Re: Teleconverters?
From: paul stenquist On Dec 5, 2010, at 7:32 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: eckinator 2010/12/5 John Francis : For around half the weight (and half the maximum aperture) you could have one with a slightly longer reach that was compatible with your existing equipment. ?The trick is to find one at around half the price, too :-) ? ?http://www.panix.com/~johnf/temp/FatAlbert.jpg ? ?http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/250-600.html ? ?http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/sdwap615.jpg I know... I've been begging to catch one for ages... IIRC there actually was one in the bay last year that did go for around half the price but I missed it. I'll happily plunge up to my neck into debt for one the moment someone decides to sell theirs. Are you reading this, whoever you are? Ecke Every once in a while, just for giggles & grins, I search for "Pentax 800mm f4". Always turns the same one up, listed as "In Stock, Used" - priced something like $7600 with a button for "Make an Offer". Always cheers me up after I've been working on my budget. If I can manage to stick to the budget, my projected income exceeds my projected expenses by about $7.60 a month. If I devote all of my surplus towards it, I should be able to buy it in another 83 years. 8-D You have a 6x7? No, but I figure I can get one by the time I can afford that lens. It'd only add what ... an additional 65 years at my current rate of savings? Or maybe spring for a Pentax 6x7 Lens Adapter K ... I can probably afford one of those in just 16 years. Looks like I'm going to have to find a J-O-B if I ever want to buy any more camera equipment. -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 5, 2010, at 7:32 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: eckinator > >> 2010/12/5 John Francis : >>> > >>> > For around half the weight (and half the maximum aperture) you could have >>> > one with a slightly longer reach that was compatible with your existing >>> > equipment. ?The trick is to find one at around half the price, too :-) >>> > >>> > >>> > ? ?http://www.panix.com/~johnf/temp/FatAlbert.jpg >>> > ? ?http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/250-600.html >>> > ? ?http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/sdwap615.jpg >> I know... I've been begging to catch one for ages... IIRC there >> actually was one in the bay last year that did go for around half the >> price but I missed it. I'll happily plunge up to my neck into debt for >> one the moment someone decides to sell theirs. >> Are you reading this, whoever you are? >> Ecke >> > > Every once in a while, just for giggles & grins, I search for "Pentax 800mm > f4". Always turns the same one up, listed as "In Stock, Used" - priced > something like $7600 with a button for "Make an Offer". > > Always cheers me up after I've been working on my budget. > > If I can manage to stick to the budget, my projected income exceeds my > projected expenses by about $7.60 a month. If I devote all of my surplus > towards it, I should be able to buy it in another 83 years. 8-D > You have a 6x7? > -- > 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
2010/12/6 John Sessoms : > > Every once in a while, just for giggles & grins, I search for "Pentax 800mm > f4". Always turns the same one up, listed as "In Stock, Used" - priced > something like $7600 with a button for "Make an Offer". http://www.h1photo.com/pen29434.html - That one right there? > Always cheers me up after I've been working on my budget. Cheers me up to know it weighs another 2kg more than the shmegma... > If I can manage to stick to the budget, my projected income exceeds my > projected expenses by about $7.60 a month. If I devote all of my surplus > towards it, I should be able to buy it in another 83 years. 8-D inflation... :[ -- 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: Teleconverters
On 2010-12-05 13:14, Eric Weir wrote: Looks like I won't be getting the A2XS. The bidding's gotten to high for me. Wow! With the prices I see on ebay, maybe I should sell all my Pentax gear and retire! I shudder to think what it would cost to replace just the F* 300/4.5 and FA* 200/2.8. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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: Teleconverters?
From: eckinator 2010/12/5 John Francis : > > For around half the weight (and half the maximum aperture) you could have > one with a slightly longer reach that was compatible with your existing > equipment. ?The trick is to find one at around half the price, too :-) > > > ? ?http://www.panix.com/~johnf/temp/FatAlbert.jpg > ? ?http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/250-600.html > ? ?http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/sdwap615.jpg I know... I've been begging to catch one for ages... IIRC there actually was one in the bay last year that did go for around half the price but I missed it. I'll happily plunge up to my neck into debt for one the moment someone decides to sell theirs. Are you reading this, whoever you are? Ecke Every once in a while, just for giggles & grins, I search for "Pentax 800mm f4". Always turns the same one up, listed as "In Stock, Used" - priced something like $7600 with a button for "Make an Offer". Always cheers me up after I've been working on my budget. If I can manage to stick to the budget, my projected income exceeds my projected expenses by about $7.60 a month. If I devote all of my surplus towards it, I should be able to buy it in another 83 years. 8-D -- 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: Teleconverters?
I haven't noticed any more degradation but you must remember an 8x10" enlargement from 35mm film roughly 8.5x while and from an aps-c enlargement you're talking a 13x enlargement, so any defects in the image will be more visible in the latter case. However you will be taking the center portion of the lens/converter image, the so called sweet spot., on the digital image, (unless you're one of those lucky millionaires who own a Canon or Nikon with a ~24x~36mm sensor), so that will work in favor of the digital camera. So with a really good quality TC and really good quality lens, you might actually improve overall image quality on an aps-c sensor camera. Whereas with the 35mm film camera overall image quality is mostly likely to suffer to some extent. On 12/2/2010 5:36 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Speaking of which, do TC's have as noticeable an impact on IQ when used on film bodies as they do on DSLRs? -- Walt On 12/2/2010 4:28 PM, Miserere wrote: On 2 December 2010 15:53, J.C. O'Connell wrote: FWIW, I have refrained from using TCs because of the simple fact there is a slight loss in resolution and contrast(added flare). Somehow prime lenses don't feel right with TCs added on. I stopped using TCs because they're obsolete in the digital world of today's high-pixel-count cameras. It's true, Pentax said so. —M. \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- 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: Teleconverters?
2010/12/5 John Francis : > > For around half the weight (and half the maximum aperture) you could have > one with a slightly longer reach that was compatible with your existing > equipment. The trick is to find one at around half the price, too :-) > > > http://www.panix.com/~johnf/temp/FatAlbert.jpg > http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/250-600.html > http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/sdwap615.jpg I know... I've been begging to catch one for ages... IIRC there actually was one in the bay last year that did go for around half the price but I missed it. I'll happily plunge up to my neck into debt for one the moment someone decides to sell theirs. Are you reading this, whoever you are? Ecke -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 10:28:29AM +0100, eckinator wrote: > 2010/12/5 John Sessoms : > > > > Yup. Sometimes if you can afford it, you get the tools you want. Most of the > > time you use the tools you already have. That's why I'm shooting with the > > 300mm I've got and not the 600mm I'd have if money grew on trees. > > the other day on eBay Germany, two new Sigma 200-500/2.8, one Canon, > one Nikon, each went for a little over ?7K. You can imagine how hard I > was looking for the money tree - it would have been a cool gadget to > have for sure. However, at 15.7 kgs plus another 23.1 for the carrying > case - plus of course a massive tripod, not to mention the little > black thingy that clings to the back of the lens - it is too much to > handle so I guess I'm not all that sad... =) For around half the weight (and half the maximum aperture) you could have one with a slightly longer reach that was compatible with your existing equipment. The trick is to find one at around half the price, too :-) http://www.panix.com/~johnf/temp/FatAlbert.jpg http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/250-600.html http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/sdwap615.jpg -- 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: Teleconverters
Looks like I won't be getting the A2XS. The bidding's gotten to high for me. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
btw just enabled myself with the Bower I mentioned in a previous reply on this thread - eBay steal for € 22 thanks to a poorly described listing - now I'll find out first hand how good or bad it really is =) cheers ecke 2010/12/5 eckinator : > 2010/12/5 John Sessoms : >> >> Yup. Sometimes if you can afford it, you get the tools you want. Most of the >> time you use the tools you already have. That's why I'm shooting with the >> 300mm I've got and not the 600mm I'd have if money grew on trees. > > the other day on eBay Germany, two new Sigma 200-500/2.8, one Canon, > one Nikon, each went for a little over €7K. You can imagine how hard I > was looking for the money tree - it would have been a cool gadget to > have for sure. However, at 15.7 kgs plus another 23.1 for the carrying > case - plus of course a massive tripod, not to mention the little > black thingy that clings to the back of the lens - it is too much to > handle so I guess I'm not all that sad... =) > -- 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: Teleconverters?
2010/12/5 John Sessoms : > > Yup. Sometimes if you can afford it, you get the tools you want. Most of the > time you use the tools you already have. That's why I'm shooting with the > 300mm I've got and not the 600mm I'd have if money grew on trees. the other day on eBay Germany, two new Sigma 200-500/2.8, one Canon, one Nikon, each went for a little over €7K. You can imagine how hard I was looking for the money tree - it would have been a cool gadget to have for sure. However, at 15.7 kgs plus another 23.1 for the carrying case - plus of course a massive tripod, not to mention the little black thingy that clings to the back of the lens - it is too much to handle so I guess I'm not all that sad... =) -- 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: Teleconverters?
From: Doug Franklin On 2010-12-04 10:12, John Sessoms wrote: > The long tele-photo prime without tele-converter is always going to > trump the medium tele-photo prime with tele-converter. And both of them > will give sharper images without the TC than a long zoom with the TC will. I can afford a 400mm lens and a 2x converter. I can't afford an 800mm (refractive) lens. ;-) Yup. Sometimes if you can afford it, you get the tools you want. Most of the time you use the tools you already have. That's why I'm shooting with the 300mm I've got and not the 600mm I'd have if money grew on trees. -- 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: Teleconverters
On Dec 4, 2010, at 7:15 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > On 12/2/2010 6:48 PM, Eric Weir wrote: >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: >> >>> I like both TC's. However, since I got my hands on the 1.7X AF, >>> I prefer it. The AF adds some convenience. >>> >> Dumb question now. I think I know the answer without thinking about it very >> hard. Nevertheless: Can a teleconverter add functionality to a lenses, e.g., >> give on-camera control of aperture to an M lens? > > A properly designed one could, but any currently available? Err no. The AF > 1.7x adapter does add limited auto focus to even M42 .lenses however. Wow! -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters
On 12/2/2010 6:48 PM, Eric Weir wrote: On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: I've used two TC's: A2X-S and F 1.7X AF, both mostly for "macro" (or close-distance) shots. Here is an example of my first use of the A2x-S (with a zoom - since you asked): http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/WildAnimalPark/IMGP5086w2.jpg It was shot with *istDS. For detail, see this old post of mine: http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg387319.html (The link to the photo is updated here.) Neat, Igor. And thanks for the link to the thread, which made me chuckle. I like both TC's. However, since I got my hands on the 1.7X AF, I prefer it. The AF adds some convenience. (E.g. I tried it recently in Sydney with Rob's 300/2.8, while shooting surfers and it was nice! - I hope to use the upcoming break to work on the photo backlog.) Dumb question now. I think I know the answer without thinking about it very hard. Nevertheless: Can a teleconverter add functionality to a lenses, e.g., give on-camera control of aperture to an M lens? A properly designed one could, but any currently available? Err no. The AF 1.7x adapter does add limited auto focus to even M42 .lenses however. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom! --Marvin the Martian. -- 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: Teleconverters?
