not cheap at all. It's an f8 lens. I can't get the combo to work. 2005/9/7, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: The FA 1.7x is very good. I've used it a number of times and it delivers good results even when coupled with a zoom. You may find that autofocus suffers when you use a mirror tele. They don't really transmit enough light. Another problem with the mirror is most are t-mounts and most t-mounts, (all I've seen in fact), are painted. The Pentax autofocus system needs a metal lens mount to short the right contacts to autofocus. Marco Ferrari wrote: Dear all, have you ever used this Teleconverter? Have you some comments? I shot slide films, and I'm interested in converting a mirror lens and the SMC-A 50/1.4 (both manual focus) in a long telephoto and a 85/2.38 autofocus lenses. Thanks, marco __ TISCALI ADSL 1.25 MEGA Solo con Tiscali Adsl navighi senza limiti e telefoni senza canone Telecom a partire da 19,95 Euro/mese. Attivala entro il 31 agosto, il primo MESE è GRATIS! CLICCA QUI. http://abbonati.tiscali.it/adsl/sa/1e25flat_tc/ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:32:39AM -0400, Tom Reese wrote: > > have you ever used this Teleconverter? > > Have you some comments? > > In my experience, it doesn't work well with long lenses because it has a > limited focusing range. The instructions are to set the lens at infinity > then allow the teleconverter to do the focusing. With telephoto lenses, this > only works when the subject is at or near infinity. When the subject is > closer, the lens has to be focused closer too. The teleconverter will then > fine tune the focusing. > > Tom Reese It's rare that you can't rough-focus the lens to the approximate distance and just leave it there for the TC to, as Tom says, fine tune the focus. I used to use mine on film bodies with the 300/2.8 - a great combination. Unfortunately on the *ist-D the comparable pairing of the TC + 200/2.8 shows rather more chromatic aberration than I would like. The biggest drawback I found is that you only get to use the central AF sensor when using the AF adapter. This may, or may not, matter to you.
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tom Reese wrote: have you ever used this Teleconverter? Have you some comments? In my experience, it doesn't work well with long lenses because it has a limited focusing range. The instructions are to set the lens at infinity then allow the teleconverter to do the focusing. With telephoto lenses, this only works when the subject is at or near infinity. When the subject is closer, the lens has to be focused closer too. The teleconverter will then fine tune the focusing. I think the TC was designed with long lenses in mind. What the manual says is that if you move away from infinity, the combo will likely vignette, but that's a physical limitation (is my guess). My other guess is that the limited focusing range is a trade-off with the multiplication (and thus the loss of light, and the minimum maximum-aperture of lenses usable with it). Other points: - The maximum aperture you will get is 2.8, irrespective of the maximum aperture of the lens you attach. So, with the 50/1.4 you get a 2.8 combo, just like with the 1.7 (that's more like 2.9, but you get the drift) and the same is true for the 1.2. - The 50/1.4 and the 50/1.2 are not recommended for macro work with the extender, for reasons of flatness of focus, as discussed at the list in another thread. The cheap-as-chips but lovely 1.7 is a better fit perhaps. - Theoretically, the minimum maximum-aperture of lenses you can use it with is 2.8; this tallies up with the theoretical limit on AF lenses of 5.6. In practice I think people get away with slower lenses. - http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/SMC_PENTAX-F_AF_ADAPTER_1[1].7X.pdf - I love it. Kostas
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
The Tamron 500mm SP with a KA adaptor should work nicely then :) I know KA adaptors are (censored) difficult to find in good condition and not cheap at all. 2005/9/7, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The FA 1.7x is very good. I've used it a number of times and it > delivers good results even when coupled > with a zoom. You may find that autofocus suffers when you use a mirror > tele. They don't really transmit > enough light. Another problem with the mirror is most are t-mounts and > most t-mounts, (all I've seen in fact), > are painted. The Pentax autofocus system needs a metal lens mount to > short the right contacts to autofocus. > > Marco Ferrari wrote: > > >Dear all, > > > >have you ever used this Teleconverter? > >Have you some comments? > > > >I shot slide films, and I'm interested in converting a mirror lens and the > >SMC-A 50/1.4 (both > >manual focus) in a long telephoto and a 85/2.38 autofocus lenses. > > > >Thanks, > > > >marco > > > > > > > >__ > >TISCALI ADSL 1.25 MEGA > >Solo con Tiscali Adsl navighi senza limiti e telefoni senza canone Telecom > >a partire da 19,95 Euro/mese. > >Attivala entro il 31 agosto, il primo MESE è GRATIS! CLICCA QUI. > >http://abbonati.tiscali.it/adsl/sa/1e25flat_tc/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout). > > -- -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
The FA 1.7x is very good. I've used it a number of times and it delivers good results even when coupled with a zoom. You may find that autofocus suffers when you use a mirror tele. They don't really transmit enough light. Another problem with the mirror is most are t-mounts and most t-mounts, (all I've seen in fact), are painted. The Pentax autofocus system needs a metal lens mount to short the right contacts to autofocus. Marco Ferrari wrote: Dear all, have you ever used this Teleconverter? Have you some comments? I shot slide films, and I'm interested in converting a mirror lens and the SMC-A 50/1.4 (both manual focus) in a long telephoto and a 85/2.38 autofocus lenses. Thanks, marco __ TISCALI ADSL 1.25 MEGA Solo con Tiscali Adsl navighi senza limiti e telefoni senza canone Telecom a partire da 19,95 Euro/mese. Attivala entro il 31 agosto, il primo MESE è GRATIS! CLICCA QUI. http://abbonati.tiscali.it/adsl/sa/1e25flat_tc/ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
