[jpzk]

There is no processing on any of these, straight conversion to jpeg from RAW:

DA*300, f/4.5, 1/1600, ISO1250

NO TC


NO TC, Big Crop



DA*300, f/5, 1/640, ISO1250

W/ Tamron 1.4 TC


W/ Tamron 1.4 TC, Big Crop



-------------------

These were handheld - the one with the TC was shot at a 1/640 shutter speed, a 1250+ speed would have produced better. Not much difference at all, very slight difference but again that is due to shutter speed. Also, keep in mind these are zeroed out, no processing and a straight raw conversion - a tap of sharpness would make both of these blistering sharp...

Strange happening again for me when I see those images (of yours) taken with the Tamron 1.4X TC: my experience with this setup, and also with the Pentax 1.7X adapter, is that I seem to loose LOTS of details, almost in a fuzzy fashion.

Reiterating here the fact that this whole business of using (any) TC's with my DA*300/4 is likely due to faulty technique from my part.

BTW, those are great shots of the lion, TC or not.

JP

[jpzk]

Hey Lads, Yes, the Sigma 1.4x and 2x both give very acceptable IQ on the Sigma 300/2.8. I prefer the 1.4 as its still easy hand holding, but I do still use the 2x hand held if the light is good. I recently popped a pic in the 300mm lens club thread which is a bout a 50% crop out of a pic I took hand held (AF tracking during a 7fps burst of about 10 -12 photos) an Eagle flying around, I was stacking both the 1.4 and the 2x converters on the 300/2.8, so 840mm. (the pic in that thread is the jepg straight out of the camera, cropped and resized with "Paint" as I don't currently have PS running on my laptop.) As a note all those pics in the suf thread are also the jpeg directly out the K-5. When I'm chasing eagles / hawks I generally have the 300/2x combo on. (exif info always states 300 as a focal length tho) I tend to switch off SR when I'm on the gimbal head, all the pics taken at the surf contest, and that pic (840mm) of the eagle I had SR on..
That is exactly what I wanted to know, and thanks for the feedback.
It would be a total shame to dish out that much dough on a great lens (the Siggy 300/2.8) and not having good results with the corresponding TC's.
By "very acceptable IQ", how would you actually compare lens-only vs. one or the other Sigma TC ?

As a side note, I use my Sigma 2x converter on my FA*200/2.8, I give excellent results as a 400/5.6, AF perfect. and the pictures retain that magic that the FA*200 has. I have also stcked in a "gutted" 2x AF teleconverter as an extension tube with that combo (FA*200/Sigma 2x/ extension tube) and had very fine success as 400mm macro lens, catching Dragonflies in the backyard.

Thanks again for the report of the Sigma lens + TC's.

JP

[jpzk]

JP - I just came across a long lens discussion which you might want to read - really put a lot of all this in perspective for me.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/groups/161-birding-group/2265-lenses-birding.html?pp=15

Very good thread ! Complements very nicely this one here.

Thanks for the link.

JP

[stormtech]

I have been looking forward to this elusive Pentax SDM TC for quite some time, as many of us here have, but it still seems like a farfetched venture.

I know.....if we had TC available to us we probably wouldn't be having this conversation!

Well, that is likely my technique with the Q + DA*300/4 but I have one heck of a time to get half decent pics with this set up.
I'll try again when it stops snowing here .... quite heavily for the past couple of days with "mushy" snow: not a great time for testing in good light.

I've had very promising results with the Q and FA*300 - a sturdy tripod is a must. I am primarily a tripod shooter anyway.





I hate shooting feeders in my bird pics, but like you - it is snowing again today - been cloudy and dreary - I don't think I've seen the sun for 2 weeks now - come on spring!!

---

Last edited by photolady95; 04-17-2016 at 02:44 AM.

[wildman]

TCs, cropping, zooms - for small bird detail there is no substitute for long glass at prime focus.
560mm...

[stormtech]

TCs, cropping, zooms - for small bird detail they are no substitute for long glass at prime focus.
560mm...

Oh man.....I mean oh man! Are these with the new DA 560?

[wildman]

Are these with the new DA 560?

No - this...

---

Last edited by wildman; 03-16-2013 at 05:50 AM.

[crewl1]

It drives me nuts when I see images posted of a Great Blue Heron or Wood Duck that fills the frame with a 300mm lens. I beat my head against the wall for a long time until I realized that a lot of these images were being taken a city parks and such where the wildlife is accustomed to people being close. Where I am, if a GBH or Wood Duck even senses that I am within 100 yards of them, they are gone.

Case in point.

[audiobomber]

No - this...

Amazing detail. Could you explain this setup please? Very interesting.

[stormtech]

Case in point.

Thanks for posting that Larry. While I knew it to be true, I am just amazed at how close this person actually is to that GBH!

[derekkite]

Hey Lads, Yes, the Sigma 1.4x and 2x both give very acceptable IQ on the Sigma 300/2.8. I prefer the 1.4 as its still easy hand holding, but I do still use the 2x hand held if the light is good. I recently popped a pic in the 300mm lens club thread which is a bout a 50% crop out of a pic I took hand held (AF tracking during a 7fps burst of about 10 -12 photos) an Eagle flying around, I was stacking both the 1.4 and the 2x converters on the 300/2.8, so 840mm. (the pic in that thread is the jepg straight out of the camera, cropped and resized with "Paint" as I don't currently have PS running on my laptop.) As a note all those pics in the suf thread are also the jpeg directly out the K-5. When I'm chasing eagles / hawks I generally have the 300/2x combo on. (exif info always states 300 as a focal length tho) I tend to switch off SR when I'm on the gimbal head, all the pics taken at the surf contest, and that pic (840mm) of the eagle I had SR on..

As a side note, I use my Sigma 2x converter on my FA*200/2.8, I give excellent results as a 400/5.6, AF perfect. and the pictures retain that magic that the FA*200 has. I have also stcked in a "gutted" 2x AF teleconverter as an extension tube with that combo (FA*200/Sigma 2x/ extension tube) and had very fine success as 400mm macro lens, catching Dragonflies in the backyard.

Just to clarify, since it's hard to figure from the sigma charts, with a pentax mount the 1.4 TC gives you autofocus using the sigma 300 2.8? The lens is screw af, is it not? Does the TC have a screw af mechanism?

I'm asking because every time I look I come to a different conclusion

Derek

[littledrawe]

I am just amazed at how close this person actually is to that GBH!

I had a GBH land 20' from me the other day, the kind that are afraid of people. I was 2' feet away from my tripod about a big step and the second I flinched it took to the skies. I can't get them to stay still if my life depended on it.

[stormtech]

I had a GBH land 20' from me the other day, the kind that are afraid of people. I was 2' feet away from my tripod about a big step and the second I flinched it took to the skies. I can't get them to stay still if my life depended on it.

That shows you were blending in with your environment. With what you are usually shooting with that would have made for a heck of a head shot.

[jpzk]

Hi jpzk

I use the Sigma 50-500 OS/HSM with the Tamron 1.4x PZ-AF TC and have been very satisfied.

I'm not a birder, but here's an example taken at 500mm (downsized from the original 16MB but with a 100% crop).


Link


Link (100% crop)

EDIT: The post SHOULD show the images but doesn't (they show in the edit box) -- so I've added links.

Links don't work either!

JP

[jpzk]

TCs, cropping, zooms - for small bird detail there is no substitute for long glass at prime focus.
560mm...

Sure, that's fantastic, but really .... not the type of lens I would carry along on trails.
Nonetheless, those are splendid photos!

JP