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "P N Stenquist" Subject: Re: Teleconverters? On Dec 4, 2010, at 10:12 AM, John Sessoms wrote: From: "Peter Loveday" Ken Waller and his 600mm is always gonna beat you and your 300mm w/TC. > Thanks for the confidence Bob, but equipment will only take you so > far... > ;+} Indeed. It's not about the equipment. A *great* photographer can make a 10mm fisheye look like a 600mm tele :) But, when would he do that? One of the characteristic skills that make a photographer *great* is knowing & using the most suitable lens for the situation. Or conversely, creating photos that make the best use of the available lens. I make no claim to greatness, although I have aspirations, but if I'm using a 10mm fish-eye, I don't want photos that look like they were taken with a 600mm tele. It was obviously a joke. We're all with you on this. Loosen the cincture:-). Paul Or did you mean sphincter? ;+} The long tele-photo prime without tele-converter is always going to trump the medium tele-photo prime with tele-converter. And both of them will give sharper images without the TC than a long zoom with the TC will. All other things being equal, my 300mm with a 2x tele-converter will not give me as sharp an image as I could get with the 600mm. Without the tele-converter my 300 is just as sharp as the 600, but doesn't get in as close. And the 600 with a tele-converter would suffer just as much loss of sharpness as the 300 does. But it would still get in a hell of a lot closer. I have the 300. I don't have the 600. To me, the path to greatness is to make the best images I can make with the 300 I have and not worry about what the 600 can do for me until the day ever comes that I can afford to buy one & hire the necessary Sherpa to carry it around for me. The same applies to making photographs using a tele-converter. You make the best image you can given the characteristic limits imposed by the equipment. And accept that sometimes the limits imposed by the equipment are going to keep you from getting the image you really want. I apologize for the rant. I *did* see the smiley. Don't even know why. While I've been in school, I've hardly had occasion to use the 300 other than for baseball last summer, and for that the 300 was almost too long ... got more utility from my 80-200. Most everything I've done in school this year has been at 70mm or shorter. -- 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: Teleconverters?
A few years back I did some test shots with my 600 & my converters - A-1.4XL & A-2.0XL on a tree in my backyard, to see the effects of the converters. Nothing very scientific. I focused the set up on a distant tree, locked it down and shot the 600 alone, with the 1.4 & then the 2.0, keeping the subject centered and in focus manually. Obviously the 600 alone provided the best result but the 1.4 & 2.0 converters, while noticeably affecting image quality, provided very acceptable results. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "John Sessoms" Subject: Re: Teleconverters? From: "Peter Loveday" Ken Waller and his 600mm is always gonna beat you and your 300mm w/TC. > Thanks for the confidence Bob, but equipment will only take you so > far... > ;+} Indeed. It's not about the equipment. A *great* photographer can make a 10mm fisheye look like a 600mm tele :) But, when would he do that? One of the characteristic skills that make a photographer *great* is knowing & using the most suitable lens for the situation. Or conversely, creating photos that make the best use of the available lens. I make no claim to greatness, although I have aspirations, but if I'm using a 10mm fish-eye, I don't want photos that look like they were taken with a 600mm tele. The long tele-photo prime without tele-converter is always going to trump the medium tele-photo prime with tele-converter. And both of them will give sharper images without the TC than a long zoom with the TC will. All other things being equal, my 300mm with a 2x tele-converter will not give me as sharp an image as I could get with the 600mm. Without the tele-converter my 300 is just as sharp as the 600, but doesn't get in as close. And the 600 with a tele-converter would suffer just as much loss of sharpness as the 300 does. But it would still get in a hell of a lot closer. I have the 300. I don't have the 600. To me, the path to greatness is to make the best images I can make with the 300 I have and not worry about what the 600 can do for me until the day ever comes that I can afford to buy one & hire the necessary Sherpa to carry it around for me. The same applies to making photographs using a tele-converter. You make the best image you can given the characteristic limits imposed by the equipment. And accept that sometimes the limits imposed by the equipment are going to keep you from getting the image you really want. I apologize for the rant. I *did* see the smiley. Don't even know why. While I've been in school, I've hardly had occasion to use the 300 other than for baseball last summer, and for that the 300 was almost too long ... got more utility from my 80-200. Most everything I've done in school this year has been at 70mm or shorter. -- 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: Teleconverters?
On 2010-12-04 10:12, John Sessoms wrote: The long tele-photo prime without tele-converter is always going to trump the medium tele-photo prime with tele-converter. And both of them will give sharper images without the TC than a long zoom with the TC will. I can afford a 400mm lens and a 2x converter. I can't afford an 800mm (refractive) lens. ;-) -- Thanks DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 4, 2010, at 10:12 AM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: "Peter Loveday" > Ken Waller and his 600mm is always gonna beat you and your 300mm w/TC. >>> > Thanks for the confidence Bob, but equipment will only take you so far... >>> > ;+} >> Indeed. It's not about the equipment. A *great* photographer can make a >> 10mm fisheye look like a 600mm tele :) >> > > But, when would he do that? > > One of the characteristic skills that make a photographer *great* is knowing > & using the most suitable lens for the situation. Or conversely, creating > photos that make the best use of the available lens. > > I make no claim to greatness, although I have aspirations, but if I'm using a > 10mm fish-eye, I don't want photos that look like they were taken with a > 600mm tele. It was obviously a joke. We're all with you on this. Loosen the cincture:-). Paul > > The long tele-photo prime without tele-converter is always going to trump the > medium tele-photo prime with tele-converter. And both of them will give > sharper images without the TC than a long zoom with the TC will. > > All other things being equal, my 300mm with a 2x tele-converter will not give > me as sharp an image as I could get with the 600mm. Without the > tele-converter my 300 is just as sharp as the 600, but doesn't get in as > close. > > And the 600 with a tele-converter would suffer just as much loss of sharpness > as the 300 does. But it would still get in a hell of a lot closer. > > I have the 300. I don't have the 600. > > To me, the path to greatness is to make the best images I can make with the > 300 I have and not worry about what the 600 can do for me until the day ever > comes that I can afford to buy one & hire the necessary Sherpa to carry it > around for me. > > The same applies to making photographs using a tele-converter. You make the > best image you can given the characteristic limits imposed by the equipment. > And accept that sometimes the limits imposed by the equipment are going to > keep you from getting the image you really want. > > I apologize for the rant. I *did* see the smiley. > > Don't even know why. > > While I've been in school, I've hardly had occasion to use the 300 other than > for baseball last summer, and for that the 300 was almost too long ... got > more utility from my 80-200. > > Most everything I've done in school this year has been at 70mm or shorter. > > -- > 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 4, 2010, at 10:12 AM, John Sessoms wrote: > I apologize for the rant. No need. Well put. And well taken -- by this member, anyway. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
From: "Peter Loveday" Ken Waller and his 600mm is always gonna beat you and your 300mm w/TC. > Thanks for the confidence Bob, but equipment will only take you so far... > ;+} Indeed. It's not about the equipment. A *great* photographer can make a 10mm fisheye look like a 600mm tele :) But, when would he do that? One of the characteristic skills that make a photographer *great* is knowing & using the most suitable lens for the situation. Or conversely, creating photos that make the best use of the available lens. I make no claim to greatness, although I have aspirations, but if I'm using a 10mm fish-eye, I don't want photos that look like they were taken with a 600mm tele. The long tele-photo prime without tele-converter is always going to trump the medium tele-photo prime with tele-converter. And both of them will give sharper images without the TC than a long zoom with the TC will. All other things being equal, my 300mm with a 2x tele-converter will not give me as sharp an image as I could get with the 600mm. Without the tele-converter my 300 is just as sharp as the 600, but doesn't get in as close. And the 600 with a tele-converter would suffer just as much loss of sharpness as the 300 does. But it would still get in a hell of a lot closer. I have the 300. I don't have the 600. To me, the path to greatness is to make the best images I can make with the 300 I have and not worry about what the 600 can do for me until the day ever comes that I can afford to buy one & hire the necessary Sherpa to carry it around for me. The same applies to making photographs using a tele-converter. You make the best image you can given the characteristic limits imposed by the equipment. And accept that sometimes the limits imposed by the equipment are going to keep you from getting the image you really want. I apologize for the rant. I *did* see the smiley. Don't even know why. While I've been in school, I've hardly had occasion to use the 300 other than for baseball last summer, and for that the 300 was almost too long ... got more utility from my 80-200. Most everything I've done in school this year has been at 70mm or shorter. -- 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: Teleconverters?
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Peter Loveday" Subject: Re: Teleconverters? Ken Waller and his 600mm is always gonna beat you and your 300mm w/TC. Thanks for the confidence Bob, but equipment will only take you so far... ;+} Indeed. It's not about the equipment. A *great* photographer can make a 10mm fisheye look like a 600mm tele :) Its a wonder what photoshop can do ! - Peter -- 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: Teleconverters?