> > From: "Marco Ferrari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/09/07 Wed PM 12:31:48 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment? > > Dear all, > > have you ever used this Teleconverter? > Have you some comments? > > I shot slide films, and I'm interested in converting a mirror lens and the > SMC-A 50/1.4 (both > manual focus) in a long telephoto and a 85/2.38 autofocus lenses. If it's in good condition, there is very little image degradation. The lens that you use needs to be faster than, er. 2.8? 4? Can't remember offhand but the manual should be on the Pentax website. You will not be able to use the mirror lens, I suspect, as most of these are slower than that. The AF is WY faster than with AF lenses - because you do some of the work yourself. An excellent buy, almost at any cost. If you've found one, it's OK and you've got the money, buy it. mike > > Thanks, > > marco > > > > __ > TISCALI ADSL 1.25 MEGA > Solo con Tiscali Adsl navighi senza limiti e telefoni senza canone Telecom > a partire da 19,95 Euro/mese. > Attivala entro il 31 agosto, il primo MESE è GRATIS! CLICCA QUI. > http://abbonati.tiscali.it/adsl/sa/1e25flat_tc/ > > > > > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
> have you ever used this Teleconverter? > Have you some comments? In my experience, it doesn't work well with long lenses because it has a limited focusing range. The instructions are to set the lens at infinity then allow the teleconverter to do the focusing. With telephoto lenses, this only works when the subject is at or near infinity. When the subject is closer, the lens has to be focused closer too. The teleconverter will then fine tune the focusing. Tom Reese
Re: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment?
The F1.7x is an excellent quality converter, I used it and an M50/1.4 for a long time as my only macro lens. As far as the mirror lens goes it depends on the speed of the lens. With a lens slower than f/3.5 autofocus won't work very well, slower than f/4.0 probably not at all. Don -Original message- From: "Marco Ferrari" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 07:33:56 -0500 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Teleconverter F 1.7x AF: any comment? > Dear all, > > have you ever used this Teleconverter? > Have you some comments? > > I shot slide films, and I'm interested in converting a mirror lens and the > SMC-A 50/1.4 (both > manual focus) in a long telephoto and a 85/2.38 autofocus lenses. > > Thanks, > > marco > > > > __ > TISCALI ADSL 1.25 MEGA > Solo con Tiscali Adsl navighi senza limiti e telefoni senza canone Telecom > a partire da 19,95 Euro/mese. > Attivala entro il 31 agosto, il primo MESE è GRATIS! CLICCA QUI. > http://abbonati.tiscali.it/adsl/sa/1e25flat_tc/ > > > >
RE: Teleconverter Crap
> A 2.8/300mm Pentax cost app. a months salery here > - I could buy a nice, used car for that! I have the SMC M* 4/300mm - > it's actually excellent, but is lacking the AF of cource. Jens That's the trouble I'm too sensible I'd probably go for the car option too. I had a 300 f4 'K' for some time always wanted to try the M* or A* but never got one. John John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:21:51 +0200 Subject: RE: Teleconverter Crap > So it seems the Pentax 2.8/80-200mm cost two times as much as list price > here (I would never buy one in a store here, but use an internet > store in Gremany). A 2.8/300mm Pentax cost app. a months salery here > - I could buy a nice, used car for that! I have the SMC M* 4/300mm - > it's actually excellent, but is lacking the AF of cource. Jens > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 6. juli 2004 12:07 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: RE: Teleconverter Crap > > > Teleconverters are about weight and bulk, not about cost. > > If you travel through Africa on a motorbike to take photograps, it's > > a good idea to carry some nice 2.8 high quality lenses along with a > > teleconverter. > > I couldn't agree more, (especially being a motorcyclist myself) > maybe a 80- 200 f2.8 Pentax + a quality 1.4X and 2X, let's see that > gives us 112-280 f3.9 and a 160-400 f5.6. > > 280 f3.9 yes that sounds reasonable especially with the optics of > the Pentax lens in question, 400 f5.6 where have I come across that > before? ah yes 300 f4 with 1.4 TC > > > But using the > > converter with a relatively cheap 4-5.6 lens to save cost is > > nonsence. If you choose cheap, slow lenses, just buy one more and > > forget about converters. Just my opinion. > > I have a supplement on lenses came with a Photo Mag entitled 'The > Great Lens Supplement' oddly enough. The best zoom tested was the > Pentax 80-200 f2.8 £2000 scoring 89% it's closest rivals were Nikon > 80-200 (85%) and Minolta 80- 200 (85%) they never tested the Canon, > for some reason Canon did not submit in that range but chose 75-300 > IS (77%). In the same supplement appears the Sigma 300mm f4 cheap as > chips under fixed focal length @ £700 scoring (89%) beaten buy some > real budjet rivals Canon 135 f2 £1000, Minolta 85 f1.4 £920 and just > matched by the Leitz 100 f2.8R £2098. > > Does it matter how much the lens costs providing it gives you the > results you crave? > > I'd love a 300mm f2.8 but just can't justify the cost, I do not need > to use my photographic skills to earn a living (unfortunately!) > > John Whittingham > > Technician > > -- Original Message --- > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 08:10:02 +0200 > Subject: RE: Teleconverter Crap > > > Teleconverters are about weight and bulk, not about cost. > > If you travel through Africa on a motorbike to take photograps, it's > > a good idea to carry some nice 2.8 high quality lenses along with a > teleconverter. > > Then you can leave maybe 2 or 3 heavy lenses at home. But using the > > converter with a relatively cheap 4-5.6 lens to save cost is > > nonsence. If you choose cheap, slow lenses, just buy one more and > > forget about converters. Just my opinion. > > > > Jens Bladt > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 5. juli 2004 20:04 > > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Emne: Re: Teleconverter Crap > > > > > 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > > > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > > > lens.) > > > > I don't recall anyone mentioning wide angle. > > > > > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > > > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > > > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. > > > > It's a good job the 600mm f4's can be obtained so readily and cheap then! > > A 420 f5.6 really isn't bad at all, my combination is as sharp as > > the same manufacturers 400 f5.6 prime. > > > > > 3.Tele
