P.J., I understood it. Knew I never said it. But thanks for the
response.
On May 11, 2009, at 20:39 , Bob Sullivan wrote:
Actually Joe, you tell it the lens is 510mm.
300mm x 1.7 converter is 510mm.
It's not that smart about combinations.
Regards, Bob S.
Thanks, Bob S. I was never sure, and obviously never did my homework
on the capabilities of and the contact functions of the AF 1.7x.. I'm
sure the same is true of the 1.4x and 2.0x telec's.
And I think I'm limited to 500mm, as the K10, K20 don't fine tune your
choices to that degree. Surely close enough for the SR to do it's job.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Joseph McAllister
<[email protected]> wrote:
This may have been touched on before, but I don't remember it, and
I'd like
to know.
Do the DSLR cameras know when you are using the AF 1.7x
teleconverter? Or
any teleconverter, for that matter? So when you slap a construct on
the
camera, do you tell it (for shake reduction info) the focal length
of the
lens, or the focal length of the combination?
My A* 300mm ƒ4.0 with the AF 1.7x. 300mm? or 425mm?
Joe
On May 11, 2009, at 10:42 , Tim Øsleby wrote:
Focus wise the F 1,7 does a good job with my DA* 300. It's locks
fast,
sometimes faster than the DA* 300 alone. I was refering to image
quality when saying it didn't seem tp like other lenses. But
fringing
or abrivation or whatever it is, is unaceptable. steping down at
least
two steps, more in high contrast situations is needed
If it doesn’t excite you,
This thing that you see,
Why in the world,
Would it excite me?
—Jay Maisel
Joseph McAllister
[email protected]
Joseph McAllister
[email protected]
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
