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 o
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 fi
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?
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.
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
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
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/FatAlbe
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 m
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/list
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 c
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
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 affor
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
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/PHOT
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
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'
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 con
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* ph
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 Pent
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
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
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-Dis
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 appropria
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
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 con
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
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/
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
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 fr
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
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
nal 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 o
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
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
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 o
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
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 usi
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 len
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 contact
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
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
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 Germa
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.
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,
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 c
>
> 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 agen
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
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
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
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 d
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
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 re
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)
ussions :
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
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 A2.0
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
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"
>> D
sence 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 recal
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
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 re
t 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,
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 converte
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 "con
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
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
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, y
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
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,
> 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, h
ROTECTED]>
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 ce
t;
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.
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, Fe
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_teleconve
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
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
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
> >
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
> 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 longe
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 virt
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
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 tele
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
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 resol
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 Ke
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 ver
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 inp
> 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
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,
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? Di
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 t
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 imag
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:
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
-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 magni
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 imag
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:
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:
ht
/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
]
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
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 Ge
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