RE: Teleconverter Crap
> Teleconverters are about weight and bulk, not about cost. > If you travel through Africa on a motorbike to take photograps, it's > a good idea to carry some nice 2.8 high quality lenses along with a > teleconverter. I couldn't agree more, (especially being a motorcyclist myself) maybe a 80- 200 f2.8 Pentax + a quality 1.4X and 2X, let's see that gives us 112-280 f3.9 and a 160-400 f5.6. 280 f3.9 yes that sounds reasonable especially with the optics of the Pentax lens in question, 400 f5.6 where have I come across that before? ah yes 300 f4 with 1.4 TC > But using the > converter with a relatively cheap 4-5.6 lens to save cost is > nonsence. If you choose cheap, slow lenses, just buy one more and > forget about converters. Just my opinion. I have a supplement on lenses came with a Photo Mag entitled 'The Great Lens Supplement' oddly enough. The best zoom tested was the Pentax 80-200 f2.8 £2000 scoring 89% it's closest rivals were Nikon 80-200 (85%) and Minolta 80- 200 (85%) they never tested the Canon, for some reason Canon did not submit in that range but chose 75-300 IS (77%). In the same supplement appears the Sigma 300mm f4 cheap as chips under fixed focal length @ £700 scoring (89%) beaten buy some real budjet rivals Canon 135 f2 £1000, Minolta 85 f1.4 £920 and just matched by the Leitz 100 f2.8R £2098. Does it matter how much the lens costs providing it gives you the results you crave? I'd love a 300mm f2.8 but just can't justify the cost, I do not need to use my photographic skills to earn a living (unfortunately!) John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 08:10:02 +0200 Subject: RE: Teleconverter Crap > Teleconverters are about weight and bulk, not about cost. > If you travel through Africa on a motorbike to take photograps, it's > a good idea to carry some nice 2.8 high quality lenses along with a teleconverter. > Then you can leave maybe 2 or 3 heavy lenses at home. But using the > converter with a relatively cheap 4-5.6 lens to save cost is > nonsence. If you choose cheap, slow lenses, just buy one more and > forget about converters. Just my opinion. > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 5. juli 2004 20:04 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: Teleconverter Crap > > > 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > > lens.) > > I don't recall anyone mentioning wide angle. > > > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. > > It's a good job the 600mm f4's can be obtained so readily and cheap then! > A 420 f5.6 really isn't bad at all, my combination is as sharp as > the same manufacturers 400 f5.6 prime. > > > 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. > > Useful for those starting out on a low budjet, they can upgrade later. > > John Whittingham > > Technician > > -- Original Message --- > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:40:28 -0700 > Subject: Re: Teleconverter Crap > > > Bob's laws of teleconverter use: > > > > 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > > lens.) > > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. > > 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. > > 4.In order to get the DOF control, you will eventually sell your > > youngest child to buy both an ~85mm & ~100mm lenses thus relegating the > > teleconverters to very rare use. > > > > 5.Eventually, you will put the (now little used) teleconverters > > on ebay to get the cash to help redeem your youngest child. > > > > Regards, > > Bob... > > -- > &g
RE: Teleconverter Crap
Teleconverters are about weight and bulk, not about cost. If you travel through Africa on a motorbike to take photograps, it's a good idea to carry some nice 2.8 high quality lenses along with a teleconverter. Then you can leave maybe 2 or 3 heavy lenses at home. But using the converter with a relatively cheap 4-5.6 lens to save cost is nonsence. If you choose cheap, slow lenses, just buy one more and forget about converters. Just my opinion. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. juli 2004 20:04 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Teleconverter Crap > 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > lens.) I don't recall anyone mentioning wide angle. > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. It's a good job the 600mm f4's can be obtained so readily and cheap then! A 420 f5.6 really isn't bad at all, my combination is as sharp as the same manufacturers 400 f5.6 prime. > 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. Useful for those starting out on a low budjet, they can upgrade later. John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:40:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Teleconverter Crap > Bob's laws of teleconverter use: > > 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > lens.) > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. > 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. > 4.In order to get the DOF control, you will eventually sell your > youngest child to buy both an ~85mm & ~100mm lenses thus relegating the > teleconverters to very rare use. > > 5.Eventually, you will put the (now little used) teleconverters > on ebay to get the cash to help redeem your youngest child. > > Regards, > Bob... > -- > "They called my parent's generation 'The Greatest Generation' for a reason. > We have become a nation of narcissistic whiners and wienies who have > no sense of history and no vision of the future. We are without > resolve, and having forgotten first principles, we are easily swayed > to embrace lies expressed to us in trite slogans. We think life is > about us, forgetting that it is the generations to come that we > should live for." - Blakely --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Teleconverter Crap
