Re: Nikon Teleconverters
 

In article <im28c8pi9l5uf3o1m4kuouccle7uv42rhi@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> I remember a discussion of the relative merits of each of these some
> time ago. Unfortunately I didn't pay pay much attention and have since
> deleted the thread.
>
> I seem to recall that the 1.4 times was judged not too bad and so to
> was the 1.7. However the 2 times was regarded held to visibly degrade
> the image for pixel peepers. Am I correct.

that's pretty much true for all teleconverters. you lose a stop on the
1.4, with minor image degradation and 2 stops on the 2x with more
degradation.

there is some debate whether cropping and upscaling is comparable. one
thing is certain, cropping is a lot cheaper.

> I am considering using one on my 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Does anyone here
> have any experience with any of these?

the 1.4 should work well with that lens, making it a 100-280 f/4.

a 2x would get you to 400 but at f/5.6.

Re: Nikon Teleconverters
 

On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <im28c8pi9l5uf3o1m4kuouccle7uv42rhi@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> I remember a discussion of the relative merits of each of these some
>>> time ago. Unfortunately I didn't pay pay much attention and have since
>>> deleted the thread.
>>>
>>> I seem to recall that the 1.4 times was judged not too bad and so to
>>> was the 1.7. However the 2 times was regarded held to visibly degrade
>>> the image for pixel peepers. Am I correct.
>>
>> that's pretty much true for all teleconverters. you lose a stop on the
>> 1.4, with minor image degradation and 2 stops on the 2x with more
>> degradation.
>>
>> there is some debate whether cropping and upscaling is comparable. one
>> thing is certain, cropping is a lot cheaper.
>>
>>> I am considering using one on my 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Does anyone here
>>> have any experience with any of these?
>>
>> the 1.4 should work well with that lens, making it a 100-280 f/4.
>
> The D300 is a DX camera so this is the FX equivalent of 157-448.
>
> Autofocus will probably still work OK too.
>>
>> a 2x would get you to 400 but at f/5.6.
>
> I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
> looks as though it is going to go cheaply.
>


Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.

Re: Nikon Teleconverters
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <mesaminenewsgroup@google.com> wrote:
: On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
: > On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
: > wrote:
: >
: >> In article <im28c8pi9l5uf3o1m4kuouccle7uv42rhi@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
: >> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
: >>
: >>> I remember a discussion of the relative merits of each of these some
: >>> time ago. Unfortunately I didn't pay pay much attention and have since
: >>> deleted the thread.
: >>>
: >>> I seem to recall that the 1.4 times was judged not too bad and so to
: >>> was the 1.7. However the 2 times was regarded held to visibly degrade
: >>> the image for pixel peepers. Am I correct.
: >>
: >> that's pretty much true for all teleconverters. you lose a stop on the
: >> 1.4, with minor image degradation and 2 stops on the 2x with more
: >> degradation.
: >>
: >> there is some debate whether cropping and upscaling is comparable. one
: >> thing is certain, cropping is a lot cheaper.
: >>
: >>> I am considering using one on my 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Does anyone here
: >>> have any experience with any of these?
: >>
: >> the 1.4 should work well with that lens, making it a 100-280 f/4.
: >
: > The D300 is a DX camera so this is the FX equivalent of 157-448.
: >
: > Autofocus will probably still work OK too.
: >>
: >> a 2x would get you to 400 but at f/5.6.
: >
: > I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
: > looks as though it is going to go cheaply.
:
: Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.

Is there even such a thing as an AF mirror lens?

Bob

Re: Nikon Teleconverters
 

In article <g0nac8pou6t73jk1nl3mavsmp4er9jojma@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
<bob@1776.COM> wrote:

> : > I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
> : > looks as though it is going to go cheaply.
> :
> : Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.
>
> Is there even such a thing as an AF mirror lens?

minolta made one.

