Teleconverters are just another tool available to the photographer.
I've used teleconverters occasionally for many, many years. I used to have a Tamron 300/f2.8 (and the matched teleconverter). That got replaced by the A* 300/2.8. Although I did (and still do) have the 1.4x and 2x TCs, much of the time I used that lens with the 1.7x AF adapter on a PZ-1p or MZ-S; it's a lot easier to carry (and a lot cheaper) than a lens that can go to 500mm. When we got to the digital era, of course, I was effectively already cropping images - the sensor in the *ist-D was smaller than a frame of 35mm film. I've stuck with that sensor size for now; for what I tend to take photographs of it is a better fit (and easier on the wallet, not to mention making less demands on my computer). But I did pick up the new 1.4x TC that knows how to talk to the SR system. I've even tried using it with the 60-250 zoom. I'm sure there is some loss of image quality from using a TC. But there are a whole lot of other things that can degrade images, too. If you're doing studio shots with an absolutely rigid camera stand, locking the mirror up to avoid vibration, etc. you can get rid of quite a few possible causes. Image processing software gets better every year, too - lens profiles can correct for non-linearities. In fact from what I've seen you can often compensate for a lack of actual pixels - the latest "upscaling" algorithms are astonishing. Looking back on the set of images that rotate through my desktop background, there are far more significant things for me to take care of before I start to worry about using a teleconverter. -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