Ken Waller and his 600mm is always gonna beat you and your 300mm w/TC. Thanks for the confidence Bob, but equipment will only take you so far... ;+} Indeed. It's not about the equipment. A *great* photographer can make a 10mm fisheye look like a 600mm tele :) - Peter -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 3, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Ken Waller wrote: > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan" > Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > > >> Mark, >> Lovely photo and appropriate way to evaluate TC images. >> They help you get something better, but don't expect miracles. >> Ken Waller and his 600mm is always gonna beat you and your 300mm w/TC. > > Thanks for the confidence Bob, but equipment will only take you so far... ;+} Of course if you have a sherpa to schlep the equipment, it can take you further. Paul > >> Regards, Bob S. >> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: >>> Ken Waller wrote: >>> >>>> When using them is the difference of getting/not getting the image I want - >>>> I use them. >>>> I can't say the loss of resolution and contrast has been an issue for me in >>>> their usage. >>> >>> Same here. As someone on the PDML once pointed out, the correct >>> comparison isn't between one lens with a teleconverter and another >>> lens of the resulting focal length; the proper comparison is between a >>> photo using the teleconverter and photo taken with the same lens sans >>> teleconverter, enlarged and cropped to the same field of view. With >>> *good quality* glass (primary lens and TC) you get better end results >>> with the teleconverter. >>> Here's one that worked for me: >>> http://www.robertstech.com/pages/fotoblog/7d904208.htm > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan" Subject: Re: Teleconverters? Mark, Lovely photo and appropriate way to evaluate TC images. They help you get something better, but don't expect miracles. Ken Waller and his 600mm is always gonna beat you and your 300mm w/TC. Thanks for the confidence Bob, but equipment will only take you so far... ;+} Regards, Bob S. On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Ken Waller wrote: When using them is the difference of getting/not getting the image I want - I use them. I can't say the loss of resolution and contrast has been an issue for me in their usage. Same here. As someone on the PDML once pointed out, the correct comparison isn't between one lens with a teleconverter and another lens of the resulting focal length; the proper comparison is between a photo using the teleconverter and photo taken with the same lens sans teleconverter, enlarged and cropped to the same field of view. With *good quality* glass (primary lens and TC) you get better end results with the teleconverter. Here's one that worked for me: http://www.robertstech.com/pages/fotoblog/7d904208.htm -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 3, 2010, at 4:53 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > The Kenko AF converter would not require you to have auto-focus lenses, but > the capability would be there for the future if you ever wanted it. You > wouldn't have to buy another converter to add auto-focus. > > In the meantime, the Kenko converter should be backward compatible with the > 'A' and 'M' lenses in addition to having the contacts necessary to use it > with auto-focus lenses. > > Just as a guess, I would suspect the 'A' in "A2X-S" indicates the converter > has the contacts necessary for 'A' lenses to function *as* 'A' lenses when > used with the converter, and that 'M' lenses will function as 'M' lenses when > used with it. > > But since, there's no 'F' in the nomenclature, it probably doesn't support > auto-focus. Thanks, John. Cost is a consideration for me right now -- and likely for the rest of my life! Can't be sure what the A2X-S will go for, but I've got my fingers crossed. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
Thankfully, he had it within his heart not to say so. -- Walt On 12/3/2010 2:03 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Dec 3, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Walter Gilbert wrote: Agreed! What was the lens? He probably just used a lensbaby with the teleconverter, just to show us up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: Teleconverters?
Well, if you ever decide to rid yourself of all your material possessions in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment, I call dibs. -- Walt On 12/3/2010 2:15 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Walter Gilbert wrote: Agreed! What was the lens? For this? http://www.robertstech.com/pages/fotoblog/7d904208.htm Pentax FA*300/2.8 with Sigma EX Series 2x teleconverter. -- 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: Teleconverters?
From: Eric Weir On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:06 PM, John Sessoms wrote: The only advantage is it will work with the manual focus lenses you have now and will work with AF lenses in the future without having to buy another converter. It just has the contacts the AF lenses will need if you ever do decide to try Auto-focus, but doesn't require you to use Auto-focus lenses. The other thing it has that you may need is the contacts for 'A' lenses. So the "A" in "A2X-S" has nothing to do with the "A" as in an "A" lens? And A lenses will be essentially M lenses when used with this convertor? I have no idea. I was referring to the Kenko AF converter someone else recommended. I posted before I saw the later comments regarding the "A2X-S" converter. The Kenko AF converter would not require you to have auto-focus lenses, but the capability would be there for the future if you ever wanted it. You wouldn't have to buy another converter to add auto-focus. In the meantime, the Kenko converter should be backward compatible with the 'A' and 'M' lenses in addition to having the contacts necessary to use it with auto-focus lenses. Just as a guess, I would suspect the 'A' in "A2X-S" indicates the converter has the contacts necessary for 'A' lenses to function *as* 'A' lenses when used with the converter, and that 'M' lenses will function as 'M' lenses when used with it. But since, there's no 'F' in the nomenclature, it probably doesn't support auto-focus. -- 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: Teleconverters?
Walter Gilbert wrote: > Agreed! > >What was the lens? For this? http://www.robertstech.com/pages/fotoblog/7d904208.htm Pentax FA*300/2.8 with Sigma EX Series 2x teleconverter. -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 3, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Walter Gilbert wrote: > Agreed! > > What was the lens? He probably just used a lensbaby with the teleconverter, just to show us up. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: Teleconverters?
Agreed! What was the lens? On 12/3/2010 1:00 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Wow! That is indeed a stunning image. Dan http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Ken Waller wrote: A very good, vivid& well focused image ! Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" Subject: Re: Teleconverters? Ken Waller wrote: When using them is the difference of getting/not getting the image I want - I use them. I can't say the loss of resolution and contrast has been an issue for me in their usage. Same here. As someone on the PDML once pointed out, the correct comparison isn't between one lens with a teleconverter and another lens of the resulting focal length; the proper comparison is between a photo using the teleconverter and photo taken with the same lens sans teleconverter, enlarged and cropped to the same field of view. With *good quality* glass (primary lens and TC) you get better end results with the teleconverter. Here's one that worked for me: http://www.robertstech.com/pages/fotoblog/7d904208.htm -- 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
Wow! That is indeed a stunning image. Dan http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Ken Waller wrote: > A very good, vivid & well focused image ! > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" > Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > > >> Ken Waller wrote: >> >>> When using them is the difference of getting/not getting the image I want >>> - >>> I use them. >>> I can't say the loss of resolution and contrast has been an issue for me >>> in >>> their usage. >> >> Same here. As someone on the PDML once pointed out, the correct >> comparison isn't between one lens with a teleconverter and another >> lens of the resulting focal length; the proper comparison is between a >> photo using the teleconverter and photo taken with the same lens sans >> teleconverter, enlarged and cropped to the same field of view. With >> *good quality* glass (primary lens and TC) you get better end results >> with the teleconverter. >> Here's one that worked for me: >> http://www.robertstech.com/pages/fotoblog/7d904208.htm > > > -- > 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. > -- 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: Teleconverters?
A very good, vivid & well focused image ! Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" Subject: Re: Teleconverters? Ken Waller wrote: When using them is the difference of getting/not getting the image I want - I use them. I can't say the loss of resolution and contrast has been an issue for me in their usage. Same here. As someone on the PDML once pointed out, the correct comparison isn't between one lens with a teleconverter and another lens of the resulting focal length; the proper comparison is between a photo using the teleconverter and photo taken with the same lens sans teleconverter, enlarged and cropped to the same field of view. With *good quality* glass (primary lens and TC) you get better end results with the teleconverter. Here's one that worked for me: http://www.robertstech.com/pages/fotoblog/7d904208.htm -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 3, 2010, at 7:03 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Same here. As someone on the PDML once pointed out, the correct > comparison isn't between one lens with a teleconverter and another > lens of the resulting focal length; the proper comparison is between a > photo using the teleconverter and photo taken with the same lens sans > teleconverter, enlarged and cropped to the same field of view. With > *good quality* glass (primary lens and TC) you get better end results > with the teleconverter. > Here's one that worked for me: > http://www.robertstech.com/pages/fotoblog/7d904208.htm Very nice. Especially knowing how it was made. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 3, 2010, at 12:09 AM, paul stenquist wrote: >> So the "A" in "A2X-S" has nothing to do with the "A" as in an "A" lens? And >> A lenses will be essentially M lenses when used with this convertor? >> > No, i's an "A" converter. You'll get auto exposure with it when using an > A-Series or newer lens. But it doesn't have the autofocus contacts. Thanks, Paul. As I said to Peter, I was hoping so. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Peter Loveday wrote: > No not at all, the 2XS-A (and all -A) convertor has the A contacts. Ah! I was hoping so. Thanks, Peter. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
Mark, Lovely photo and appropriate way to evaluate TC images. They help you get something better, but don't expect miracles. Ken Waller and his 600mm is always gonna beat you and your 300mm w/TC. Regards, Bob S. On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Ken Waller wrote: > >>When using them is the difference of getting/not getting the image I want - >>I use them. >>I can't say the loss of resolution and contrast has been an issue for me in >>their usage. > > Same here. As someone on the PDML once pointed out, the correct > comparison isn't between one lens with a teleconverter and another > lens of the resulting focal length; the proper comparison is between a > photo using the teleconverter and photo taken with the same lens sans > teleconverter, enlarged and cropped to the same field of view. With > *good quality* glass (primary lens and TC) you get better end results > with the teleconverter. > Here's one that worked for me: > http://www.robertstech.com/pages/fotoblog/7d904208.htm > > > -- > 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. > -- 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: Teleconverters?
