Re: tele extenders
I take no issue with your observations, however I'd never try that with any lens that I own, it seems like you're asking for trouble. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:17 PM Subject: Re: tele extenders > well, i know about the greater than and less than 300mm specification for > the L and S extenders. i focused the entire range on the 400 f5.6 by hand > without a camera attached to see the range of travel. it looks like i can > focus to about 15 feet or so before the rear element would hit the L > converter. in MF mode, the focus clutch slips as soon as it encounters > resistance. the lens end of the L converter is covered with rubber where the > retaining ring/cylinder holding the rear element of the lens would contact. > from what i can see, i would not damage anything in MF mode hitting the rear > element cylinder against the rubber ring, but it would be inelegant. i have > to use an S converter on my FA* 80-200 f2.8 because the rear element is > fixed and right up against the lens mount. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:56 PM > Subject: Re: tele extenders > > > > Herb, before I purchased the S convertor for my 300mm f4.5 FA, I spent > some > > time with Pentax Colorado trying to determine the recommended usage. There > > was confusing literature out there and it took them a while to come up > with > > the correct application info. IIR, it went something like the S is to be > > used on lenses shorter than 300mm except for the 300mm f 4.5, in other > words > > not on the 300 f2.8 and 400, 500 & 600 mm lenses. > > Physically, I believe you could cause damage to the lens by trying to fit > > the L onto lenses where the S was recommended. The L has a significantly > > longer "snout" and would contact lens elements on those lenses. > >
Re: tele extenders
the safest choice is one of the Sigma converters. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:45 PM Subject: Re: tele extenders > I am considering a tele-extender for my Sigma 7-300 Zoom. At 70 mm, the > back element is back into the mount, and moves forward as I zoom to 300 > mm. What options do I have and can I preserve the AF?
Re: tele extenders
I am considering a tele-extender for my Sigma 7-300 Zoom. At 70 mm, the back element is back into the mount, and moves forward as I zoom to 300 mm. What options do I have and can I preserve the AF? John G.
Re: tele extenders
that is a pretty serious flaw. there are devices designed to solve the problem for not a lot of money, so you could get one of them. i'm going to be using a Wimberley head so that part of the equation will be taken care of. well, i haven't seen an A* 600 f5.6 on the used market yet, but i haven't been looking long. yes, i have the budget to afford the FA* 600 f4, but i was wondering what i would lose by going older, MF, and losing a stop. my lens will come in, so to speak, in the early fall this year and i have to decide what to get. the FA* 600 f4 is one choice. the other choice is to get the FA* 250-600 f5.6. whatever i get will be used almost exclusively with my *istD. there is a slight chance i can get both. Herb - Original Message - From: "Bill Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:08 PM Subject: RE: tele extenders > It has one structural flaw that I think is serious - the tripod mount is at > the very back end of the lens, near the aperture ring. It is a real "stove > pipe" of a lens, long and thin. The slightest jitter is magnified out to the > end of the lens, thus making a relatively big arc. Though the lens is light, > I don't think my ball head is adequate - it needs something that clamps it > down very tight and on a large, non-rotating base. > > If you're on a budget, though, it's a good ticket for a 600mm lens. But get > the f4 if you have the money.
Re: tele extenders
well, i know about the greater than and less than 300mm specification for the L and S extenders. i focused the entire range on the 400 f5.6 by hand without a camera attached to see the range of travel. it looks like i can focus to about 15 feet or so before the rear element would hit the L converter. in MF mode, the focus clutch slips as soon as it encounters resistance. the lens end of the L converter is covered with rubber where the retaining ring/cylinder holding the rear element of the lens would contact. from what i can see, i would not damage anything in MF mode hitting the rear element cylinder against the rubber ring, but it would be inelegant. i have to use an S converter on my FA* 80-200 f2.8 because the rear element is fixed and right up against the lens mount. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: Re: tele extenders > Herb, before I purchased the S convertor for my 300mm f4.5 FA, I spent some > time with Pentax Colorado trying to determine the recommended usage. There > was confusing literature out there and it took them a while to come up with > the correct application info. IIR, it went something like the S is to be > used on lenses shorter than 300mm except for the 300mm f 4.5, in other words > not on the 300 f2.8 and 400, 500 & 600 mm lenses. > Physically, I believe you could cause damage to the lens by trying to fit > the L onto lenses where the S was recommended. The L has a significantly > longer "snout" and would contact lens elements on those lenses.
