IN answer to the question "Can a DA*200-f2.8 handle stacked TCs.

normhead · 04-04-2016, 08:49 AM - **4 Likes**

K-3 Stacked 1.4 and 1.7 TCs

ƒ8, 800 ISO, AV

While I realize the true test of a lens is distance, not close ups, the short answer is yes, it does, it's awesome. So, in good light, I present 476mm and ƒ8 with the 1.4 TC next to the body and the F 1.7 AF converter in the middle.

It would appear the problems I've had stacking in the past were caused by not having an ƒ2.8 lens to start with. The other thing that comes to mind is, this package, going to 476mm and ƒ6.3 wide open, is a fraction the size of a Bigma. Not only that, starting at ƒ4 with my 60-250, this combo doesn't work well. My maximum reach with the 60-250 and 1.7 is 425. The maximum reach with the 300 is 510. Essentially it looks like I'm going to get all the performance of those two lenses well as the Bigma and various 500mm zooms. Compared to anything else, of equal range, this is a joy to carry, and these images are all taken hand held.

Last edited by normhead; 04-04-2016 at 08:55 AM.

chrisfer · 04-04-2016, 09:07 AM

Nice,

and how is the AF ?

Is there an issue in case of short distance ?

**jatrax** · 04-04-2016, 09:28 AM

Norm, which 1.7 TC? The Pentax one?

pathdoc · 04-04-2016, 09:30 AM

How far away from you were the subjects?

This is great! The only issue (and depending on what you're shooting and where, it may not be one) is that the DOF seems to be really, really thin.

normhead · 04-04-2016, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by chrisfer

Nice,

and how is the AF ?

Is there an issue in case of short distance ?

On images like this and the smaller K-3 AF points, I lifted the camera and the AF was instant, from the bird in front to the bird in back, however if you go beyond the range of the F-1.7 AF converter, you have to manually focus, and then start over, so it's either really fast or really slow.

Originally posted by jatrax

Norm, which 1.7 TC? The Pentax one?

Here's everything here.

Originally posted by pathdoc

How far away from you were the subjects?

This is great! The only issue (and depending on what you're shooting and where, it may not be one) is that the DOF seems to be really, really thin.

Between 12-15 feet.
Thin DoF is pretty much a function of long.

SBeck · 04-04-2016, 10:13 AM

Interesting... so the DA converter and the lens are not doing the focusing, the 1.7 sandwiched in the middle is?

normhead · 04-04-2016, 10:24 AM

Yes.... thats the way it works. I guess someone could also try two 1.4 TCs for full AF and less magnification, I just don't own 2 1.4 TCs .

pathdoc · 04-04-2016, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by SBeck

so the DA converter and the lens are not doing the focusing, the 1.7 sandwiched in the middle is?

Which carries its own advantages, as the 1.7 is "seeing" an f/2.8 lens, not the whole shebang that the in-camera AF would have to cope with. How does all this go down with quickshift?

---------- Post added 04-04-16 at 15:30 ----------

Originally posted by normhead

Thin DoF is pretty much a function of long.

One would have thought distance would minimise that, but yeah, not at the ranges you're talking.

normhead · 04-04-2016, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Which carries its own advantages, as the 1.7 is "seeing" an f/2.8 lens, not the whole shebang that the in-camera AF would have to cope with. How does all this go down with quickshift?

The quick shift is very nice. I'm not sure if a non-quick shift lens would be any different. Taken resting on my kitchen window, instead of the blind.

Here are a few more images from 100 feet away, uncropped

DA*200 Stacked 1.4 and 1.7 TCs/
What's everyone looking at?

Cropped to 2300x 1900 to show that I do have a redwing blackbird hanging out with the grackles.

Probably wrapping up the day, DA* 200 plus stacked TCs day, a few more from the blind, farther than the first images much closer than the kitchen window images.

All the usual suspects

Plus the first Junko of the year.

zzeitg · 04-04-2016, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Yes.... thats the way it works. I guess someone could also try two 1.4 TCs for full AF and less magnification, I just don't own 2 1.4 TCs .