> 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > lens.) I don't recall anyone mentioning wide angle. > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. It's a good job the 600mm f4's can be obtained so readily and cheap then! A 420 f5.6 really isn't bad at all, my combination is as sharp as the same manufacturers 400 f5.6 prime. > 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. Useful for those starting out on a low budjet, they can upgrade later. John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:40:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Teleconverter Crap > Bob's laws of teleconverter use: > > 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > lens.) > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. > 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. > 4.In order to get the DOF control, you will eventually sell your > youngest child to buy both an ~85mm & ~100mm lenses thus relegating the > teleconverters to very rare use. > > 5.Eventually, you will put the (now little used) teleconverters > on ebay to get the cash to help redeem your youngest child. > > Regards, > Bob... > -- > "They called my parent's generation 'The Greatest Generation' for a reason. > We have become a nation of narcissistic whiners and wienies who have > no sense of history and no vision of the future. We are without > resolve, and having forgotten first principles, we are easily swayed > to embrace lies expressed to us in trite slogans. We think life is > about us, forgetting that it is the generations to come that we > should live for." - Blakely --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Teleconverter Crap
"Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Bob's laws of teleconverter use: > >1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine >putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal lens.) >2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can put a 2X >converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying to get a sharp >focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. >3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you want a >proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy ~85mm and ~100mm >lenses. >4.In order to get the DOF control, you will eventually sell your >youngest child to buy both an ~85mm & ~100mm lenses thus relegating the >teleconverters to very rare use. >5.Eventually, you will put the (now little used) teleconverters on ebay >to get the cash to help redeem your youngest child. I agree with all of 'em except #5. I use mine fairly frequently with my 300/2.8. (I don't do enough portrait work for #4 to apply to me: I just get by with the 80-200/2.8, which is a really good portrait lens if you can live with the relatively slow f/2.8 max aperture.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Teleconverter Crap
Bob's laws of teleconverter use: 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal lens.) 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. 4.In order to get the DOF control, you will eventually sell your youngest child to buy both an ~85mm & ~100mm lenses thus relegating the teleconverters to very rare use. 5.Eventually, you will put the (now little used) teleconverters on ebay to get the cash to help redeem your youngest child. Regards, Bob... -- "They called my parent's generation 'The Greatest Generation' for a reason. We have become a nation of narcissistic whiners and wienies who have no sense of history and no vision of the future. We are without resolve, and having forgotten first principles, we are easily swayed to embrace lies expressed to us in trite slogans. We think life is about us, forgetting that it is the generations to come that we should live for." - Blakely
Re: Teleconverter question
-Original Message- From: Mark Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Teleconverter question Snip "I think there might be something about the optical formula of the F* and FA* 300mm F4.5 lenses that makes them unsuitable for use with teleconverters." --Mark I truly doubt it with Pentax Converters, I get excellent results with the 1.4XS on my 300mm FA. Ken Waller PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Teleconverter question
> From: Don Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I am planning to get a 1.4-S teleconvertor, mainly to use with my A* 300/4. > > Can this particular converter be used with a 500/4.5 screw mount (with the > screw mount adapter of course)? Yes it can. Also the L-converters (2x-L, 1.4x-L) do work with this lens according to the manual of the 500/4.5 and 1000/8 etc. (bayonet) lenses (screw mount versions are the same design). Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Teleconverter questions
Here is what I have from a Pentax Lense brochure (unknown date, but after FA lenses were introduced and A lenses discontinued). There is a table with all lenses and 4 columns, one for each teleconverter. There are 3 marks in the columns... X - not usable for this lense, this covers most lenses with the 1.4x-L and 2x-L . O* - Better performance can be achieved. This symbol is under the 1.4x-L and 2x-L columns only and next to 4 lenses, A*-300/2.8, A*-400/2.8, F*-600/4, and A*-600/5.6. I take this to mean that these, and only these 4 lenses will benefit from the "L" converters. O - Usable, this covers 11 other lenses, in whole or in part. Both are usable with... A-500/4.5, FA*-600/4, P-1000/8, P-1000/11, A*-1200/8, F and FA*-250-600/5.6, A-200/4 Macro, and A-Soft85/2.2 ...and only the 2x-L usable with A-400/5.6, F-135-600/6.7 ...and only the 1.4x-L usable with the P-400-600/8-12 Regards, Bob S. I wrote:: I have the A1.4-S Teleconverter and it works fine with the A300/4 lens. The L teleconverters (A1.4-L and A2.0-L) are for very special applications, big fast glass. They have long snouts that won't fit in the A300/4. The L's are designed for the A300/2.8, A400/2.8, and such. I have the specs in some old Pentax literature at home. Go look at them on Boz's site. Regards, Bob S. Sas Gabor writes: > Don Herring wrote: > > I am planning to get a 1.4-S teleconvertor, > > mainly to use with my A* 300/4. > > > > Can this particular converter be used with a > > 500/4.5 screw mount (with the > > screw mount adapter of course)? > > It can be used of course, but for these focal lengths the > 1.4-L converter is definitely a better choice.