Ken Waller wrote: >When using them is the difference of getting/not getting the image I want - >I use them. >I can't say the loss of resolution and contrast has been an issue for me in >their usage. Same here. As someone on the PDML once pointed out, the correct comparison isn't between one lens with a teleconverter and another lens of the resulting focal length; the proper comparison is between a photo using the teleconverter and photo taken with the same lens sans teleconverter, enlarged and cropped to the same field of view. With *good quality* glass (primary lens and TC) you get better end results with the teleconverter. Here's one that worked for me: http://www.robertstech.com/pages/fotoblog/7d904208.htm -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:32 PM, Eric Weir wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:06 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > >> The only advantage is it will work with the manual focus lenses you have now >> and will work with AF lenses in the future without having to buy another >> converter. It just has the contacts the AF lenses will need if you ever do >> decide to try Auto-focus, but doesn't require you to use Auto-focus lenses. >> >> The other thing it has that you may need is the contacts for 'A' lenses. > > So the "A" in "A2X-S" has nothing to do with the "A" as in an "A" lens? And A > lenses will be essentially M lenses when used with this convertor? > No, i's an "A" converter. You'll get auto exposure with it when using an A-Series or newer lens. But it doesn't have the autofocus contacts. Paul > -- > Eric Weir > Decatur, GA USA > eew...@bellsouth.net > > > > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
No not at all, the 2XS-A (and all -A) convertor has the A contacts. - Peter -Original Message- From: Eric Weir Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:02 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Teleconverters? On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:06 PM, John Sessoms wrote: The only advantage is it will work with the manual focus lenses you have now and will work with AF lenses in the future without having to buy another converter. It just has the contacts the AF lenses will need if you ever do decide to try Auto-focus, but doesn't require you to use Auto-focus lenses. The other thing it has that you may need is the contacts for 'A' lenses. So the "A" in "A2X-S" has nothing to do with the "A" as in an "A" lens? And A lenses will be essentially M lenses when used with this convertor? -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 2, 2010, at 8:06 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > The only advantage is it will work with the manual focus lenses you have now > and will work with AF lenses in the future without having to buy another > converter. It just has the contacts the AF lenses will need if you ever do > decide to try Auto-focus, but doesn't require you to use Auto-focus lenses. > > The other thing it has that you may need is the contacts for 'A' lenses. So the "A" in "A2X-S" has nothing to do with the "A" as in an "A" lens? And A lenses will be essentially M lenses when used with this convertor? -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
From: Eric Weir On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:34 AM, eckinator wrote: > You may want to shop for the Kenko MC7 Pz-Af teleconverter - it is > optically fairly good with 7 elements and couples all mount contacts > including SDM and/or power soom. It also comes branded as Bower and > Soligor. On eBay Germany they typically sell between 50 and 125 ?, > dunno about US price levels Thanks, Ecke. For the moment, at least, I'm avoiding AF. The only advantage is it will work with the manual focus lenses you have now and will work with AF lenses in the future without having to buy another converter. It just has the contacts the AF lenses will need if you ever do decide to try Auto-focus, but doesn't require you to use Auto-focus lenses. The other thing it has that you may need is the contacts for 'A' lenses. -- 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: Teleconverters
On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: > I've used two TC's: A2X-S and F 1.7X AF, > both mostly for "macro" (or close-distance) shots. > > Here is an example of my first use of the A2x-S (with a zoom - since you > asked): > http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/WildAnimalPark/IMGP5086w2.jpg > It was shot with *istDS. > For detail, see this old post of mine: > http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg387319.html > (The link to the photo is updated here.) Neat, Igor. And thanks for the link to the thread, which made me chuckle. > I like both TC's. However, since I got my hands on the 1.7X AF, > I prefer it. The AF adds some convenience. > (E.g. I tried it recently in Sydney with Rob's 300/2.8, while shooting > surfers and it was nice! - I hope to use the upcoming break to work > on the photo backlog.) Dumb question now. I think I know the answer without thinking about it very hard. Nevertheless: Can a teleconverter add functionality to a lenses, e.g., give on-camera control of aperture to an M lens? -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Walter Gilbert wrote: > I've used my Promaster 7-element 2X teleconverter with my 50-200mm kit > lens to shoot birds and gotten *decent* results as long as the birds > cooperated and as long as I stayed away from the farthest reaches of the > lens. Of course, the maximum aperture on the 50-200 is f/4, so I couldn't > reasonably expect anything more than just decent. > > I'm sure the Pentax has better optics, so you may have better luck than I > have -- most assuredly if you have a wider-aperture zoom. Thanks, Walter. My zooms f/4. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 2, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Ken Waller wrote: > I currently have the rear convertor A-1.4 X-S, X-1.4X-L and A2.0X-L & have > used them extensively when needed without any particular issue. The A2.0X-L > is the least used for me. > > They're a great way to extend your 'photo reach' relatively cheaply compared > to the cost of an equivalent lens. Thanks, Ken -- and everyone else who responded. -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
> > I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've got my eye on > a Pentax 2X Teleconverter-A. I know nothing about > teleconverters. General advice would be welcome as well as > comments specifically about this one. > > I haven't really done any wildlife photography, but it's on > my agenda, and I imagine it could be put to use in that connection. > I used to have one which I used with an A 400/5.6. It made it very dark and difficult to use, but the results were good. I used it wildlife watching in South Africa propped on a vehicle roof with a load of bean bags and suchlike. When I used it with tripods I found it quite difficult but that was because the tripods weren't really up to the job. B -- 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: Teleconverters?
Duly noted, and much appreciated. -- Walt On 12/2/2010 4:39 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Yes! Jack --- On Thu, 12/2/10, Walter Gilbert wrote: From: Walter Gilbert Subject: Re: Teleconverters? To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 2:36 PM Speaking of which, do TC's have as noticeable an impact on IQ when used on film bodies as they do on DSLRs? -- Walt On 12/2/2010 4:28 PM, Miserere wrote: On 2 December 2010 15:53, J.C. O'Connell wrote: FWIW, I have refrained from using TCs because of the simple fact there is a slight loss in resolution and contrast(added flare). Somehow prime lenses don't feel right with TCs added on. I stopped using TCs because they're obsolete in the digital world of today's high-pixel-count cameras. It's true, Pentax said so. —M. \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
Yes! Jack --- On Thu, 12/2/10, Walter Gilbert wrote: > From: Walter Gilbert > Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 2:36 PM > Speaking of which, do > TC's have as noticeable an impact on IQ when > used on film bodies as they do on DSLRs? > > -- Walt > > On 12/2/2010 4:28 PM, Miserere wrote: > > On 2 December 2010 15:53, J.C. O'Connell > wrote: > >> FWIW, I have refrained from using TCs because > >> of the simple fact there is a slight loss in > >> resolution and contrast(added flare). Somehow > >> prime lenses don't feel right with TCs added on. > >> > > I stopped using TCs because they're obsolete in the > digital world of > > today's high-pixel-count cameras. It's true, Pentax > said so. > > > > > > —M. > > > > \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com > > > > http://EnticingTheLight.com > > A Quest for Photographic > Enlightenment > > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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: Teleconverters?
Speaking of which, do TC's have as noticeable an impact on IQ when used on film bodies as they do on DSLRs? -- Walt On 12/2/2010 4:28 PM, Miserere wrote: On 2 December 2010 15:53, J.C. O'Connell wrote: FWIW, I have refrained from using TCs because of the simple fact there is a slight loss in resolution and contrast(added flare). Somehow prime lenses don't feel right with TCs added on. I stopped using TCs because they're obsolete in the digital world of today's high-pixel-count cameras. It's true, Pentax said so. —M. \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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: Teleconverters?
On 2 December 2010 15:53, J.C. O'Connell wrote: > FWIW, I have refrained from using TCs because > of the simple fact there is a slight loss in > resolution and contrast(added flare). Somehow > prime lenses don't feel right with TCs added on. > I stopped using TCs because they're obsolete in the digital world of today's high-pixel-count cameras. It's true, Pentax said so. —M. \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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: Teleconverters?
Same has been true for me, Ken. I've never used anything beyond a 1.4, so have been conservative and thus conditionally pleased with the results. Jack --- On Thu, 12/2/10, Ken Waller wrote: > From: Ken Waller > Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 1:14 PM > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > - Original Message ----- From: "J.C. O'Connell" > > Subject: RE: Teleconverters? > > > > FWIW, I have refrained from using TCs because > > of the simple fact there is a slight loss in > > resolution and contrast(added flare). Somehow > > prime lenses don't feel right with TCs added on. > > When using them is the difference of getting/not getting > the image I want - I use them. > I can't say the loss of resolution and contrast has been an > issue for me in their usage. > > > > > -- > > J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) > > Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions : > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/ > > http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/ > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net > [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] > On Behalf Of Ken > > Waller > > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:49 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > > > > > > I've always been of the mindset to use converters from > the same maker as the > > > > lens, tho I have never evaluated brand X convertors on > brand Y lenses. > > > > I currently have the rear convertor A-1.4 X-S, > X-1.4X-L and A2.0X-L & have > > used them extensively when needed without any > particular issue. The A2.0X-L > > is the least used for me. > > > > They're a great way to extend your 'photo reach' > relatively cheaply compared > > > > to the cost of an equivalent lens. > > > > Kenneth Waller > > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > > > - Original Message - From: "Eric Weir" > > Subject: Teleconverters? > > > > > >> > >> I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've got > my eye on a Pentax > >> 2X > >> Teleconverter-A. I know nothing about > teleconverters. General advice would > > > >> be welcome as well as comments specifically about > this one. > >> > >> I haven't really done any wildlife photography, > but it's on my agenda, > >> and > >> I imagine it could be put to use in that > connection. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > -- > >> > >> Eric Weir > >> Decatur, GA USA > >> eew...@bellsouth.net > >> > >> P.S. I got a Weston Master II exposure meter and > manual of eBay. Both > >> look in good condition. It's been suggested that > even it didn't work one > >> of these, or something like it, would help me > understand exposure better. > > > -- 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. > -- 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: Teleconverters?
On 2010-12-02 16:14, Ken Waller wrote: When using them is the difference of getting/not getting the image I want - I use them. I can't say the loss of resolution and contrast has been an issue for me in their usage. Ditto. When I use one, I'm typically adding it to a long lens to get more reach, anyway, so the image quality is already suffering. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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: Teleconverters?
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "J.C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Teleconverters? FWIW, I have refrained from using TCs because of the simple fact there is a slight loss in resolution and contrast(added flare). Somehow prime lenses don't feel right with TCs added on. When using them is the difference of getting/not getting the image I want - I use them. I can't say the loss of resolution and contrast has been an issue for me in their usage. -- J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/ http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/ -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Ken Waller Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Teleconverters? I've always been of the mindset to use converters from the same maker as the lens, tho I have never evaluated brand X convertors on brand Y lenses. I currently have the rear convertor A-1.4 X-S, X-1.4X-L and A2.0X-L & have used them extensively when needed without any particular issue. The A2.0X-L is the least used for me. They're a great way to extend your 'photo reach' relatively cheaply compared to the cost of an equivalent lens. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Eric Weir" Subject: Teleconverters? I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've got my eye on a Pentax 2X Teleconverter-A. I know nothing about teleconverters. General advice would be welcome as well as comments specifically about this one. I haven't really done any wildlife photography, but it's on my agenda, and I imagine it could be put to use in that connection. Thanks, -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net P.S. I got a Weston Master II exposure meter and manual of eBay. Both look in good condition. It's been suggested that even it didn't work one of these, or something like it, would help me understand exposure better. -- 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: Teleconverters?
FWIW, I have refrained from using TCs because of the simple fact there is a slight loss in resolution and contrast(added flare). Somehow prime lenses don't feel right with TCs added on. -- J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Join the CD PLAYER & DISC Discussions : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/ http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/ -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Ken Waller Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Teleconverters? I've always been of the mindset to use converters from the same maker as the lens, tho I have never evaluated brand X convertors on brand Y lenses. I currently have the rear convertor A-1.4 X-S, X-1.4X-L and A2.0X-L & have used them extensively when needed without any particular issue. The A2.0X-L is the least used for me. They're a great way to extend your 'photo reach' relatively cheaply compared to the cost of an equivalent lens. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Eric Weir" Subject: Teleconverters? > > I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've got my eye on a Pentax > 2X > Teleconverter-A. I know nothing about teleconverters. General advice would > be welcome as well as comments specifically about this one. > > I haven't really done any wildlife photography, but it's on my agenda, > and > I imagine it could be put to use in that connection. > > Thanks, > -- > > Eric Weir > Decatur, GA USA > eew...@bellsouth.net > > P.S. I got a Weston Master II exposure meter and manual of eBay. Both > look in good condition. It's been suggested that even it didn't work one > of these, or something like it, would help me understand exposure better. -- 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
I've always been of the mindset to use converters from the same maker as the lens, tho I have never evaluated brand X convertors on brand Y lenses. I currently have the rear convertor A-1.4 X-S, X-1.4X-L and A2.0X-L & have used them extensively when needed without any particular issue. The A2.0X-L is the least used for me. They're a great way to extend your 'photo reach' relatively cheaply compared to the cost of an equivalent lens. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Eric Weir" Subject: Teleconverters? I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've got my eye on a Pentax 2X Teleconverter-A. I know nothing about teleconverters. General advice would be welcome as well as comments specifically about this one. I haven't really done any wildlife photography, but it's on my agenda, and I imagine it could be put to use in that connection. Thanks, -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net P.S. I got a Weston Master II exposure meter and manual of eBay. Both look in good condition. It's been suggested that even it didn't work one of these, or something like it, would help me understand exposure better. -- 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: Teleconverters?