Re: Nikon Teleconverters
 

On 10/12/2012 2:51 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <mesaminenewsgroup@google.com> wrote:
> : On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> : > On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >> In article <im28c8pi9l5uf3o1m4kuouccle7uv42rhi@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> : >> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> : >>
> : >>> I remember a discussion of the relative merits of each of these some
> : >>> time ago. Unfortunately I didn't pay pay much attention and have since
> : >>> deleted the thread.
> : >>>
> : >>> I seem to recall that the 1.4 times was judged not too bad and so to
> : >>> was the 1.7. However the 2 times was regarded held to visibly degrade
> : >>> the image for pixel peepers. Am I correct.
> : >>
> : >> that's pretty much true for all teleconverters. you lose a stop on the
> : >> 1.4, with minor image degradation and 2 stops on the 2x with more
> : >> degradation.
> : >>
> : >> there is some debate whether cropping and upscaling is comparable. one
> : >> thing is certain, cropping is a lot cheaper.
> : >>
> : >>> I am considering using one on my 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Does anyone here
> : >>> have any experience with any of these?
> : >>
> : >> the 1.4 should work well with that lens, making it a 100-280 f/4.
> : >
> : > The D300 is a DX camera so this is the FX equivalent of 157-448.
> : >
> : > Autofocus will probably still work OK too.
> : >>
> : >> a 2x would get you to 400 but at f/5.6.
> : >
> : > I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
> : > looks as though it is going to go cheaply.
> :
> : Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.
>
> Is there even such a thing as an AF mirror lens?
>
> Bob
>

BTWI did make a correction its focus assist.

Re: Nikon Teleconverters
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <mesaminenewsgroup@google.com>
wrote:
>
>Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.


Actually both my D200 and D300 will try to autofocus out to f/8 with
the D300 being more successful. 200-400 f/4 + TC-20E.

Re: Nikon Teleconverters
 

In article <t548c81o96et8qg7fueejtu59755l7g6gd@4ax.com>,
Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
>looks as though it is going to go cheaply.

If it's going cheaply, give it a shot. Here is a set taken with the
Tamron 55BB:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberas...th/7033661967/

This guy usually shoots *handheld* with his 55BB, if you can believe that.

The 55B had the ability to have a lens mount, FWIW.

--
Please reply to: | No nation is drunken where wine is cheap.
pciszek at panix dot com | --Thomas Jefferson

Re: Nikon Teleconverters
 

Robert Coe <bob@1776.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:14:29 +1100, Rob <mesaminenewsgroup@google.com> wrote:
> : On 9/12/2012 3:21 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> : > On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:10:04 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >> In article <im28c8pi9l5uf3o1m4kuouccle7uv42rhi@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> : >> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> : >>
> : >>> I remember a discussion of the relative merits of each of these some
> : >>> time ago. Unfortunately I didn't pay pay much attention and have since
> : >>> deleted the thread.
> : >>>
> : >>> I seem to recall that the 1.4 times was judged not too bad and so to
> : >>> was the 1.7. However the 2 times was regarded held to visibly degrade
> : >>> the image for pixel peepers. Am I correct.
> : >>
> : >> that's pretty much true for all teleconverters. you lose a stop on the
> : >> 1.4, with minor image degradation and 2 stops on the 2x with more
> : >> degradation.
> : >>
> : >> there is some debate whether cropping and upscaling is comparable. one
> : >> thing is certain, cropping is a lot cheaper.
> : >>
> : >>> I am considering using one on my 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Does anyone here
> : >>> have any experience with any of these?
> : >>
> : >> the 1.4 should work well with that lens, making it a 100-280 f/4.
> : >
> : > The D300 is a DX camera so this is the FX equivalent of 157-448.
> : >
> : > Autofocus will probably still work OK too.
> : >>
> : >> a 2x would get you to 400 but at f/5.6.
> : >
> : > I'm trying to resist bidding for a Tamron f/8 500 mirror lens which
> : > looks as though it is going to go cheaply.
> :
> : Says somewhere that AF should be f5.6 or larger for it to work correctly.

> Is there even such a thing as an AF mirror lens?

The old Minolta 500mm f8 reflex was the first and AFIAK the only one,
later to become the slightly tweaked Sony 500mm f8 reflex. I think the
only differences were the lens hood and the usual "digital" coating of
the rear element.

AF completely revolutionises these lenses. Even with live view
magnified out to pixel level it takes me tens of seconds to manually
focus mine, and I very rarely get focus nailed as sharply as the AF
does. It has a focus lock button on the side of the lens, which is
handy when following a distant bird which flies behind a nearby tree
and I don't want the AF to jump to the tree. But what would be really
nice would be to have the completely adjustable autofocus range limiter
the Sony A99 has!

--
Chris Malcolm