This would be very interesting. We would get 392mm with f5.6.
Small size, lightweight set. Just perfect as walkaround combo.

One question concerning your test. You mentioned it resulted in f8. But why?
f2.8 x 1.4 x 1.7 is 6.66, so I would expect something like f7.1.

**BigMackCam** · 04-04-2016, 11:36 AM

Norm - I'm astounded by the results. I really wouldn't have thought stacking TCs would allow for such nice IQ. Great stuff!

SBeck · 04-04-2016, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by zzeitg

This would be very interesting. We would get 392mm with f5.6.
Small size, lightweight set. Just perfect as walkaround combo.

One question concerning your test. You mentioned it resulted in f8. But why?
f2.8 x 1.4 x 1.7 is 6.66, so I would expect something like f7.1.

Two stacked 1.4 would also maintain the weather sealing through the whole thing (and transmit focal length to the camera, I believe?). Although putting the 1.7 in the mix is an easy way of using screw drive instead of SDM on the 200. Wonder how either of these combos is at tracking moving subjects at a distance?

normhead · 04-04-2016, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by zzeitg

This would be very interesting. We would get 392mm with f5.6.
Small size, lightweight set. Just perfect as walkaround combo.

One question concerning your test. You mentioned it resulted in f8. But why?
f2.8 x 1.4 x 1.7 is 6.66, so I would expect something like f7.1.

Because it's almost 500mm and DoF is an issue. Also, I have no idea what that means. Opened the lens right up and it said said ƒ4.5, which is probably the ƒ2.8 and 1.7, but did not include the 1.4 SO I was stopped down at least 1 stop. I just guessed ƒ8. The camera said 5.6.

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Norm - I'm astounded by the results. I really wouldn't have thought stacking TCs would allow for such nice IQ. Great stuff!

I have seen so many poor results with stacked TCs, I only did this because someone asked me to. I think the difference between myself and others might be, starting with a high quality ƒ2.8 lens, and then adding two high quality TCs.

Originally posted by SBeck

Two stacked 1.4 would also maintain the weather sealing through the whole thing (and transmit focal length to the camera, I believe?). Although putting the 1.7 in the mix is an easy way of using screw drive instead of SDM on the 200. Wonder how either of these combos is at tracking moving subjects at a distance?

I so rarely have an opportunity for BiFs it may be a while before I get a chance to test this.

SBeck · 04-04-2016, 12:49 PM

I'd be more interested in sports field distances than birds in flight, personally. Either way, I'm impressed and sorely tempted to spend some more money that I don't have.

**BigMackCam** · 04-04-2016, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I have seen so many poor results with stacked TCs, I only did this because someone asked me to. I think the difference between myself and others might be, starting with a high quality ƒ2.8 lens, and then adding two high quality TCs.

Indeed, there are lenses and there are lenses

I wouldn't even think to try this with anything other than an excellent lens, but you've demonstrated that if you work with decent glass, the results can be very good indeed. Honestly, if a new user had come onto the forum showing these results and claiming they were from a stacked TC setup then, frankly, I'd have been sceptical...

04-04-2016, 08:49 AM - 4 Likes	#1
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	*IN answer to the question "Can a DA200-f2.8 handle stacked TCs.** K-3 Stacked 1.4 and 1.7 TCs ƒ8, 800 ISO, AV While I realize the true test of a lens is distance, not close ups, the short answer is yes, it does, it's awesome. So, in good light, I present 476mm and ƒ8 with the 1.4 TC next to the body and the F 1.7 AF converter in the middle. It would appear the problems I've had stacking in the past were caused by not having an ƒ2.8 lens to start with. The other thing that comes to mind is, this package, going to 476mm and ƒ6.3 wide open, is a fraction the size of a Bigma. Not only that, starting at ƒ4 with my 60-250, this combo doesn't work well. My maximum reach with the 60-250 and 1.7 is 425. The maximum reach with the 300 is 510. Essentially it looks like I'm going to get all the performance of those two lenses well as the Bigma and various 500mm zooms. Compared to anything else, of equal range, this is a joy to carry, and these images are all taken hand held. Last edited by normhead; 04-04-2016 at 08:55 AM.