The "L" version sold for more when I bought my "new" 1.4. Jack --- On Thu, 12/2/10, paul stenquist wrote: > From: paul stenquist > Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 10:51 AM > They were the A2X-S and A2X-L. They > were priced the same when first introduced. The L versions > were less common and sold for more used. The Ls couldn't be > used with every lens that was over 300mm. For example, the > rear baffle on the A400/5.6 precludes their use. Both are > excellent optics. > Paul > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > The AX and AL converters were never the same price > when I was shopping them in the late 1990's. At that time > the Pentax "L's improved quality and configuration are > provided to accommodate the 300mm and up telephoto lenses." > The exact wording notwithstanding in the absence of any > further research. > > > > Jack > > > > --- On Thu, 12/2/10, P N Stenquist > wrote: > > > >> From: P N Stenquist > >> Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > >> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 9:47 AM > >> The A2X-S and A2X-L were originally > >> the same price if I recall. I don't think the "L" > is better > >> glass, just different. It has the long snout to > optimize its > >> use with lenses that have the recessed rear > element. That > >> group includes more than just the *** lenses, and > not all of > >> the latter. > >> Paul > >> > >> > >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Jack Davis wrote: > >> > >>> Just to add a quick thought to Paul's solid > advice, > >> the Pentax A2L is considerably better glass, > but the > >> price goes UP accordingly. This converter, > however, is made > >> to be used with Pentax "*" lenses with recessed > rear lens > >> element. > >>> You've doubtless considered it, but the lesser > powered > >> converters (1.7, 1.4) tend to produce somewhat > better IQ at > >> the obvious loss of power. > >>> > >>> Jack > >>> > >>> --- On Thu, 12/2/10, P N Stenquist > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> From: P N Stenquist > >>>> Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > >>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > >>>> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 7:23 AM > >>>> The A 2X teleconverters are very good > >>>> optically. Of course because you're adding > glass, > >> a lens > >>>> plus converter can never match the > performance of > >> the lens > >>>> alone, but the A 2X converters are among > the best > >> I've seen. > >>>> Note that I said "converters," because > there are > >> two. The > >>>> A2X-L can only be used with certain long > telephoto > >> lenses. > >>>> It has a long snout and can't be attached > to other > >> Pentax > >>>> lenses. The A2X-S fits all Pentax lenses. > I use > >> the A2X-S > >>>> once in a while with an A400/5.6. It > yields good > >> results. My > >>>> photo of a dragonfly that's on the opening > page of > >> the > >>>> Pentax Gallery and in their Premier > Collection was > >> shot with > >>>> this combination on an *istD. > >>>> Paul > >>>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Eric Weir > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I wouldn't put it to use immediately, > but I've > >> got my > >>>> eye on a Pentax 2X Teleconverter-A. I know > nothing > >> about > >>>> teleconverters. General advice would be > welcome as > >> well as > >>>> comments specifically about this > one. > >>>>> > >>>>> I haven't really done any wildlife > >> photography, but > >>>> it's on my agenda, and I imagine it could > be put > >> to use in > >>>> that connection. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > -- > >>>>> Eric Weir > >>>&
Re: Teleconverters?
They were the A2X-S and A2X-L. They were priced the same when first introduced. The L versions were less common and sold for more used. The Ls couldn't be used with every lens that was over 300mm. For example, the rear baffle on the A400/5.6 precludes their use. Both are excellent optics. Paul On Dec 2, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > The AX and AL converters were never the same price when I was shopping them > in the late 1990's. At that time the Pentax "L's improved quality and > configuration are provided to accommodate the 300mm and up telephoto lenses." > The exact wording notwithstanding in the absence of any further research. > > Jack > > --- On Thu, 12/2/10, P N Stenquist wrote: > >> From: P N Stenquist >> Subject: Re: Teleconverters? >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 9:47 AM >> The A2X-S and A2X-L were originally >> the same price if I recall. I don't think the "L" is better >> glass, just different. It has the long snout to optimize its >> use with lenses that have the recessed rear element. That >> group includes more than just the *** lenses, and not all of >> the latter. >> Paul >> >> >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Jack Davis wrote: >> >>> Just to add a quick thought to Paul's solid advice, >> the Pentax A2L is considerably better glass, but the >> price goes UP accordingly. This converter, however, is made >> to be used with Pentax "*" lenses with recessed rear lens >> element. >>> You've doubtless considered it, but the lesser powered >> converters (1.7, 1.4) tend to produce somewhat better IQ at >> the obvious loss of power. >>> >>> Jack >>> >>> --- On Thu, 12/2/10, P N Stenquist >> wrote: >>> >>>> From: P N Stenquist >>>> Subject: Re: Teleconverters? >>>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >>>> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 7:23 AM >>>> The A 2X teleconverters are very good >>>> optically. Of course because you're adding glass, >> a lens >>>> plus converter can never match the performance of >> the lens >>>> alone, but the A 2X converters are among the best >> I've seen. >>>> Note that I said "converters," because there are >> two. The >>>> A2X-L can only be used with certain long telephoto >> lenses. >>>> It has a long snout and can't be attached to other >> Pentax >>>> lenses. The A2X-S fits all Pentax lenses. I use >> the A2X-S >>>> once in a while with an A400/5.6. It yields good >> results. My >>>> photo of a dragonfly that's on the opening page of >> the >>>> Pentax Gallery and in their Premier Collection was >> shot with >>>> this combination on an *istD. >>>> Paul >>>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Eric Weir wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've >> got my >>>> eye on a Pentax 2X Teleconverter-A. I know nothing >> about >>>> teleconverters. General advice would be welcome as >> well as >>>> comments specifically about this one. >>>>> >>>>> I haven't really done any wildlife >> photography, but >>>> it's on my agenda, and I imagine it could be put >> to use in >>>> that connection. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>> >> -- >>>>> Eric Weir >>>>> Decatur, GA USA >>>>> eew...@bellsouth.net >>>>> >>>>> P.S. I got a Weston Master II exposure meter >> and >>>> manual of eBay. Both look in good condition. >> It's been >>>> suggested that even it didn't work one of these, >> or >>>> something like it, would help me understand >> exposure better. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
The AX and AL converters were never the same price when I was shopping them in the late 1990's. At that time the Pentax "L's improved quality and configuration are provided to accommodate the 300mm and up telephoto lenses." The exact wording notwithstanding in the absence of any further research. Jack --- On Thu, 12/2/10, P N Stenquist wrote: > From: P N Stenquist > Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 9:47 AM > The A2X-S and A2X-L were originally > the same price if I recall. I don't think the "L" is better > glass, just different. It has the long snout to optimize its > use with lenses that have the recessed rear element. That > group includes more than just the *** lenses, and not all of > the latter. > Paul > > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > Just to add a quick thought to Paul's solid advice, > the Pentax A2L is considerably better glass, but the > price goes UP accordingly. This converter, however, is made > to be used with Pentax "*" lenses with recessed rear lens > element. > > You've doubtless considered it, but the lesser powered > converters (1.7, 1.4) tend to produce somewhat better IQ at > the obvious loss of power. > > > > Jack > > > > --- On Thu, 12/2/10, P N Stenquist > wrote: > > > >> From: P N Stenquist > >> Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > >> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 7:23 AM > >> The A 2X teleconverters are very good > >> optically. Of course because you're adding glass, > a lens > >> plus converter can never match the performance of > the lens > >> alone, but the A 2X converters are among the best > I've seen. > >> Note that I said "converters," because there are > two. The > >> A2X-L can only be used with certain long telephoto > lenses. > >> It has a long snout and can't be attached to other > Pentax > >> lenses. The A2X-S fits all Pentax lenses. I use > the A2X-S > >> once in a while with an A400/5.6. It yields good > results. My > >> photo of a dragonfly that's on the opening page of > the > >> Pentax Gallery and in their Premier Collection was > shot with > >> this combination on an *istD. > >> Paul > >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Eric Weir wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've > got my > >> eye on a Pentax 2X Teleconverter-A. I know nothing > about > >> teleconverters. General advice would be welcome as > well as > >> comments specifically about this one. > >>> > >>> I haven't really done any wildlife > photography, but > >> it's on my agenda, and I imagine it could be put > to use in > >> that connection. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >> > -- > >>> Eric Weir > >>> Decatur, GA USA > >>> eew...@bellsouth.net > >>> > >>> P.S. I got a Weston Master II exposure meter > and > >> manual of eBay. Both look in good condition. > It's been > >> suggested that even it didn't work one of these, > or > >> something like it, would help me understand > exposure better. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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: Teleconverters?
