Minolta teleconverters
- Thread starter bja
- Start date
- Status
I bought it at Cathay Photos. So for the lens that I have mentioned, no need to test coz it works for me. But if you want reassurance, no harm bringing your gears to Cathay to test.
There is another one Kenko Teleplus Pro 2x convertor which is white. There was a MO on that some weeks back. That one will also work.
For pictures of the setup, I will post them when I get my digital camera back so stay tuned to this page.
Ciao. Regards.
There is another one Kenko Teleplus Pro 2x convertor which is white. There was a MO on that some weeks back. That one will also work.
For pictures of the setup, I will post them when I get my digital camera back so stay tuned to this page.
Ciao. Regards.
TME said:
No worries about MF. Even with a 80-200/2.8 lens, it (AF) hunts and I often use MF. The view finder may look darker when you use with teleconvertor. By the way, you have a 100-400 lens, do you need 2x convertor? IMHO, 1.4x should be quite sufficient for general shooting and you still have AF when using a 1.4x.
iceberg said:
Ah, 1 stop of light in aperture is equal to square root of 2 which is equal to 1.41+. Hence, 2 stop would be 1.41 x 1.41 = 2. Take 1.4 multiply 2 will get 2.8. The calculation is the same for other aperture value such as f5.6 becomes f11.
I ever read from the net that some teleconvertors are able to support AF up to f8 (meaning value 8 and below). Do check with the product specs before buying.
Regards.
forbytes said:
Well, I'm trying out my hand on nature photography.... 400mm is a little too short I thought...... so up it to 800mm would be better but then again I'm looking at f/13 (max aperture on lens at 400mm is f/6.7) so no DOF to talk about... so just want to ask around if it is worth anyway.... thanks!
i went to check up on the MC7 2x Teleconverter .... it's recommended for f2.8 lens or brighter....
forbytes said:well, I do not think that most nature shooters carry a 800mm bazooka with them to sungei bulok. Most still carry a teleconvertor (either 2x or 1.4x, some may even stack) and match with a 100-400mm zoom, so your DOF are not much different from the rest.
Is it? I have no experience at all..... but I thought some might use a 400mm prime lens f/4 with a TC.... that works out to f/8 which is way better than f/13 or f/16.... kekekeke.....
forbytes said:well, I do not think that most nature shooters carry a 800mm bazooka with them to sungei bulok. Most still carry a teleconvertor (either 2x or 1.4x, some may even stack) and match with a 100-400mm zoom, so your DOF are not much different from the rest.
My experience of the 2x MC7 Teleplus on my Tokina 100-300 ATX Pro f4 is bad purple fringing. This lens is normally excellent (tested against the Canon 300mm f4 prime it held its own), but shooting at Sungei Buloh with the convertor caused very visible purple lines along the edges of white egrets/herons against a dark background. This is probably the worst situation, but be warned - it shows that you really must test your own lens with whatever teleconvertor you plan to buy. I believe that Teleplus is designed/made by Kenko who are a sister company of Tokina, so even with the same company there are no guarantees.
I'm now considering the 1.4x Kenko Pro teleconvertor. Anyone know where you can buy in Singapore, or if there will be another MO?
TME said:
The nature shooters from Nature Photography Society (NPS) do carry bazookers to the field. I was fortunate enough to attend this workshop in which 1 of the speakers came from NPS and he shared about the mobility problems in lugging these monsters around. They use 400mm F4 or 300mm F2.8 and use TC too. Shooting birds is a very expensive affair and there's no short cut to it. Using a zoom plus TC makes shooting birds, already very tiring affair, next to impossible.
Several months ago, there was somebody from NPS selling the minolta 400/4, which was at a very competitive price, albeit not cheap because its not a cheap lens after all.
Check this site out for details: http://www.naturephotosociety.org.sg/ASP/Main.asp
I'm just sharing the bits I've learnt over the time from other more experienced photographers, so my sharing may not be absolutely correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1) Its not easy cos by using TC and a zoom (which is already slower than prime cos zoom's maximum aperture is much smaller than prime's), it means you must use very fast film to capture object at satisfactorily fast enough shuttle speed to get adequate exposure.