Re: Teleconverter question
On 9 Mar 2004 at 18:57, Don Herring wrote: > That's was my thinking on the 1.4-L and the 300/4. I guess I'll try that > converter with the screw mount and go from there. The manual for the "Rear Converter A, 1.4x-s, 2x-s, 1.4x-L, 2x-L" contains a compatibility cross-reference and is available for DL as an Acrobat file at: http://www.pentaxusa.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6 (near the bottom of the Accessories section) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Teleconverter question
At 06:15 PM 3/9/04 -0500, you wrote: Sas, I have the A1.4-S Teleconverter and it works fine with the A300/4 lens. The L teleconverters (A1.4-L and A2.0-L) are for very special applications, big fast glass. They have long snouts that won't fit in the A300/4. The L's are designed for the A300/2.8, A400/2.8, and such. I have the specs in some old Pentax literature at home. Go look at them on Boz's site. Regards, Bob S. Sas Gabor writes: > Don Herring wrote: > > I am planning to get a 1.4-S teleconvertor, > > mainly to use with my A* 300/4. > > > > Can this particular converter be used with a > > 500/4.5 screw mount (with the > > screw mount adapter of course)? > > It can be used of course, but for these focal lengths the > 1.4-L converter is definitely a better choice. That's was my thinking on the 1.4-L and the 300/4. I guess I'll try that converter with the screw mount and go from there. Don
Re: Teleconverter question
Sas, I have the A1.4-S Teleconverter and it works fine with the A300/4 lens. The L teleconverters (A1.4-L and A2.0-L) are for very special applications, big fast glass. They have long snouts that won't fit in the A300/4. The L's are designed for the A300/2.8, A400/2.8, and such. I have the specs in some old Pentax literature at home. Go look at them on Boz's site. Regards, Bob S. Sas Gabor writes: > Don Herring wrote: > > I am planning to get a 1.4-S teleconvertor, > > mainly to use with my A* 300/4. > > > > Can this particular converter be used with a > > 500/4.5 screw mount (with the > > screw mount adapter of course)? > > It can be used of course, but for these focal lengths the > 1.4-L converter is definitely a better choice.
Re: Teleconverter question
On 9 Mar 2004 at 17:07, Fred wrote: > Well, it can't be a "better choice" if it doesn't fit, and the A > 1.4-L certainly will not fit the A* 300/4, for example. On the > other hand, I don't know if that TC will fit the 500/4.5 screw mount > lens with adapter, so maybe... The nX-L convertors fit the FA200/2.8 but not the A200/2.8 (unless you remove rear baffle). I've owned all the Pentax TCs and although I have only retained the X-L convertors and a 1.7AF, I'm not that enamoured with the performance of the 2X-L on any lens. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Teleconverter question
>> It can be used of course, but for these focal lengths the 1.4-L >> converter is definitely a better choice > Inquiring minds want to know - Why is it the better choice? Well, it can't be a "better choice" if it doesn't fit, and the A 1.4-L certainly will not fit the A* 300/4, for example. On the other hand, I don't know if that TC will fit the 500/4.5 screw mount lens with adapter, so maybe... Fred
Re: Teleconverter question
Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It can be used of course, but for these focal lengths the 1.4-L converter is definitely a better choice Inquiring minds want to know - Why is it the better choice? Ken Waller The A1.4X-L and A2X-L teleconverters both have lens groups that protrude into the barrels of the lenses to which they are attached. As a result they only fit certain long lenses that have room for the prodruding lens groups. I'm not an optical designer, so I cannot say why this configuration is better, but I presume that Pentax engineers designed them this way for a reason. --Mark
Re: Teleconverter question
>It can be used of course, but for these focal lengths the 1.4-L >converter is definitely a better choice Inquiring minds want to know - Why is it the better choice? Ken Waller -Original Message- From: Sas Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Teleconverter question Hi, Don Herring wrote: > I am planning to get a 1.4-S teleconvertor, mainly to use with my A* 300/4. > > Can this particular converter be used with a 500/4.5 screw mount (with the > screw mount adapter of course)? It can be used of course, but for these focal lengths the 1.4-L converter is definitely a better choice. Gabor PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Teleconverter question
Hi, Don Herring wrote: > I am planning to get a 1.4-S teleconvertor, mainly to use with my A* 300/4. > > Can this particular converter be used with a 500/4.5 screw mount (with the > screw mount adapter of course)? It can be used of course, but for these focal lengths the 1.4-L converter is definitely a better choice. Gabor
Re: Teleconverter suggestions
I guess I'll start a special fund for a special lens :-) Maris Alan Chan wrote: > That zoom at the tele-end is pretty much reachs its limit. Adding > another TC won't do any good imho. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > >> Only the Pentax FA 80mm f/4.5 - 320mm f/5.6, primarily at the 300mm >> range.