The A2X-S and A2X-L were originally the same price if I recall. I don't think the "L" is better glass, just different. It has the long snout to optimize its use with lenses that have the recessed rear element. That group includes more than just the *** lenses, and not all of the latter. Paul On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Jack Davis wrote: > Just to add a quick thought to Paul's solid advice, the Pentax A2L is > considerably better glass, but the price goes UP accordingly. This converter, > however, is made to be used with Pentax "*" lenses with recessed rear lens > element. > You've doubtless considered it, but the lesser powered converters (1.7, 1.4) > tend to produce somewhat better IQ at the obvious loss of power. > > Jack > > --- On Thu, 12/2/10, P N Stenquist wrote: > >> From: P N Stenquist >> Subject: Re: Teleconverters? >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" >> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 7:23 AM >> The A 2X teleconverters are very good >> optically. Of course because you're adding glass, a lens >> plus converter can never match the performance of the lens >> alone, but the A 2X converters are among the best I've seen. >> Note that I said "converters," because there are two. The >> A2X-L can only be used with certain long telephoto lenses. >> It has a long snout and can't be attached to other Pentax >> lenses. The A2X-S fits all Pentax lenses. I use the A2X-S >> once in a while with an A400/5.6. It yields good results. My >> photo of a dragonfly that's on the opening page of the >> Pentax Gallery and in their Premier Collection was shot with >> this combination on an *istD. >> Paul >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Eric Weir wrote: >> >>> >>> I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've got my >> eye on a Pentax 2X Teleconverter-A. I know nothing about >> teleconverters. General advice would be welcome as well as >> comments specifically about this one. >>> >>> I haven't really done any wildlife photography, but >> it's on my agenda, and I imagine it could be put to use in >> that connection. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >> -- >>> Eric Weir >>> Decatur, GA USA >>> eew...@bellsouth.net >>> >>> P.S. I got a Weston Master II exposure meter and >> manual of eBay. Both look in good condition. It's been >> suggested that even it didn't work one of these, or >> something like it, would help me understand exposure better. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
I've used my Promaster 7-element 2X teleconverter with my 50-200mm kit lens to shoot birds and gotten *decent* results as long as the birds cooperated and as long as I stayed away from the farthest reaches of the lens. Of course, the maximum aperture on the 50-200 is f/4, so I couldn't reasonably expect anything more than just decent. I'm sure the Pentax has better optics, so you may have better luck than I have -- most assuredly if you have a wider-aperture zoom. -- Walt On 12/2/2010 10:12 AM, P N Stenquist wrote: On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Eric Weir wrote: On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:23 AM, P N Stenquist wrote: The A 2X teleconverters are very good optically. Of course because you're adding glass, a lens plus converter can never match the performance of the lens alone, but the A 2X converters are among the best I've seen. Note that I said "converters," because there are two. The A2X-L can only be used with certain long telephoto lenses. It has a long snout and can't be attached to other Pentax lenses. The A2X-S fits all Pentax lenses. I use the A2X-S once in a while with an A400/5.6. It yields good results. My photo of a dragonfly that's on the opening page of the Pentax Gallery and in their Premier Collection was shot with this combination on an *istD. Thanks, Paul. It's the 2X-S.Looks like the price is going to turn out to be reasonable. And *my* camera is a *ist DS. Can you use a teleconvertor with a zoom? Sure. I haven't done use it with a zoom, but I don't see why not. Now that you mention it, I'll have to give it a try with my DA* 60-250. Might be a good combo for wildlife. Of course, it would be manual focus only. Paul -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
Just to add a quick thought to Paul's solid advice, the Pentax A2L is considerably better glass, but the price goes UP accordingly. This converter, however, is made to be used with Pentax "*" lenses with recessed rear lens element. You've doubtless considered it, but the lesser powered converters (1.7, 1.4) tend to produce somewhat better IQ at the obvious loss of power. Jack --- On Thu, 12/2/10, P N Stenquist wrote: > From: P N Stenquist > Subject: Re: Teleconverters? > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Thursday, December 2, 2010, 7:23 AM > The A 2X teleconverters are very good > optically. Of course because you're adding glass, a lens > plus converter can never match the performance of the lens > alone, but the A 2X converters are among the best I've seen. > Note that I said "converters," because there are two. The > A2X-L can only be used with certain long telephoto lenses. > It has a long snout and can't be attached to other Pentax > lenses. The A2X-S fits all Pentax lenses. I use the A2X-S > once in a while with an A400/5.6. It yields good results. My > photo of a dragonfly that's on the opening page of the > Pentax Gallery and in their Premier Collection was shot with > this combination on an *istD. > Paul > On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Eric Weir wrote: > > > > > I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've got my > eye on a Pentax 2X Teleconverter-A. I know nothing about > teleconverters. General advice would be welcome as well as > comments specifically about this one. > > > > I haven't really done any wildlife photography, but > it's on my agenda, and I imagine it could be put to use in > that connection. > > > > Thanks, > > > -- > > Eric Weir > > Decatur, GA USA > > eew...@bellsouth.net > > > > P.S. I got a Weston Master II exposure meter and > manual of eBay. Both look in good condition. It's been > suggested that even it didn't work one of these, or > something like it, would help me understand exposure better. > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Eric Weir wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:23 AM, P N Stenquist wrote: > >> The A 2X teleconverters are very good optically. Of course because you're >> adding glass, a lens plus converter can never match the performance of the >> lens alone, but the A 2X converters are among the best I've seen. Note that >> I said "converters," because there are two. The A2X-L can only be used with >> certain long telephoto lenses. It has a long snout and can't be attached to >> other Pentax lenses. The A2X-S fits all Pentax lenses. I use the A2X-S once >> in a while with an A400/5.6. It yields good results. My photo of a dragonfly >> that's on the opening page of the Pentax Gallery and in their Premier >> Collection was shot with this combination on an *istD. > > Thanks, Paul. It's the 2X-S.Looks like the price is going to turn out to be > reasonable. And *my* camera is a *ist DS. > > Can you use a teleconvertor with a zoom? > Sure. I haven't done use it with a zoom, but I don't see why not. Now that you mention it, I'll have to give it a try with my DA* 60-250. Might be a good combo for wildlife. Of course, it would be manual focus only. Paul > -- > Eric Weir > Decatur, GA USA > eew...@bellsouth.net > > > > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:23 AM, P N Stenquist wrote: > The A 2X teleconverters are very good optically. Of course because you're > adding glass, a lens plus converter can never match the performance of the > lens alone, but the A 2X converters are among the best I've seen. Note that I > said "converters," because there are two. The A2X-L can only be used with > certain long telephoto lenses. It has a long snout and can't be attached to > other Pentax lenses. The A2X-S fits all Pentax lenses. I use the A2X-S once > in a while with an A400/5.6. It yields good results. My photo of a dragonfly > that's on the opening page of the Pentax Gallery and in their Premier > Collection was shot with this combination on an *istD. Thanks, Paul. It's the 2X-S.Looks like the price is going to turn out to be reasonable. And *my* camera is a *ist DS. Can you use a teleconvertor with a zoom? -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
The A 2X teleconverters are very good optically. Of course because you're adding glass, a lens plus converter can never match the performance of the lens alone, but the A 2X converters are among the best I've seen. Note that I said "converters," because there are two. The A2X-L can only be used with certain long telephoto lenses. It has a long snout and can't be attached to other Pentax lenses. The A2X-S fits all Pentax lenses. I use the A2X-S once in a while with an A400/5.6. It yields good results. My photo of a dragonfly that's on the opening page of the Pentax Gallery and in their Premier Collection was shot with this combination on an *istD. Paul On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Eric Weir wrote: > > I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've got my eye on a Pentax 2X > Teleconverter-A. I know nothing about teleconverters. General advice would be > welcome as well as comments specifically about this one. > > I haven't really done any wildlife photography, but it's on my agenda, and I > imagine it could be put to use in that connection. > > Thanks, > -- > Eric Weir > Decatur, GA USA > eew...@bellsouth.net > > P.S. I got a Weston Master II exposure meter and manual of eBay. Both look > in good condition. It's been suggested that even it didn't work one of these, > or something like it, would help me understand exposure better. > > > > -- > 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. -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:34 AM, eckinator wrote: > You may want to shop for the Kenko MC7 Pz-Af teleconverter - it is > optically fairly good with 7 elements and couples all mount contacts > including SDM and/or power soom. It also comes branded as Bower and > Soligor. On eBay Germany they typically sell between 50 and 125 €, > dunno about US price levels Thanks, Ecke. For the moment, at least, I'm avoiding AF. Sincerely, -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > Eric, I had a couple non-Pentax tele-converters. One I used as such another > was purely macro converter. Both were only so-so though macro converter > wasn't all that bad. They eat light so that if you mount 200/2.8 on 2x tele > converter, you get equivalent of 400/5.6. If you mount one more 2x converter > you'd be at 800/11.0. > > One of the reasons I decided to cease using tele lenses was that it was an > either-either choice - either mediocre results with cheap gear or gear beyond > my financial reach. Thanks, Boris. That's helpful. I hear on NPR this morning you've got pretty serious drought there. Sincerely, -- Eric Weir Decatur, GA USA eew...@bellsouth.net -- 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: Teleconverters?
You may want to shop for the Kenko MC7 Pz-Af teleconverter - it is optically fairly good with 7 elements and couples all mount contacts including SDM and/or power soom. It also comes branded as Bower and Soligor. On eBay Germany they typically sell between 50 and 125 €, dunno about US price levels Hope this helps Ecke 2010/12/2 Eric Weir : > > I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've got my eye on a Pentax 2X > Teleconverter-A. I know nothing about teleconverters. General advice would be > welcome as well as comments specifically about this one. > > I haven't really done any wildlife photography, but it's on my agenda, and I > imagine it could be put to use in that connection. > > Thanks, > -- > Eric Weir > Decatur, GA USA > eew...@bellsouth.net > > P.S. I got a Weston Master II exposure meter and manual of eBay. Both look > in good condition. It's been suggested that even it didn't work one of these, > or something like it, would help me understand exposure better. > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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: Teleconverters?
On 12/2/2010 4:26 PM, Eric Weir wrote: I wouldn't put it to use immediately, but I've got my eye on a Pentax 2X Teleconverter-A. I know nothing about teleconverters. General advice would be welcome as well as comments specifically about this one. I haven't really done any wildlife photography, but it's on my agenda, and I imagine it could be put to use in that connection. Thanks, Eric, I had a couple non-Pentax tele-converters. One I used as such another was purely macro converter. Both were only so-so though macro converter wasn't all that bad. They eat light so that if you mount 200/2.8 on 2x tele converter, you get equivalent of 400/5.6. If you mount one more 2x converter you'd be at 800/11.0. One of the reasons I decided to cease using tele lenses was that it was an either-either choice - either mediocre results with cheap gear or gear beyond my financial reach. Boris -- 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: teleconverters
> the L teleconverters work on a very limited number of lenses. the 2X-L > protrudes almost an inch in front of the mount and the 1.4X-L a little more. In case anyone is interested in fitting an "L" TC to his/her favorite lens, and would like to know it it has a chance of working before buying, here are some measured dimensions: The 2X-L's protruding front element extends 17.0 mm beyond the mounting flange, and has a diameter of 31.5 mm for most of its length, but widens to 33.0 mm for the final 4.0 mm portion closest to the plane of the flange. (For simplicity, you could more simply say that it extends 17.0 mm beyond the mounting flange, and has a diameter of 33.0 mm.) The otherwise smaller 1.4X-L TC actually has a larger protrusion, extending 21.0 mm beyond the plane of the mounting flange, with a width of 35.5 mm throughout the protrusion. Fred
Re: teleconverters
the L teleconverters work on a very limited number of lenses. the 2X-L protrudes almost an inch in front of the mount and the 1.4X-L a little more. my tests on the Sigma AF converts show them to be very good. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "jtainter" Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 2:14 PM Subject: Re: teleconverters Sorry, I didn't realize that you were talking about the newer "Pro" versions. My understanding is that only the Sigmas are available in Pentax mount and the Sigmas only fit certain lenses. If you don't need AF in the converter, KEH has a couple of 2X-L's for about $160.
