On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:08:00 -0500, you wrote: >> Can someone compare the A 2x-L, A 2x-S and the Takumar-A 2x for me >> pls? > >The A 2X-L is worth using (as compared to the A 2X-S), if you have a >lens that it will work with. The A 2X-S is a good TC for the >majority of lenses, but I would say that the K T6-2X is nearly as >good (except it does not have A electrical contacts, of course, if >that's a factor for you), and it's more compact (almost as small as >the A 1.4X-S). The Tak-A 2X is a lesser TC, without SMC and with a >simpler optical design. > >> They're all junk. Expensive junk. In the case of the 2X-L, the >> best 2x junk available for Pentax big glass. But still junk. > >Yes, I hear you, John (a.k.a. "Mr. NoCompromise"). ;-) > >Fred
Actually, I wasn't being terribly serious about every 2x TC being junk. They're not all junk - they're just irrelevant. There's lots of better ways to get that tiny bit of extra focal length over a good quality 1.4x TC. I don't think every 2x TC is by nature the worst thing ever added to a lens, despite my tongue-in-cheek claim they are all junk. In fact, I have taken many opportunities to extol the virtues of the Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter. I also think the Pentax 2x-L is a must-have item for anyone using the FA* 600/4 - but at least one owner of that fine lens disagrees with me. It's just that with a 2x TC, you never can depend on getting a really sharp photo, except at close distances, in which case you probably didn't need the 2x TC anyway. You're much better off spending the money on a longer lens, or learning how to get closer, or learning to predict where the subject will be. For all those who still need a 2x TC, take two steps forward, and call me in the morning. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