Re: Teleconverter suggestions
That zoom at the tele-end is pretty much reachs its limit. Adding another TC won't do any good imho. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Only the Pentax FA 80mm f/4.5 - 320mm f/5.6, primarily at the 300mm range. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Teleconverter Question
Thanks everyone for your help. I think I'll just save up a little money and hold off for nicer macro equipment (bellows) or the Pentax 100mm macro lens (the cheap one). That being said, if I'm browsing ebay and see a vivitar macro teleconverter for an amazing deal, I'll grab that. Enjoy the weekend... -Chris
Re: Teleconverter Question
Vivitar Macro focusing teleconverter, you can find them on e-bay regularly in both k and ka mount. At 05:07 PM 5/29/2003 -0400, you wrote: Hello, I was wondering if anyone would like throw in a recommendation for a decent budget teleconverter. I would like to use it with my smc-a f/2 50mm and try some macro work. I know you get what you pay for and I'd like to know what to look for in the used market say around $50-$75. Thanks for your help. -Chris Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Teleconverter Question
I presume you are going to use this lens with bellows for macro work? You would probably be better off just using the 50 mm and bellows. A 2x teleconverter will turn your 50 mm lens into a 100 mm lens but it will not be a macro and the image quality will inevitably decline. It is the flat field and close focusing that makes a true macro. I don't know of any teleconverter that does that. A close up filter is another option. Cheap and effective (depending on what you are doing), but you still don't get a flat field. A close up filter is not really a filter but an extra element (or group if they are a compound structure) which is added in front of your front lens element. You can also try using your existing lens with a reversing ring. If you decide to get a teleconverter of any kind, remember that if it is a third party offering, a 7 element design should give a better result (and cost much more) than the 4 element designs. A Pentax teleconverter would probably be your best bet. Peter Brisbane From: Christopher Comer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Teleconverter Question Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:07:08 -0400 Hello, I was wondering if anyone would like throw in a recommendation for a decent budget teleconverter. I would like to use it with my smc-a f/2 50mm and try some macro work. I know you get what you pay for and I'd like to know what to look for in the used market say around $50-$75. Thanks for your help. -Chris _ Hotmail is now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/signup.asp
Re: Re: RE: teleconverter 2x
Thanks Chris I t surte looks like a pentax 2x but if not the test shots will tell Dave Begin Original Message From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 21:35:22 -0600 (CST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: teleconverter 2x On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, David Brooks wrote: > My ??? is,does the converter affect the meter reading of the > camera(screwmount conveter so using SP500 or the SP or S3)or will the > meter give a proper output. Also will it "soften"my primes or should > they stay fairly sharp. A TTL meter (like the one in the Spotmatics) will take the TC into account when determining exposure, so you don't need to compensate. If you're using a clip-on meter with a camera like the meterless S3, then you need to add compensation... usually a stop or two. Any extra glass will soften your lenses. NPS seems to be a relatively cheap brand, so I'd suspect it softens them more than, say, a Pentax brand TC would. That's just a guess, though. chris - 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 . End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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: teleconverter 2x
Chris wrote: > Any extra glass will soften your lenses. NPS seems to be a relatively > cheap brand, so I'd suspect it softens them more than, say, a Pentax brand > TC would. That's just a guess, though. to the best of my (somewhat extensive) knowledge, Pentax made no teleconverters in m42 mount. I never heard of any back when I was amassing them a few years ago for my ultra-tele experiments. Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - 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: teleconverter 2x
Grips are easy to imitate. Sure it doesn't say APS? Then it would be the old name for Kenko. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Brooks Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 7:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: teleconverter 2x (With apologize to Mike)(i'm a long lenser :-) ) I recently inherited my Dad's camera equipment the hard way,and 1 piece in the bag is a 2x converter. Out side markings as follows: N.P.S. 2x converter lens made in japa It does not say Pentax on it anywere but it has the same knarl grip the Taks have so i think it might be as he rarely bought 3rd party. My ??? is,does the converter affect the meter reading of the camera(screwmount conveter so using SP500 or the SP or S3)or will the meter give a proper output. Also will it "soften"my primes or should they stay fairly sharp. Thanks in advance Dave Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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: Teleconverter w. FA*80-200/2.8?
"Jan van Wijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi Mark, > >I have 3 Sigma converters, the 1.4x and 2x APO and a 'normal' 1.4x >The 1.4x will probably have the same problem, it is only slightly better in this >aspect! > >I just measured the clearing between the K-mount flange and TC front-lens for all: > >STD 1.4x 8.5 mm >APO 1.4x 1.9 mm >APO 2x 1.4 mm > >So while the 2x APO is worst, the 1.4x is not far behind. > >The STD 1.4x would not be a problem, but lacks optical quality compared to the others. Thank you! I have the standard Sigma 1.4x and it does fit, but I want to sell it and get a better one. Funny thing is, I just tried the Sigma 2x and it *does* fit! I must have been fumbling too much when I tried to attach it in the field the other day. BTW: The photo I took using the Pentax 1.7x that day came out quite nice. I just added it to my fall photo collection last night, along with 3 other new shots: http://www.robertstech.com/fall_2k1.htm -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.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: Teleconverter w. FA*80-200/2.8?
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:35:18 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: >I just discovered that my Sigma EX APO teleconverter (the 2x one) won't >work with my SMC-FA*80-200/2.8 (either the elements of the teleconverter >extend too far forward or the elements of the lens extend too far back; >I'm going to let them argue amongst themselves as to which is actually the >case). > >The Pentax 1.7x AF converter works fine. Can anyone recommend a good 1.4x >TC? >I'd like to try the Sigma EX APO 1.4x since the 2x is so good, but I'm hesitant >to buy it given the problem with the 2x and this lens. I have the 2x mainly >for use with my 300mm prime but I'd definitely want a 1.4x to be usable >with the 80-200 zoom. Hi Mark, I have 3 Sigma converters, the 1.4x and 2x APO and a 'normal' 1.4x The 1.4x will probably have the same problem, it is only slightly better in this aspect! I just measured the clearing between the K-mount flange and TC front-lens for all: STD 1.4x8.5 mm APO 1.4x 1.9 mm APO 2x 1.4 mm So while the 2x APO is worst, the 1.4x is not far behind. The STD 1.4x would not be a problem, but lacks optical quality compared to the others. Regards, Jan van Wijk - 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: Teleconverter w. FA*80-200/2.8?
