[biz-engineer]

I'm wondering about how to cover the supertele range.
- Using a DFA 70-200 2.8 + TC (approx. 100-300 f4) and a longer prime @500 or above.
- Or using a 150-450 (but the 70-200 without TC still needed for sports).

Any opinion on that ?

[Sandy Hancock]

I'm planning to add the DFA*70-200 to my DA*300 + 1.4xTC. If the new lens is as good as I expect I might sell my DA*50-135 and K135/2.5.

I have drawn a line in the sand with regards to lens size; if it doesn't fit in my LowePro Nova 4 I won't buy it, so the 150-450 is out of contention.

[biz-engineer]

That's also what I was thinking about. The DFA*70-200 also has a focus limiter, so, it should be fast focusing, silent AF and sharp, with the option to do sports @f2.8 (needs a fast lens for freezing action or when used indoors), and short range wildlife when combined with a TC. Also the DFA70-200 on a full frame becomes the equivalent of the 50-135 on APSC.

[WPRESTO]

I have used the 1.4X on my 300 f4. IMHO, the image is no better than a deep crop from from the 300 without the 1.4X. That is to be expected. It is essentially impossible for a teleconverter to improve the IQ of a lens to which it is attached. Teleconverters were originally made to provide time-of-shutter-release cropping of chromes (color slides) because cropping a processed chrome in its cardboard mount was very difficult, and maintaining color balance bordered on impossible. I had a few chromes cropped and color balanced by a professional technician, and the results were OK, but not "perfect."

[Lowell Goudge]

I'm wondering about how to cover the supertele range.
- Using a DFA 70-200 2.8 + TC (approx. 100-300 f4) and a longer prime @500 or above.
- Or using a 150-450 (but the 70-200 without TC still needed for sports).

Any opinion on that ?

i have been struggling with this issue for years.

I have a hard time justifying the $$$ for a 500mm prime. and when i started shooting digital, there were not a lot of options available relatively affordible.

in the end, and at the time Jan 2004, i believe i made the right interim choice,

i took the Sigma APO 70-200/2.8 EX ( No DG for digital cameras, and before Sigma introduced Macro, which led to a softening wide open at long focal lengths)
I added, Sigma 1.4 x and later 2x TCs for additional reach, but have always found that when needed for low light, the lens on its own cannot be matched by longer lenses like the BIGMA etc, and the sharpness I get with the TCs is excellent.

But I still want more reach, Ideally i think i would look for the Sigma 500/4.5 and use it either alone or with the 1.4x TC since the lens for pentax remains screw drive.

I have played with other options to get to 500mm, including the K300/4 and 1.7x AF converter, which gives good results but is a little tricky to use. but is light. I also have a tamron 200-500/5.6 with KA mount adaptor, but it is tripod bound and can really produce some awful fringing, but also some stellar images..

Ideally i want something light enough to hand hold, and the 500/4.5 would offer this, or use on a monopod because it is balanced (my tammy is horribly unbalanced and being a 2 ring zoom is impossible to use hand held when combining weight, plus 2 rings, plus a need to press the shutter eventually.

i would be also curious to know how others get to 500mm and beyond

[biz-engineer]

i would be also curious to know how others get to 500mm and beyond

Well, there is a guy in a Hungarian national park, who gave up on long lenses. From what I can see, for birding he first cranked up his lenses and ended-up with a telescope. Then he built several hides below ground level, and he shot with a Nikon 300 f2.8 (i.e possibility to go from 300mm f2.8 to 420mm f4 to 600 f5.6).
Basically, from the hides he has built, a 500mm lens is too long...

[WPRESTO]

For a time back in the film era I had a Nikon 500 f4 P on a Nikon FA, sometimes with a Nikon 2X extender (version for long teles). Excellent lens and excellent results with the 2X (but it only enlarged image to fill the frame of a chrome - not sharper than using a magnifier on an image with the 500 alone). But it was such a monster, both size & weight. Too big/heavy to take when flying, so I gave up on it. BTW: had a device that allowed me to attach a Pentax body to the 500, called a "switcheroo." Basically a 1.4X telexender with Nikon female bayonet on front, Pentax male on back, but no function transfer (lens becomes manual diaphragm). It worked, but optical quality was poor - for me unacceptable. I always thought that was a great idea if only someone would put in better optics.