RE: tele extenders
Herb, I bought it used from KEH, $2400, which is about the upper end of what I would pay for any single hobby-related item. I couldn't afford an f4 version unless it were heavily discounted due to condition. I've never seen one like that. I find it quite sharp, though have nothing against which to compare. Fred Wasti has one also, and I bought it based on his recommendations, which I value. Ken Waller has the f4 and lives nearby, maybe someday we can do a comparison. It has one structural flaw that I think is serious - the tripod mount is at the very back end of the lens, near the aperture ring. It is a real "stove pipe" of a lens, long and thin. The slightest jitter is magnified out to the end of the lens, thus making a relatively big arc. Though the lens is light, I don't think my ball head is adequate - it needs something that clamps it down very tight and on a large, non-rotating base. If you're on a budget, though, it's a good ticket for a 600mm lens. But get the f4 if you have the money. -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 26, 2004 7:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: tele extenders how does the A* 600 f5.6 perform wide open and why did you pick this one over any of the 600 f4 lenses? the price difference isn't that large once you have decided to spend that much. Herb - Original Message - From: "Bill Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:42 AM Subject: RE: tele extenders > I have the 600 f5.6, Herb. What would you like to know?
Re: tele extenders
Herb, before I purchased the S convertor for my 300mm f4.5 FA, I spent some time with Pentax Colorado trying to determine the recommended usage. There was confusing literature out there and it took them a while to come up with the correct application info. IIR, it went something like the S is to be used on lenses shorter than 300mm except for the 300mm f 4.5, in other words not on the 300 f2.8 and 400, 500 & 600 mm lenses. Physically, I believe you could cause damage to the lens by trying to fit the L onto lenses where the S was recommended. The L has a significantly longer "snout" and would contact lens elements on those lenses. S you should get the L out of there. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: tele extenders > although the L fits the FA* 400 f5.6 and seems to work so long as you don't > focus too close. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:35 PM > Subject: Re: tele extenders > > > > Its also not good to try to put the L convertor on the 300mm f4.5 FA! > >
Re: tele extenders
although the L fits the FA* 400 f5.6 and seems to work so long as you don't focus too close. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:35 PM Subject: Re: tele extenders > Its also not good to try to put the L convertor on the 300mm f4.5 FA!
Re: tele extenders
Its also not good to try to put the L convertor on the 300mm f4.5 FA! Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: tele extenders > Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I've used them both, in the proper sequence, on the 600mm for 1176mm! > > > >Yes, the sequence is ~very~ important - if you put the TC on the > >~front~ of the 600, you get some really serious vignetting - . > > I believe he meant the sequence of the two teleconverters. You can't put > the 'L' teleconverter behind the 'S' teleconverter because of the snout. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
Re: tele extenders
I even sometimes remember to look throught the small end! Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: tele extenders > > I've used them both, in the proper sequence, on the 600mm for 1176mm! > > Yes, the sequence is ~very~ important - if you put the TC on the > ~front~ of the 600, you get some really serious vignetting - . > > Fred
Re: tele extenders
Herb, I'm sure I've shot the 600mm at smaller apertures, but by far, most of my shots with it have been the lens wide open. I've not done any lens testing on this lens but I've found nothing to complain about as far as lens performance. I gotten very good landscape shots with this lens wide open. I believe fellow Michigander Bill Sawyer has the 600mm f5.6. I don't know if he has coupled it with any converters yet. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:21 AM Subject: Re: tele extenders > OK, i have the A1.4X-L now but no lens to fit it to yet. i will be getting > the A1.4-S pretty soon. i have on my radar a couple of lenses that the L > converter will fit. how is the 600 f4 wide open? i know that such lenses > generally are optimized for use wide open. do yuo know anyone that has used > the A* 600 f5.6? as you can tell, i am on the hunt for * lenses of various > vintages. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:42 PM > Subject: Re: tele extenders > > > > It's the 1.4X-S on the 300mm f4.5 FA and the 1.4X-L on the 600mm f4.0 FA. > > I've used them both, in the proper sequence, on the 600mm for 1176mm! > >
Re: tele extenders
how does the A* 600 f5.6 perform wide open and why did you pick this one over any of the 600 f4 lenses? the price difference isn't that large once you have decided to spend that much. Herb - Original Message - From: "Bill Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:42 AM Subject: RE: tele extenders > I have the 600 f5.6, Herb. What would you like to know?