Re: teleconverters
it also fits very few lenses. i have one where it fits properly, the A* 400/2.8, and one where it fits if you use it carefully, the FA* 400/5.6. the latter isn't on the supported list, and i see why. Herb... - Original Message - From: "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:19 PM Subject: Re: teleconverters At $550 the A 2.0x L is just too expensive for a TC.
Re: teleconverters
Joe, Sorry, I didn't realize that you were talking about the newer "Pro" versions. My understanding is that only the Sigmas are available in Pentax mount and the Sigmas only fit certain lenses. If you don't need AF in the converter, KEH has a couple of 2X-L's for about $160. Bruce Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 10:19:43 AM, you wrote: j> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=197&b=29&a=65_437&shs=&ci=278&ac=&Submit.x=16&Submit.y=9&Submit=Go j> - j> Bruce, these are all the older models, not the new models from j> Kenko and Tamron that Jens referred us to with this link: j> http://www.nikonlinks.com/articles_teleconverter_review.htm#Overall%20results j> These new ones don't seem to be available yet (ever?) in Pentax j> autofocus mount, except that Adorama has the Tamron 1.4x version. j> At $550 the A 2.0x L is just too expensive for a TC. j> Joe
Re: teleconverters
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=197&b=29&a=65_437&shs=&ci=278&ac=&Submit.x=16&Submit.y=9&Submit=Go - Bruce, these are all the older models, not the new models from Kenko and Tamron that Jens referred us to with this link: http://www.nikonlinks.com/articles_teleconverter_review.htm#Overall%20results These new ones don't seem to be available yet (ever?) in Pentax autofocus mount, except that Adorama has the Tamron 1.4x version. At $550 the A 2.0x L is just too expensive for a TC. Joe
Re: teleconverters
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Well, I'm selling off my Canon gear ... Oh, my goodness! After sadly seeing a few PDMLers go over to the "dark side," it's so refreshing to hear of the reverse happening!! ;-) ERN
Re: teleconverters
Well, I'm selling off my Canon gear and have both the 70-200/4L and 300/4L IS as well as the 1.4x Extender II. If you're interested in any of those bits, let me know. Godfrey --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sheesh, my parade is rained on. > > But thanks for the info. > > Sigh. One of these days I'll just have to break the bank and > get some long glass. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: teleconverters
> I have mainly zooms. It's sort of useless exercise in futility to > put a teleconverter on a zoom, right? Or not? The Sigma EX converters were actually optimised for a zoom lens originally, the 70-200 f/2.8 EX. John -- Original Message --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 23:51:49 EST Subject: Re: teleconverters > In a message dated 2/7/2005 6:09:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I suggest considering a 1.4x. One of those will give better > > results than > > a 2x. > > Thanks for all the great input, everyone! I want to do some more > research, but I'm starting to lean towards a 7-element Kenko. I > think when I get my D back from the shop, I might buy the 1.4x and > the 2x and test them both with the zoom I plan to use them with. I'm > going to ask around but my lens might be too new for anyone to have > tested it much. > > Thanks, > Amita > === > Just a general sort of question to anyone willing to answer. > > I have mainly zooms. It's sort of useless exercise in futility to > put a teleconverter on a zoom, right? Or not? > > Marnie aka Doe --- End of Original Message ---
Re: teleconverters
In a message dated 2/7/2005 10:31:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry to inform you, but there are specific compatibility issues with the Canon 1.4x Extender II. From Canon's website: "This tele extender can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses." Godfrey = Sheesh, my parade is rained on. But thanks for the info. Sigh. One of these days I'll just have to break the bank and get some long glass. Marnie aka Doe
Re: teleconverters
> Cool. Good to know. I've eyed the 1.4. I don't have any L > glass, but I do have the 28-135 IS. Sorry to inform you, but there are specific compatibility issues with the Canon 1.4x Extender II. From Canon's website: "This tele extender can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses." Godfrey __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: teleconverters
In a message dated 2/7/2005 9:30:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I also have a Canon 10D system. I have a Canon 1.4x Extender II, a 70-200/4L and a 300/4L IS. Fitting the 1.4x Extender II to either of those lenses results in so little degradation of quality, it would be virtually impossible to tell that they were in use if you didn't know already. Godfrey = Cool. Good to know. I've eyed the 1.4. I don't have any L glass, but I do have the 28-135 IS. Thanks! Marnie aka Doe
Re: teleconverters
I'm not familiar with Pentax zooms and teleconverters. But ... I also have a Canon 10D system. I have a Canon 1.4x Extender II, a 70-200/4L and a 300/4L IS. Fitting the 1.4x Extender II to either of those lenses results in so little degradation of quality, it would be virtually impossible to tell that they were in use if you didn't know already. Godfrey --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just a general sort of question to anyone willing to answer. > > I have mainly zooms. It's sort of useless exercise in futility > to put a > teleconverter on a zoom, right? Or not? > > Marnie aka Doe > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: teleconverters
In a message dated 2/7/2005 9:05:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you have an especially good zoom, and an exceptional converter your combination may do the same. (Even though you're on the dark side). === Hehehehe. I have been wondering if a Canon 1.4X or 2X teleconverter would be worth it. And, yes, I do have a fairly good zoom. I had a fairly cheap Tamron 70-300 zoom once that came with a Tamron teleconverter (both for Pentax, ZX-5n), that I sold together on this list. I was never able to get anything out of it with the teleconverter on. Thanks. I guess one can't really know without testing (or find someone who has tested that particular combination). Marnie aka Doe
Re: teleconverters
Marnie, The general rule of thumb is that teleconverters work best when the lens is quite high optical quality and relatively fast (4.0 or faster). That usually leaves out most of the zooms. The one exception is the pro grade 80-200's. They can be used on any lens, but you have to watch out for loss of speed, loss of AF (due to speed loss), image degradation, vignetting, contrast loss, etc. Sometimes a manufacturer will make a "matched" converter for a particular lens (even zooms). These usually work quite well. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, February 7, 2005, 8:51:49 PM, you wrote: Eac> In a message dated 2/7/2005 6:09:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, Eac> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> I suggest considering a 1.4x. One of those will give better >> results than >> a 2x. Eac> Thanks for all the great input, everyone! I want to do some more research, Eac> but I'm starting to lean towards a 7-element Kenko. I think when I get my D Eac> back from the shop, I might buy the 1.4x and the 2x and test them both with Eac> the zoom I plan to use them with. I'm going to ask around but my lens might Eac> be too new for anyone to have tested it much. Eac> Thanks, Eac> Amita Eac> === Eac> Just a general sort of question to anyone willing to answer. Eac> I have mainly zooms. It's sort of useless exercise in futility to put a Eac> teleconverter on a zoom, right? Or not? Eac> Marnie aka Doe
Re: teleconverters
That depends, some converters and zooms may be good enough together. I've gotten good results with the SMC-Pentax F 70-210 f4.0~5.6 with the 1.7 F converter. The combination exceeded the resolution of the film I was using when stopped down a bit. I assume that they would also exceed the resolution of the *ist-d sensor. If you have an especially good zoom, and an exceptional converter your combination may do the same. (Even though you're on the dark side). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/7/2005 6:09:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I suggest considering a 1.4x. One of those will give better results than a 2x. Thanks for all the great input, everyone! I want to do some more research, but I'm starting to lean towards a 7-element Kenko. I think when I get my D back from the shop, I might buy the 1.4x and the 2x and test them both with the zoom I plan to use them with. I'm going to ask around but my lens might be too new for anyone to have tested it much. Thanks, Amita === Just a general sort of question to anyone willing to answer. I have mainly zooms. It's sort of useless exercise in futility to put a teleconverter on a zoom, right? Or not? Marnie aka Doe -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: teleconverters
In a message dated 2/7/2005 6:09:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I suggest considering a 1.4x. One of those will give better > results than > a 2x. Thanks for all the great input, everyone! I want to do some more research, but I'm starting to lean towards a 7-element Kenko. I think when I get my D back from the shop, I might buy the 1.4x and the 2x and test them both with the zoom I plan to use them with. I'm going to ask around but my lens might be too new for anyone to have tested it much. Thanks, Amita === Just a general sort of question to anyone willing to answer. I have mainly zooms. It's sort of useless exercise in futility to put a teleconverter on a zoom, right? Or not? Marnie aka Doe
RE: teleconverters
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:42:03 -0700, Joseph Tainter wrote: > Does anyone know where to get the new Kenko/Tamron teleconverters in the > U.S.? Adorama has the 1.4x in Pentax mount/Tamron brand. None of the > others seems to be available. Are they available in Europe or Asia? I have a used but very good condition 2X Kenko 7-element in Pentax KAF mount I could be convinced to part with. Contact me off list at franklin at shootingshark dot com if you're interested. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: teleconverters
Hello Amita, I have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 DI lens and both kenko converters. What kind of test would you like done? Bruce Monday, February 7, 2005, 6:07:37 PM, you wrote: >> I suggest considering a 1.4x. One of those will give better >> results than >> a 2x. AG> Thanks for all the great input, everyone! I want to do some more research, AG> but I'm starting to lean towards a 7-element Kenko. I think when I get my D AG> back from the shop, I might buy the 1.4x and the 2x and test them both with AG> the zoom I plan to use them with. I'm going to ask around but my lens might AG> be too new for anyone to have tested it much. AG> Thanks, AG> Amita
RE: teleconverters
> I suggest considering a 1.4x. One of those will give better > results than > a 2x. Thanks for all the great input, everyone! I want to do some more research, but I'm starting to lean towards a 7-element Kenko. I think when I get my D back from the shop, I might buy the 1.4x and the 2x and test them both with the zoom I plan to use them with. I'm going to ask around but my lens might be too new for anyone to have tested it much. Thanks, Amita
Re: teleconverters
Hello Joe, Here you go: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=197&b=29&a=65_437&shs=&ci=278&ac=&Submit.x=16&Submit.y=9&Submit=Go -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, February 7, 2005, 5:42:03 PM, you wrote: JT> Jens wrote: JT> Kenko's (Tamron) are supposed to be very good, according to tests done JT> by FotoMagazin in Germany. They gave the old (MF) MC7 the highest JT> (SUPER) grade. JT> Take a look at: JT> http://www.nikonlinks.com/articles_teleconverter_review.htm JT> -- JT> Jens, when was the fotoMagazin test done? Did it include the new JT> Kenko/Tamron teleconverters referenced in the link? JT> Does anyone know where to get the new Kenko/Tamron teleconverters in the JT> U.S.? Adorama has the 1.4x in Pentax mount/Tamron brand. None of the JT> others seems to be available. Are they available in Europe or Asia? JT> Thanks, JT> Joe
