> A 2.8/300mm Pentax cost app. a months salery here > - I could buy a nice, used car for that! I have the SMC M* 4/300mm - > it's actually excellent, but is lacking the AF of cource. Jens
That's the trouble I'm too sensible I'd probably go for the car option too. I had a 300 f4 'K' for some time always wanted to try the M* or A* but never got one. John John Whittingham Technician ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:21:51 +0200 Subject: RE: Teleconverter Crap > So it seems the Pentax 2.8/80-200mm cost two times as much as list price > here (I would never buy one in a store here, but use an internet > store in Gremany). A 2.8/300mm Pentax cost app. a months salery here > - I could buy a nice, used car for that! I have the SMC M* 4/300mm - > it's actually excellent, but is lacking the AF of cource. Jens > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 6. juli 2004 12:07 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: RE: Teleconverter Crap > > > Teleconverters are about weight and bulk, not about cost. > > If you travel through Africa on a motorbike to take photograps, it's > > a good idea to carry some nice 2.8 high quality lenses along with a > > teleconverter. > > I couldn't agree more, (especially being a motorcyclist myself) > maybe a 80- 200 f2.8 Pentax + a quality 1.4X and 2X, let's see that > gives us 112-280 f3.9 and a 160-400 f5.6. > > 280 f3.9 yes that sounds reasonable especially with the optics of > the Pentax lens in question, 400 f5.6 where have I come across that > before? ah yes 300 f4 with 1.4 TC > > > But using the > > converter with a relatively cheap 4-5.6 lens to save cost is > > nonsence. If you choose cheap, slow lenses, just buy one more and > > forget about converters. Just my opinion. > > I have a supplement on lenses came with a Photo Mag entitled 'The > Great Lens Supplement' oddly enough. The best zoom tested was the > Pentax 80-200 f2.8 �2000 scoring 89% it's closest rivals were Nikon > 80-200 (85%) and Minolta 80- 200 (85%) they never tested the Canon, > for some reason Canon did not submit in that range but chose 75-300 > IS (77%). In the same supplement appears the Sigma 300mm f4 cheap as > chips under fixed focal length @ �700 scoring (89%) beaten buy some > real budjet rivals Canon 135 f2 �1000, Minolta 85 f1.4 �920 and just > matched by the Leitz 100 f2.8R �2098. > > Does it matter how much the lens costs providing it gives you the > results you crave? > > I'd love a 300mm f2.8 but just can't justify the cost, I do not need > to use my photographic skills to earn a living (unfortunately!) > > John Whittingham > > Technician > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 08:10:02 +0200 > Subject: RE: Teleconverter Crap > > > Teleconverters are about weight and bulk, not about cost. > > If you travel through Africa on a motorbike to take photograps, it's > > a good idea to carry some nice 2.8 high quality lenses along with a > teleconverter. > > Then you can leave maybe 2 or 3 heavy lenses at home. But using the > > converter with a relatively cheap 4-5.6 lens to save cost is > > nonsence. If you choose cheap, slow lenses, just buy one more and > > forget about converters. Just my opinion. > > > > Jens Bladt > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > > Fra: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 5. juli 2004 20:04 > > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Emne: Re: Teleconverter Crap > > > > > 1. Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > > > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > > > lens.) > > > > I don't recall anyone mentioning wide angle. > > > > > 2. Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > > > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > > > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. > > > > It's a good job the 600mm f4's can be obtained so readily and cheap then! > > A 420 f5.6 really isn't bad at all, my combination is as sharp as > > the same manufacturers 400 f5.6 prime. > > > > > 3. Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > > > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > > > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. > > > > Useful for those starting out on a low budjet, they can upgrade later. > > > > John Whittingham > > > > Technician > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:40:28 -0700 > > Subject: Re: Teleconverter Crap > > > > > Bob's laws of teleconverter use: > > > > > > 1. Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > > > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > > > lens.) > > > 2. Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > > > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > > > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. > > > 3. Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > > > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > > > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. > > > 4. In order to get the DOF control, you will eventually sell your > > > youngest child to buy both an ~85mm & ~100mm lenses thus relegating the > > > teleconverters to very rare use. > > > > > > 5. Eventually, you will put the (now little used) teleconverters > > > on ebay to get the cash to help redeem your youngest child. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Bob... > > > ---------------------- > > > "They called my parent's generation 'The Greatest Generation' for a > > reason. > > > We have become a nation of narcissistic whiners and wienies who have > > > no sense of history and no vision of the future. We are without > > > resolve, and having forgotten first principles, we are easily swayed > > > to embrace lies expressed to us in trite slogans. We think life is > > > about us, forgetting that it is the generations to come that we > > > should live for." - Blakely > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > ------- End of Original Message ------- ------- End of Original Message -------