Re: tele extenders
>>> I've used them both, in the proper sequence, on the 600mm for >>> 1176mm! >> Yes, the sequence is ~very~ important - if you put the TC on the >> ~front~ of the 600, you get some really serious vignetting - >> . > I believe he meant the sequence of the two teleconverters. You > can't put the 'L' teleconverter behind the 'S' teleconverter > because of the snout. Yes, I know - I just couldn't resist the "wisecrack" - . (Sorry.) Fred
Re: tele extenders
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've used them both, in the proper sequence, on the 600mm for 1176mm! > >Yes, the sequence is ~very~ important - if you put the TC on the >~front~ of the 600, you get some really serious vignetting - . I believe he meant the sequence of the two teleconverters. You can't put the 'L' teleconverter behind the 'S' teleconverter because of the snout. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: tele extenders
> I've used them both, in the proper sequence, on the 600mm for 1176mm! Yes, the sequence is ~very~ important - if you put the TC on the ~front~ of the 600, you get some really serious vignetting - . Fred
Re: tele extenders
Can anyone comment on the Kenko KAX MC7 teleconverter? Thanks, Alin
RE: tele extenders
I have the 600 f5.6, Herb. What would you like to know? -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 26, 2004 6:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: tele extenders OK, i have the A1.4X-L now but no lens to fit it to yet. i will be getting the A1.4-S pretty soon. i have on my radar a couple of lenses that the L converter will fit. how is the 600 f4 wide open? i know that such lenses generally are optimized for use wide open. do yuo know anyone that has used the A* 600 f5.6? as you can tell, i am on the hunt for * lenses of various vintages. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: tele extenders > It's the 1.4X-S on the 300mm f4.5 FA and the 1.4X-L on the 600mm f4.0 FA. > I've used them both, in the proper sequence, on the 600mm for 1176mm!
Re: tele extenders
OK, i have the A1.4X-L now but no lens to fit it to yet. i will be getting the A1.4-S pretty soon. i have on my radar a couple of lenses that the L converter will fit. how is the 600 f4 wide open? i know that such lenses generally are optimized for use wide open. do yuo know anyone that has used the A* 600 f5.6? as you can tell, i am on the hunt for * lenses of various vintages. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:42 PM Subject: Re: tele extenders > It's the 1.4X-S on the 300mm f4.5 FA and the 1.4X-L on the 600mm f4.0 FA. > I've used them both, in the proper sequence, on the 600mm for 1176mm!
Re: tele extenders
Herb, It's the 1.4X-S on the 300mm f4.5 FA and the 1.4X-L on the 600mm f4.0 FA. I've used them both, in the proper sequence, on the 600mm for 1176mm! Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: tele extenders > do you use the S or the L extenders? > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:53 PM > Subject: Re: tele extenders > > > > Jay, I regularly use 1.4 Pentax extenders on my 300MM f4.5 FA and 600mm > f4.0 > > FA and am happy with the results. Never tried 2.0 extenders and don't > intend > > to. > >
Re: tele extenders
do you use the S or the L extenders? Herb - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:53 PM Subject: Re: tele extenders > Jay, I regularly use 1.4 Pentax extenders on my 300MM f4.5 FA and 600mm f4.0 > FA and am happy with the results. Never tried 2.0 extenders and don't intend > to.
Re: tele extenders
Jay, I regularly use 1.4 Pentax extenders on my 300MM f4.5 FA and 600mm f4.0 FA and am happy with the results. Never tried 2.0 extenders and don't intend to. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:59 PM Subject: Re: tele extenders > >From: Jay Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or > >300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss > >of sharpness, contrast, etc?