2) In the previous posts, we've learnt many zooms when stacked with TC, make AF difficult. Doing MF when shooting animals makes shooting a little more difficult.
3) TC actually degrades optical quality because it has glass and lens in them. This is different from extension tube, which has no glass/lens in them. Generally, most zoom have poorer optical quality than primes, so the additive degradation of optical quality may become obvious in the final picture.
Canon users I know actually use 70-200 L F2.8 lens with TC. Thus, they compensate by using a higher quality lens (L) and a wide aperture (F2.8).
Ultimately, I never said its impossible to shoot TC and zoom, just more difficult. ("next to impossible") :sweatsm: If you try hard enough, I'm sure you can overcome the obstacles and that's when your experience will be helpful to guide newbies with limited budget to nature photography.
1) Its not easy cos by using TC and a zoom (which is already slower than prime cos zoom's maximum aperture is much smaller than prime's), it means you must use very fast film to capture object at satisfactorily fast enough shuttle speed to get adequate exposure.
2) In the previous posts, we've learnt many zooms when stacked with TC, make AF difficult. Doing MF when shooting animals makes shooting a little more difficult.
3) TC actually degrades optical quality because it has glass and lens in them. This is different from extension tube, which has no glass/lens in them. Generally, most zoom have poorer optical quality than primes, so the additive degradation of optical quality may become obvious in the final picture.
Canon users I know actually use 70-200 L F2.8 lens with TC. Thus, they compensate by using a higher quality lens (L) and a wide aperture (F2.8).
Ultimately, I never said its impossible to shoot TC and zoom, just more difficult. ("next to impossible") :sweatsm: If you try hard enough, I'm sure you can overcome the obstacles and that's when your experience will be helpful to guide newbies with limited budget to nature photography.
yeocolin said:I'm just sharing the bits I've learnt over the time from other more experienced photographers, so my sharing may not be absolutely correct. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1) Its not easy cos by using TC and a zoom (which is already slower than prime cos zoom's maximum aperture is much smaller than prime's), it means you must use very fast film to capture object at satisfactorily fast enough shuttle speed to get adequate exposure.
2) In the previous posts, we've learnt many zooms when stacked with TC, make AF difficult. Doing MF when shooting animals makes shooting a little more difficult.
3) TC actually degrades optical quality because it has glass and lens in them. This is different from extension tube, which has no glass/lens in them. Generally, most zoom have poorer optical quality than primes, so the additive degradation of optical quality may become obvious in the final picture.
Canon users I know actually use 70-200 L F2.8 lens with TC. Thus, they compensate by using a higher quality lens (L) and a wide aperture (F2.8).
Ultimately, I never said its impossible to shoot TC and zoom, just more difficult. ("next to impossible") :sweatsm: If you try hard enough, I'm sure you can overcome the obstacles and that's when your experience will be helpful to guide newbies with limited budget to nature photography.
Hmm... thanks!
1) If shooting during the day, small apertures should not be a problem....
2) Am prepared to use MF although I know it might be tough but beggars can't be choosers....
3) Extension tubes only increase magnification factor but not the reach of the lens which is what I am after..... I dun want to shoot and find that the subject is like covering only 20% of the frame.... which is what is happening now....
Hai... Minolta has its equivalent lar..... the G lens.... but $$$$$$$...... :cry:
ahh, it was a Minolta 400/f4.5 G which was on sale. Very good piece of hardware. Regular bird shooters will certainly invest in bazooka, but how many of us shoot bird most of the time. I do respect those shooters able to produce good piece of work. Indeed, capture bird in flight is certainly no easy business. Even with 400 or 300 prime lens is still difficult. If you talk to "old birds", they will tell you it is the technique and experience and not hardware. :lovegrin:
- Status
Similar threads