[biz-engineer]

BTW: had a device that allowed me to attach a Pentax body to the 500, called a "switcheroo." Basically a 1.4X telexender with Nikon female bayonet on front, Pentax male on back,

:-) interesting combination.
And thanks for providing this insight.

[GeneV]

I have an SMC k500/4.5 plus 1.4L converter. The good news is that the converter does not make a big difference in quality, so I have a usable 700mm. The bad news is that the huge manual lens is by no means worth the trouble at 500mm. My DA*300/4 with 1.4x is far easier to use and at least as good cropped to the same FOV. When finances permit I will definitely look at the 150-450 if it performs well with the DA 1.4x.

[biz-engineer]

When finances permit I will definitely look at the 150-450 if it performs well with the DA 1.4x.

In your opinion, why not consider the DA560 ?

[Lowell Goudge]

snip.................300 f2.8 (i.e possibility to go from 300mm f2.8 to 420mm f4 to 600 f5.6).
Basically, from the hides he has built, a 500mm lens is too long...

this is my other consideration, considering again sigma 300/2.8 plus my existing TCs highest degree of flexibility but i give up a little on length 600 compared to 740 using 500/4.5 and 1.4x TC, but can I justify $2000 more for the additional length, the 300/2.8 might be enough.

with respect to 500mm too long, for big birds I agree partially, herons waders etc, you only need 200-300mm, but hawks are very wary of people and you cant get close enough unless they have caught something to eat, to get close enough, also consider a warbler, which might be 100mm long, compared to a great blue heron at over 1 meter. getting a good shot of a warbler needs either luck or a much longer lens.

[WPRESTO]

In your opinion, why not consider the DA560 ?

The 150-450 is about $2500. The 560 is about $7000 = about 4500 reasons to go for the zoom first. Also, the 560 is really HUGE, HUGE, HUGE compared to the 150-450.

---------- Post added 05-29-15 at 10:22 AM ----------

:-) interesting combination.
And thanks for providing this insight.

FYI: Similar devices are still made in China and available on EBAY. You can get one with or without the lens (latter acts as a short extension tube, no focus to infinity). BUT, strictly manual control of everything, and the lens MUST have a diaphragm ring otherwise you'll be focusing and shooting @ f22 all the time.

[normhead]

Westpro... you do know that Pentax engineers have said 3% loss of lw/ph with a TC and since the increase in size is 40% that's a 37 % increase in subject detail, using a DA*. I've done tests that showed detail increases with focal length, whether you use a TC to achieve that focal length or not. On a DA* a TC is well worth while. Even on a consumer lens like my A-400 the 1.4 TC adds subject detail. I'd suggest you test this theory that a TC doesn't add anything. It's an easy test, shoot with the 300, shoot with the 300 and ƒ1.4. Compare your subject.. I used a test chart, and the results really weren't even close. Film would have been even worse. Using the TC would have kept the grain smaller on your subject.

The only way a TC doesn't provide more detail, is if the lens is so poor, the sensor actually out-resolves the lens. Then you are just enlarging aberrations. But both Pentax's tests and my tests show you get better resolution on a small subject, that you were going to have to crop anyway, with an HD DA 1.4 TC. Other 1.4 TC's may not achieve that level. And especially with older glass like my F 70-210 consumer zoom, it's sharp for what it is, but not sharp enough to use with a TC.

Any A*, FA* F* or DA* should be fine with a TC.

[DoctorX]

I finally decided to get a Nikon P900 to handle anything 500mm and beyond. I get a lot of heat from photographers for this decision but at 2 lbs and $600 it fits in my kit and gives reasonable results. I definitely get shots I wouldn't get with the bigma. Like the moon (2000mm eq or the cedar waxwing 1000mm eq and handheld). I know there are a lot of drawbacks but lugging around giant expensive glass isn't always that great either.

[normhead]

It's certainly not worth arguing with the results... I may end up selling Tess' kit and getting one of those. She's just tired of carrying stuff. But does it do macro?