RE: teleconverters
Jens wrote: Kenko's (Tamron) are supposed to be very good, according to tests done by FotoMagazin in Germany. They gave the old (MF) MC7 the highest (SUPER) grade. Take a look at: http://www.nikonlinks.com/articles_teleconverter_review.htm -- Jens, when was the fotoMagazin test done? Did it include the new Kenko/Tamron teleconverters referenced in the link? Does anyone know where to get the new Kenko/Tamron teleconverters in the U.S.? Adorama has the 1.4x in Pentax mount/Tamron brand. None of the others seems to be available. Are they available in Europe or Asia? Thanks, Joe
Re: teleconverters
On the other hand, I got most excellent performance from a Komura Telemore 7-element 2X converter, years ago. Quite literally couldn't tell between those taken with it, and a blown up bare lens print... keith whaley Joseph Tainter wrote: I believe that Kenko may also make the Tokina and Tamron teleconverters. Kenko and Tokina are (at least in the U.S.) the same company. Look for a 7-element converter. Still, a 2x may not be very good, especially on a zoom. I have an older Tamron 2x 7-element, and have never gotten a decent image from it. The Sigma converters may be best in class (for third-party, AF teleconverters), but you must make certain that they will be compatible with your Tamron lens. If your Tamron's rear element extends to the rear of the lens, then it will not work with the Sigmas. I suggest considering a 1.4x. One of those will give better results than a 2x. Joe
Re: teleconverters
I believe that Kenko may also make the Tokina and Tamron teleconverters. Kenko and Tokina are (at least in the U.S.) the same company. Look for a 7-element converter. Still, a 2x may not be very good, especially on a zoom. I have an older Tamron 2x 7-element, and have never gotten a decent image from it. The Sigma converters may be best in class (for third-party, AF teleconverters), but you must make certain that they will be compatible with your Tamron lens. If your Tamron's rear element extends to the rear of the lens, then it will not work with the Sigmas. I suggest considering a 1.4x. One of those will give better results than a 2x. Joe
Re: teleconverters (resent twice)
I've just got myself a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di (from a list member) after reading some really great reviews, had to decide between Sigma EX, Tokina ATX and the Tarmron. Apparently the lens works really well with the Tamron 1.4x if you can live with the focal length restriction: the article: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75.html I'm planning on trying mine with a Kenko 1.5x SHQ when I get some good light. I'm not sure you could use the Sigma EX because of the proximity of the rear lens element on the Tamron. I'm also curious to try the 1.5x TC with the FA 135mm f/2.8, nice 200 f/4? John John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:22:52 -0500 Subject: teleconverters > I am trying to figure out my kit for my London trip. I think I'm > going to go with my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di and a teleconverter. Now > I have to figure out which teleconverter to get. B&H has 2x > teleconverters by the following manufacturers: > > Tokina > Tamron > Kenko > Sigma (APO) > > The Kenko is the cheapest and the Sigma is the most expensive, but > that one doesn't fit all cameras. I would appreciate any advice > about which one of these is best optically. I've seen some pretty > impressive results from the Tamron but none using the *istD. > > Thanks, > Amtia --- End of Original Message ---
Re: teleconverters
In a message dated 2/6/2005 4:17:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess a better zoom lens would give sharper results, than my 60 USD Tamron consumer zoom. Jens Bladt Probably. I found this interesting too. Thanks, Jens. Marnie aka Doe
RE: teleconverters
Bad link. Try this: http://gallery37564.fotopic.net/p11551016.html I just tried a consumer zoom and two Pentax primes with the Pentax-F 1.7 AF adapter. All at F8, 800 ASA and -0.7 exposure correction and 1/125 oer 1/250sec. Tamron 3.5-5.6/28-80mm (The AF adapter would not auto focus at long focal lengths) Pentax SMC K 2.8/105mm Pentax SMC K 2.5/135mm The reslults can be examined at: http://gallery37564.fotopic.net/p11551016.htmle I guess a better zoom lens would give sharper results, than my 60 USD Tamron consumer zoom. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. februar 2005 11:20 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: teleconverters Test results: "Results with a converter are highly dependent on the prime lens. This just makes sense. The converter is simply magnifying the central portion of the original image. If the original image has any flaws, the converter will magnify them. Flaws that may not have been visible in the original, may now be seen." Annother thing: If you bring a converter - bring a tripod, a beanbag or anything else to keep the camera steady! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. februar 2005 06:27 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: teleconverters > Try to find an A2X-S Pentax converter. They're fairly common > on ebay. It's very good. Paul I was actually looking for an autofocus teleconverter... Amita
RE: teleconverters
I just tried a consumer zoom and two Pentax primes with the Pentax-F 1.7 AF adapter. All at F8, 800 ASA and -0.7 exposure correction and 1/125 oer 1/250sec. Tamron 3.5-5.6/28-80mm (The AF adapter would not auto focus at long focal lengths) Pentax SMC K 2.8/105mm Pentax SMC K 2.5/135mm The reslults can be examined at: http://gallery37564.fotopic.net/p11551016.htmle I guess a better zoom lens would give sharper results, than my 60 USD Tamron consumer zoom. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. februar 2005 11:20 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: teleconverters Test results: "Results with a converter are highly dependent on the prime lens. This just makes sense. The converter is simply magnifying the central portion of the original image. If the original image has any flaws, the converter will magnify them. Flaws that may not have been visible in the original, may now be seen." Annother thing: If you bring a converter - bring a tripod, a beanbag or anything else to keep the camera steady! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. februar 2005 06:27 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: teleconverters > Try to find an A2X-S Pentax converter. They're fairly common > on ebay. It's very good. Paul I was actually looking for an autofocus teleconverter... Amita
Re: teleconverters (resent)
I've just got myself a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di (from a list member) after reading some really great reviews, had to decide between Sigma EX, Tokina ATX and the Tarmron. Apparently the lens works really well with the Tamron 1.4x if you can live with the focal length restriction: the article: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75.html I'm planning on trying mine with a Kenko 1.5x SHQ when I get some good light. I'm not sure you could use the Sigma EX because of the proximity of the rear lens element on the Tamron. John -- Original Message --- From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:22:52 -0500 Subject: teleconverters > I am trying to figure out my kit for my London trip. I think I'm > going to go with my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di and a teleconverter. Now > I have to figure out which teleconverter to get. B&H has 2x > teleconverters by the following manufacturers: > > Tokina > Tamron > Kenko > Sigma (APO) > > The Kenko is the cheapest and the Sigma is the most expensive, but > that one doesn't fit all cameras. I would appreciate any advice > about which one of these is best optically. I've seen some pretty > impressive results from the Tamron but none using the *istD. > > Thanks, > Amtia --- End of Original Message ---
Re: teleconverters
I've just got myself a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di (from a list member) after reading some really great reviews, had to decide between Sigma EX, Tokina ATX and the Tarmron. Apparently the lens works really well with the Tamron 1.4x if you can live with the focal length restriction: the article: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75.html I'm planning on trying mine with a Kenko 1.5x SHQ when I get some good light. I'm not sure you could use the Sigma EX because of the proximity of the rear lens element on the Tamron. John -- Original Message --- From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 22:22:52 -0500 Subject: teleconverters > I am trying to figure out my kit for my London trip. I think I'm > going to go with my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di and a teleconverter. Now > I have to figure out which teleconverter to get. B&H has 2x > teleconverters by the following manufacturers: > > Tokina > Tamron > Kenko > Sigma (APO) > > The Kenko is the cheapest and the Sigma is the most expensive, but > that one doesn't fit all cameras. I would appreciate any advice > about which one of these is best optically. I've seen some pretty > impressive results from the Tamron but none using the *istD. > > Thanks, > Amtia --- End of Original Message ---
RE: teleconverters
see: http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/products/Kenko_Kenko_MC4_2x_4_el__TeleConvert er_Pentax_AF_mc4afp.html and http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/products/Tamron_Tamron_1_4x_TeleConverter_f_P entax_AF_USA_af14p700.html (two of these is on ebay auction right now) and http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/products/Tamron_Tamron_2x_TeleConverter_7_Ele ment_f_Pentax_AF_USA_af20p700.html Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. februar 2005 06:27 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: teleconverters > Try to find an A2X-S Pentax converter. They're fairly common > on ebay. It's very good. Paul I was actually looking for an autofocus teleconverter... Amita
RE: teleconverters
Test results: "Results with a converter are highly dependent on the prime lens. This just makes sense. The converter is simply magnifying the central portion of the original image. If the original image has any flaws, the converter will magnify them. Flaws that may not have been visible in the original, may now be seen." Annother thing: If you bring a converter - bring a tripod, a beanbag or anything else to keep the camera steady! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. februar 2005 06:27 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: teleconverters > Try to find an A2X-S Pentax converter. They're fairly common > on ebay. It's very good. Paul I was actually looking for an autofocus teleconverter... Amita
RE: teleconverters
That's a very good idea, Amita. Then you don't have to carry too much gear. I'm not sure how great it is to use a convertter with a zoom, though. Primes are better, but your lens is supposed to be excellent. Kenko's (Tamron) are supposed to be very good, according to tests done by FotoMagazin in Germany. They gave the old (MF) MC7 the highest (SUPER) grade. Take a look at: http://www.nikonlinks.com/articles_teleconverter_review.htm BTW: I can also recommend the Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter (discontinued). It's absolutely brilliant. I have made professional (getting published) panoramas with this one and primes like SMC K 2.8/105mm, SMC K 2.5/135mm and SMC M*4/300mm. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. februar 2005 04:23 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: teleconverters I am trying to figure out my kit for my London trip. I think I'm going to go with my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di and a teleconverter. Now I have to figure out which teleconverter to get. B&H has 2x teleconverters by the following manufacturers: Tokina Tamron Kenko Sigma (APO) The Kenko is the cheapest and the Sigma is the most expensive, but that one doesn't fit all cameras. I would appreciate any advice about which one of these is best optically. I've seen some pretty impressive results from the Tamron but none using the *istD. Thanks, Amtia