I have a drawer full of converters including both current Sigma EX ones, a couple of older 1.4x ones, several rebadged Kenkos, a couple of Tamron ones and the Pentax 1.7x AF. I put the Sigma EX at the top for performance, then the Pentax and the older Sigma ones which are close and the Kenko near the bottom, but slightly ahead of the Tamron ones (none are the latest Kenko design). Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Carlos Royo Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 3:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Teleconverter w. FA*80-200/2.8? Mark Roberts wrote: > > The Pentax 1.7x AF converter works fine. Can anyone recommend a good 1.4x > TC? > I'd like to try the Sigma EX APO 1.4x since the 2x is so good, but I'm hesitant > to buy it given the problem with the 2x and this lens. I have the 2x mainly > for use with my 300mm prime but I'd definitely want a 1.4x to be usable > with the 80-200 zoom. > > -- I also use the Pentax 1.7X AF adapter, and it works very well with this lens, as you wrote. The other AF converter I have used with this lens is the Kenko 1.5X AF (4 elements). It also works well, and the results are good, until you compare them with the photos taken with the Pentax 1.7X. The difference in the image sharpness is really noticeable, in favour of the Pentax converter. -- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain -- - 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 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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: Teleconverter w. FA*80-200/2.8?
Mark Roberts wrote: > > The Pentax 1.7x AF converter works fine. Can anyone recommend a good 1.4x > TC? > I'd like to try the Sigma EX APO 1.4x since the 2x is so good, but I'm hesitant > to buy it given the problem with the 2x and this lens. I have the 2x mainly > for use with my 300mm prime but I'd definitely want a 1.4x to be usable > with the 80-200 zoom. > > -- I also use the Pentax 1.7X AF adapter, and it works very well with this lens, as you wrote. The other AF converter I have used with this lens is the Kenko 1.5X AF (4 elements). It also works well, and the results are good, until you compare them with the photos taken with the Pentax 1.7X. The difference in the image sharpness is really noticeable, in favour of the Pentax converter. -- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain -- - 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: teleconverter
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001 10:48:20 -, Frits J. Wthrich wrote: >How are Tamron teleconverters compared to Pentax? I see there are Tamron >1.4x AF teleconverters for much less then the Pentax 1.4x-L. Is there a big >difference in quality? I am thinking of using it between my SMC-A 400mm >f/5.6 and my PZ-1. Hi Frits, I am not sure about this Tamron, but I have a similar 1.4 AF converter made by Sigma. I also have the 1.4x L converter and the big difference is that the Sigma does cause some vignetting when used with big glass like the 300mm f/2.8. The Pentax L does not. (I have the 1.4x and 2x AF EX Sigma converters, but hardly use them) This is caused mainly by the 'snout' the L converters have, that goes inside the lens, and because the aperture of the converter-lens is a bit bigger. It should be OK on the 5.6 400mm I guess ... Regards, Jan van Wijk - 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: Teleconverter for 135mm f1.8?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << OK, I finally own a lens that could actually make sense to use a > teleconverter, a 135mm f1.8. Has anyone tried this combo? Are there any > converters in particular that would work better, any to avoid? Thanks > for any info! >> > > Isaac, > > If you've got one of the Pentax A135/1.8's, I'd start with these... > A 2X-S > A 1.4X-S > F 1.7 will work if you have an autofocus body > T6-2X is old, but does well too. > > Regards, Bob S. Thanx. Once I get my K mount body, I'll experiment a little with these converters... Isaac - 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: Teleconverter for 135mm f1.8?
Issac wrote: > OK, I finally own a lens that could actually make sense to use a > teleconverter, a 135mm f1.8. Has anyone tried this combo? Are there any > converters in particular that would work better, any to avoid? Thanks > for any info! I've tried the Pentax A 2X-S converter with that lens and was not happy with the result. In fact, I've been unhappy with this converter on any lens... Pål - 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: teleconverter compatibility
>Hmmm, I have a little 35mm lens catalouge (Pentax >number 55993) that disagrees somewhat with your list. Hi Bill: I don't doubt it. Out of curiosity, what are the differences? By the way: It's not my list; I just cut and pasted it from pentax-sweden. BK
RE: teleconverter compatibility
Hmmm, I have a little 35mm lens catalouge (Pentax number 55993) that disagrees somewhat with your list. Bill - 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: teleconverter question
Bob, I have used the 1.4X-S with my 300mm FA and get very acceptable results. Other than the obvious difference in lens power, I can't tell from the photo wether I've taken the photo with or without the converter. Ken Waller - Original Message - From: Bob Keefer To: pentax discuss Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 1:53 AM Subject: teleconverter question Hi all: I have the Pentax 2X-S teleconverter, which frankly doesn't produce very sharp images with my FA*300/4.5, not even locked down into the tripod with careful technique. (I get better slides with my son's Canon 300/4.0 with a Canon 2X. Sorry.) Anyone know whether the 2X-L would be any better? Also, any thoughts on the 1.4X-L? Thanks, Bob Keefer
Re: teleconverter question
Kevin, >From an 8.5x11 inch Pentax Lens catalogue, page 26 covers SMC-A Rear Converters. The table Usable Lenses with Rear Converter-A says the A*300/2.8 can use all 4 converters (1.4 or 2.0, S or L), but it indicated Better performance can be achieved with the L versions on the A*300/2.8. If I look at the table, the L versions are for BIG glass. They indicate better performance with the A*300/2.8, A*400/2.8, F*600/4, A*600/5.6, and are the only ones recommended for the A*1200/8, F*250-600/5.6, and FA*250-600/5.6. The only exceptions I can see are the A200/4 Macro and 85/2.2 Soft Focus, where the L converters are marked as usable, but not marked as Better performance... That's as close to an official word as I have seen published. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Someone please confirm the S vs. L question. I was wanting to put a 2x-L on my A*300/2.8 until I checked Boz's site which says the L converters are for focal lengths greater than 300 mm. Can I or can I not use the 1.4x-L and 2.0x-L on my A*300/2.8? >> - 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: teleconverter question
