1.5 converter with a 28-200mm zoom?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Toomanyputters, Dec 17, 2004.

  1. Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
    zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?
     
    Toomanyputters, Dec 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Toomanyputters" <> wrote in message
    news:_lrwd.6700$...
    > Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
    > zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?


    Right, it becomes 42-300mm, and one stop slower.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Toomanyputters

    Bill Crocker Guest

    Yes, but it probably will not auto-focus, due to low light levels from
    f/stops lost.

    Bill Crocker

    "Toomanyputters" <> wrote in message
    news:_lrwd.6700$...
    > Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
    > zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?
    >
     
    Bill Crocker, Dec 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Toomanyputters

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:20:14 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Crocker"
    <> wrote:

    >"Toomanyputters" <> wrote in message
    >news:_lrwd.6700$...
    >> Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
    >> zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?


    >Yes, but it probably will not auto-focus, due to low light levels from
    >f/stops lost.


    Top posting corrected.

    Adding a 1.5 TC will get the op a 42-300mm focal length range with the TC
    attached. Whether there is any loss of stops depends on the specific design
    of the converter. For example the Nikon TCs for the CPs are designed to
    keep the same f stop.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Dec 17, 2004
    #4
  5. Toomanyputters

    Tony Guest

    Anal retentive bottom poster corrected.

    > Yes, but it probably will not auto-focus, due to low
    > Adding a 1.5 TC will get the op a 42-300mm focal length range with the TC

    ________________________________________________________
    > Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    > http://EdwardGRuf.com
    > attached. Whether there is any loss of stops depends on the specific

    design
    > of the converter. For example the Nikon TCs for the CPs are designed to
    > keep the same f stop.


    On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:20:14 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Crocker"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Toomanyputters" <rainydays@theswamp



    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Ed Ruf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > .com> wrote in message
    > >news:_lrwd.6700$...
    > >> Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a

    28-200mm
    > >> zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?

    >
    > >light levels from
    > >f/stops lost.

    >
    > Top posting corrected.
    >
     
    Tony, Dec 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Toomanyputters

    Tony Guest

    I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and I am
    a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred mm area but
    the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon 75-300 lens is
    about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Toomanyputters" <> wrote in message
    news:_lrwd.6700$...
    > Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
    > zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Dec 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Toomanyputters

    RustY© Guest

    "Tony" <> wrote in message
    news:Hlvwd.6732$...
    > Anal retentive bottom poster corrected.



    As neither of you snipped the posts - the top poster won on points.
    --
    For Welsh Military Flying visit .......
    www.groups.yahoo.com/group/V-A-S/
     
    RustY©, Dec 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Tony wrote:
    > I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and
    > I am a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred
    > mm area but the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon
    > 75-300 lens is about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.


    ... and how would he fit your Canon 75 - 300mm lens onto his Canon Pro1?
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 17, 2004
    #8
  9. Toomanyputters

    Pepys Guest

    Hi Ed. Had a rough day son?


    "Ed Ruf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:20:14 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Crocker"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"Toomanyputters" <> wrote in message
    >>news:_lrwd.6700$...
    >>> Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
    >>> zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?

    >
    >>Yes, but it probably will not auto-focus, due to low light levels from
    >>f/stops lost.

    >
    > Top posting corrected.
    >
    > Adding a 1.5 TC will get the op a 42-300mm focal length range with the TC
    > attached. Whether there is any loss of stops depends on the specific
    > design
    > of the converter. For example the Nikon TCs for the CPs are designed to
    > keep the same f stop.
    > ________________________________________________________
    > Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    > http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Pepys, Dec 17, 2004
    #9
  10. Toomanyputters

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 06:53:47 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Tony"
    <> wrote:

    > I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and I am
    >a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred mm area but
    >the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon 75-300 lens is
    >about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.


    As to David's point. If you you'd bothered to look the S1 is a fixed lens
    8MP camera. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/
    The TCs in question mount in front of the lens. So there is no way to use
    another lens. At least I looked before replying to the op. :)
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Dec 17, 2004
    #10
  11. Toomanyputters

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:14:17 +1000, in rec.photo.digital "Pepys"
    <[remove]> wrote:

    >Hi Ed. Had a rough day son?


    No. I answered the op's question and made a comment that not all add-on
    TC's for fixed lens digicams need not change the combined f# (yes I
    erroneous called it f-stop) of the lens like those which mount between the
    camera body and the lens of a dslr do. I also gave examples of such
    converters that do not change the combined f#, two of which I have used
    with my CP-990 and 5700, as opposed to the TC-20EII I just bought for my
    D70.