Re: tele extenders
>From: Jay Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or >300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss >of sharpness, contrast, etc? That's exactly it. Usually, it is the loss of sharpness that was noticeable, because loss of contrast can be corrected for more readily. I found 300/2.8A* and 1.4x-AS to be useable, but noticeably less sharp than the tele alone. I had a Tokina 2X that was not great with any lens. The loss of light can also be an issue, making it hard for you or any AF system to focus well if the combo is slower than f/5.6. > When I used a 300/4A* with a 2x-AS I was >always impressed with its results. But now with another system I'm >getting a slightly diffused image with a 70-200/2.8 and 2xEF, more so >than I would have expected. The basic opinion I have seen expressed by many pros that use tele extenders is that 1) 2x extenders are not as good as 1.4x extenders. Very few people I know use a 2x, whereas a lot of them use a 1.4x. I have not read many favorable reviews of 2x converters, and my own limited experience bears this out. 2) zooms are normally VERY POOR with tele extenders compared to primes, and the standard advice is NOT to use any extender with a zoom. Recently, I am hearing that the new 70-200 Nikon and Canon zooms appear to have adequate performance with a 1.4x extender, but it's a combination used out of necessity for most people and I can't believe that the optical results are good. I have seen VERY FEW pros with a 1.4x on their 80-200 zooms, and NONE with the 2x on it. Of course most pros I know own a 300. DJE
Re: tele extenders
At 02:01 PM 3/25/2004 -0600, you wrote: To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or 300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss of sharpness, contrast, etc? When I used a 300/4A* with a 2x-AS I was always impressed with its results. But now with another system I'm getting a slightly diffused image with a 70-200/2.8 and 2xEF, more so than I would have expected. I read somewhere that a zoom basically already has a teleconverter built in. I'm not sure how technically accurate that is, but in a way it makes sense. I've never found a zoom/tc combo that worked well. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: tele extenders
What happens is that all the aberrations of the lens are doubled along with the focal length, old cheap tele-converters add their own aberrations as well. Zooms tend to have more aberrations so they do not stand up to tele-converters as well as most primes. However most of the 2.8 zooms are very good and can stand up to the tele-converter quite well while cheaper zooms do not. However there is no help for the fact that if your lens is sharp at 16x but not higher magnifications with a 2x it will only do 8x. That is simple physics. -- Andre Langevin wrote: To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or 300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss of sharpness, contrast, etc? When I used a 300/4A* with a 2x-AS I was always impressed with its results. But now with another system I'm getting a slightly diffused image with a 70-200/2.8 and 2xEF, more so than I would have expected. I've heard repeatedly that zoom don't marry well with tele-converters. There may be exception, i.e. when a zoom has a dedicated converter, but has there been a lot of them and are they really working fine? Andre -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: tele extenders
Jay Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or >300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss >of sharpness, contrast, etc? When I used a 300/4A* with a 2x-AS I was >always impressed with its results. But now with another system I'm >getting a slightly diffused image with a 70-200/2.8 and 2xEF, more so >than I would have expected. Personally, I'd never use a 2x teleconverter with a 70-200 zoom, even a top-quality f/2.8 one. Generally, I stick with top-notch primes for use with teleconverters. Occasionally (under extreme duress) I have resorted to a 1.4x or 1.7x with my FA*80-200/2.8, but it's usually too much compromise for my taste. Zooms are a compromise, "consumer grade" lenses are a compromise and teleconverters are a compromise. I try to limit myself to one compromise per photo, maximum. :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: tele extenders
To those that have used a 2X tele-extender with a telephoto (200 or 300mm), what do you seem to find to be the compromising element...loss of sharpness, contrast, etc? When I used a 300/4A* with a 2x-AS I was always impressed with its results. But now with another system I'm getting a slightly diffused image with a 70-200/2.8 and 2xEF, more so than I would have expected. I've heard repeatedly that zoom don't marry well with tele-converters. There may be exception, i.e. when a zoom has a dedicated converter, but has there been a lot of them and are they really working fine? Andre