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 05:53:17 -0500, Kevin Thornsberry wrote: >Can I or can I not use the 1.4x-L and 2.0x-L on my A*300/2.8? Yes you can, it is one of the lenses the x-L converters are designed for ... The note on BOZ's site relates to the f4 and 4.5 lenses, like the F* 300 4.5 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: teleconverter question
Recently Kevin Thornsberry wrote: > > I was wanting to put a 2x-L on my A*300/2.8 until I checked Boz's site which says >the L converters are for focal lengths greater than 300 mm. Can I or can I not use >the 1.4x-L and 2.0x-L on my A*300/2.8? Hi Kevin, I use the exact Pentax wording: S = to be used with lenses up to 300 mm. L = to be used with lenses over 300 mm. This of course leaves the 300 mm lenses without suitable teleconverters. My understanding is that both the S and L ones can be used with the 300 mm lenses (except the 300/4.5). Cheers, Boz - 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: teleconverter question
Someone please confirm the S vs. L question. I was wanting to put a 2x-L on my A*300/2.8 until I checked Boz's site which says the L converters are for focal lengths greater than 300 mm. Can I or can I not use the 1.4x-L and 2.0x-L on my A*300/2.8? Thank you -Original Message- From: Jan van Wijk [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 6:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: teleconverter question On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:13:03 -0700, Bob Keefer wrote: > >Also, any thoughts on the 1.4X-L? > It's the best of all the converters I own (about 5 I think :-) It has the biggest diameter lens elements, no causes less vignetting wide open. Note that it only fits the longer lenses, that have enough room between the mount flange and the rear element. (more than an inch!) 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 . - 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: teleconverter question
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 09:13:03 -0700, Bob Keefer wrote: > >Also, any thoughts on the 1.4X-L? > It's the best of all the converters I own (about 5 I think :-) It has the biggest diameter lens elements, no causes less vignetting wide open. Note that it only fits the longer lenses, that have enough room between the mount flange and the rear element. (more than an inch!) 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: teleconverter question
Bob, The German Pentax pages include PDF descriptions that list compatibility between lenses and teleconverters. The FA*300/4.5 page is: http://www.foto.pentax.de/produkte/pdf/pentax024400.pdf and it does list the 2X-S teleconverter and FA*300/4.5 as being compatible. The 2X-L is not listed. It extends into the barrel of the lens, and I'm pretty sure that it will not fit on an FA* 300/4.5. Seems like someone else posted a message that stated that the FA* 300/4.5 does not work well in general with teleconverters --Mark original quote Hi all: I have the Pentax 2X-S teleconverter, which frankly doesn't produce very sharp images with my FA*300/4.5, not even locked down into the tripod with careful technique. (I get better slides with my son's Canon 300/4.0 with a Canon 2X. Sorry.) Anyone know whether the 2X-L would be any better? Also, any thoughts on the 1.4X-L? Thanks, Bob Keefer - 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: teleconverter question
My A2X-S is very sharp with either my 400/5.6 K or my 200/4 M. I have an 18x12 print of a race car that I shot with the 400/2XS combo that really leaves nothing to be desired in terms of sharpness. I don't think the L converters will fit the 300/4.5, but I could be wrong. Generally, the L converters fit only the really big glass, but there are some exceptions. Paul > Bob Keefer wrote: > > Hi all: > > I have the Pentax 2X-S teleconverter, which frankly doesn't produce > very sharp images with my FA*300/4.5, not even locked down into > the tripod with careful technique. (I get better slides with my son's > Canon 300/4.0 with a Canon 2X. Sorry.) > > Anyone know whether the 2X-L would be any better? > > Also, any thoughts on the 1.4X-L? > > Thanks, > > Bob Keefer - 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: teleconverter question
On 21 Apr 2001, at 22:53, Bob Keefer wrote: > Hi all: > > I have the Pentax 2X-S teleconverter, which frankly doesn't produce very sharp >images with my FA*300/4.5, not even locked down into the tripod with careful >technique. (I get better slides with my son's Canon 300/4.0 with a Canon 2X. Sorry.) > > Anyone know whether the 2X-L would be any better? > > Also, any thoughts on the 1.4X-L? Hi Bob, I don't believe that either of the X-L TCs will couple successfully with the lens in question, the front elements of the TC protrude quite a way from the mount flange and require a recess in the rear of the lens to which they are fitted. I have found the 2X-S to be a good performer however I have not coupled it with the lens that you mentioned. A question about your problem; are you stopping down the lens at all? How does the combination perform stopped down a little? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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: Teleconverter
I think Tamron SP teleconverter are good. Some people belive that you can get PRO level performance out of it. I don't have much idea about teleconverters made by Kenko. Best Wishes, Ayash Kanto. On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Wieland Willker wrote: > I think the Pentax is just too expensive for me. What would you consider the second >best > converter? Kenko? > > Best wishes > Wieland > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG 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. Visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org.