    I corrected the top posting as it takes away from following what the point
    of my reply in regard to the question posed by both the op and the original
    reply. Simply giving notice I did this means I had a bad day? Get a grip.
    At least my reply was on topic and provided at least minimally relevant and
    useful info.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Dec 17, 2004
    #11
  12. Toomanyputters

    Tony Guest

    useful info.
    of my reply in regard to the question posed by both the op and the original
    > reply. Simply giving notice I did this means I had a bad day? Get a

    grip.erroneous called it f-stop) of the lens like those which mount between
    the
    > camera body and the lens of a dslr do. I also gave
    > I corrected the top posting as it takes away from following what the point

    examples of suchrec.photo.digital "Pepys"
    > <[remove]> wrote:
    >
    > >Hi Ed. Had a rough day son?

    >
    > No. I answered the op's question and made a comment that not all add-on
    >
    > converters that do not change the combined f#, two of which I have used

    TC's for fixed lens digicams need not change the combined f# (yes I
    >
    >> At least my reply was on topic and provided at least minimally relevant

    and
    > ________________________________________________________
    > Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    > http://EdwardGRuf.com
    > with my CP-990 and 5700, as opposed to the TC-20EII I just bought for my
    > D70.
    >


    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Ed Ruf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:14:17 +1000, in
    >
     
    Tony, Dec 17, 2004
    #12
  13. Toomanyputters

    Tony Guest

    I guess you wouldn't -- as a dyslexic I reas S1 as IS and... On the other
    hand there is no front add TC in the world worth using.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Tony wrote:
    > > I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and
    > > I am a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred
    > > mm area but the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon
    > > 75-300 lens is about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.

    >
    > .. and how would he fit your Canon 75 - 300mm lens onto his Canon Pro1?
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Dec 17, 2004
    #13
  14. Toomanyputters

    Tony Guest

    How do you manage to ever reply since you are so bizzy bizzy bizzy fixing
    fixing fixing other people's faults?
    It must be very hard being obsessive compulsive, anal retentive, and an
    asso pomposo all at once, Eddy. I recommend a good course of therapy - if
    you can get up the never to leave the house. Perhaps if you hired someone to
    vacuum in front of you everywhere you went. But they might skip places,
    mightent they?

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Ed Ruf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 06:53:47 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Tony"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and I

    am
    > >a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred mm area

    but
    > >the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon 75-300 lens is
    > >about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.

    >
    > As to David's point. If you you'd bothered to look the S1 is a fixed lens
    > 8MP camera. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/
    > The TCs in question mount in front of the lens. So there is no way to use
    > another lens. At least I looked before replying to the op. :)
    > ________________________________________________________
    > Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    > http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Tony, Dec 17, 2004
    #14
  15. Unfortunately, making a point of correct posting format brings out the
    boors such as Tony.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 17, 2004
    #15
  16. Toomanyputters

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Ed Ruf <> wrote:

    >Adding a 1.5 TC will get the op a 42-300mm focal length range with the TC
    >attached. Whether there is any loss of stops depends on the specific design
    >of the converter. For example the Nikon TCs for the CPs are designed to
    >keep the same f stop.


    Same for the Sony 1.7x converter for the F707 and F717.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Toomanyputters

    Guest

    In message <%nvwd.6733$>,
    "Tony" <> wrote:

    > I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and I am
    >a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred mm area but
    >the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon 75-300 lens is
    >about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.


    Pay attention! The poster is asking about a TC for a
    non-interchangeable lens camera; the kind that screws on the front.
    These can be just as sharp as the lens itself, if designed well. The
    1.7x for the Sony 7x7 series is one such TC; it is as fast as the lens
    itself, and does not compromise the overall optics visibly.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 24, 2004
    #17
  18. Toomanyputters

    Guest

    In message <YSEwd.35$>,
    "Tony" <> wrote:

    >I guess you wouldn't -- as a dyslexic I reas S1 as IS and... On the other
    >hand there is no front add TC in the world worth using.


    The Sony 1.7x TC for the 7x7 cameras is excellent. Too heavy for the
    thread mount, though.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 24, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ronny Svensson

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Ronny Svensson, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    931
    Ronny Svensson
    Aug 23, 2003
  2. Stefan Patric

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Stefan Patric, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    793
    Stefan Patric
    Aug 23, 2003
  3. Clyde Torres

    Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom

    Clyde Torres, Apr 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    412
    Bill Tuthill
    Apr 27, 2005
  4. Canon 200mm f2.8/L vs. 70-200mm f/4L

    , Sep 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    371
    JohnR66
    Sep 22, 2005
  5. Bill Crocker

    Nikon D200 + 80-200mm f/2.8 + 2x Tele-Converter = ?

    Bill Crocker, Oct 22, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    991
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Oct 26, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page