04-04-2016, 09:07 AM	#2
chrisfer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Albi, Tarn, France Photos: Albums Posts: 101	Nice, and how is the AF ? Is there an issue in case of short distance ? Last edited by chrisfer; 04-04-2016 at 09:12 AM.

04-04-2016, 11:07 AM	#9
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448 Original Poster	Originally posted by pathdoc Which carries its own advantages, as the 1.7 is "seeing" an f/2.8 lens, not the whole shebang that the in-camera AF would have to cope with. How does all this go down with quickshift? The quick shift is very nice. I'm not sure if a non-quick shift lens would be any different. Taken resting on my kitchen window, instead of the blind. Here are a few more images from 100 feet away, uncropped DA200 Stacked 1.4 and 1.7 TCs/ What's everyone looking at? Cropped to 2300x 1900 to show that I do have a redwing blackbird hanging out with the grackles. Probably wrapping up the day, DA 200 plus stacked TCs day, a few more from the blind, farther than the first images much closer than the kitchen window images. All the usual suspects Plus the first Junko of the year. Last edited by normhead; 04-04-2016 at 06:25 PM.

04-04-2016, 12:40 PM	#13
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448 Original Poster	Originally posted by zzeitg This would be very interesting. We would get 392mm with f5.6. Small size, lightweight set. Just perfect as walkaround combo. One question concerning your test. You mentioned it resulted in f8. But why? f2.8 x 1.4 x 1.7 is 6.66, so I would expect something like f7.1. Because it's almost 500mm and DoF is an issue. Also, I have no idea what that means. Opened the lens right up and it said said ƒ4.5, which is probably the ƒ2.8 and 1.7, but did not include the 1.4 SO I was stopped down at least 1 stop. I just guessed ƒ8. The camera said 5.6. Originally posted by BigMackCam Norm - I'm astounded by the results. I really wouldn't have thought stacking TCs would allow for such nice IQ. Great stuff! I have seen so many poor results with stacked TCs, I only did this because someone asked me to. I think the difference between myself and others might be, starting with a high quality ƒ2.8 lens, and then adding two high quality TCs. Originally posted by SBeck Two stacked 1.4 would also maintain the weather sealing through the whole thing (and transmit focal length to the camera, I believe?). Although putting the 1.7 in the mix is an easy way of using screw drive instead of SDM on the 200. Wonder how either of these combos is at tracking moving subjects at a distance? I so rarely have an opportunity for BiFs it may be a while before I get a chance to test this. Last edited by normhead; 04-04-2016 at 12:53 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anyone have a bridge camera with constant f2.8 willing to answer questions?	Kartynas	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	33	06-09-2014 09:34 AM
Super Wide II, can´t handle f2.8	Pontax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	05-17-2014 08:33 AM
Ridiculous Question -- But I Can't Find the Answer	John Smithwick	Pentax Medium Format	4	03-14-2014 09:22 AM
"Sail To The Stars" @ Milang South Australia (Star Trails with the DA 14mm f2.8)	Adrian Owerko	Post Your Photos!	15	04-07-2008 06:11 AM

04-04-2016, 09:28 AM	#3
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Norm, which 1.7 TC? The Pentax one?

04-04-2016, 09:30 AM	#4
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	How far away from you were the subjects? This is great! The only issue (and depending on what you're shooting and where, it may not be one) is that the DOF seems to be really, really thin.

04-04-2016, 09:57 AM	#5
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448 Original Poster	Originally posted by chrisfer Nice, and how is the AF ? Is there an issue in case of short distance ? On images like this and the smaller K-3 AF points, I lifted the camera and the AF was instant, from the bird in front to the bird in back, however if you go beyond the range of the F-1.7 AF converter, you have to manually focus, and then start over, so it's either really fast or really slow. Originally posted by jatrax Norm, which 1.7 TC? The Pentax one? Here's everything here. Originally posted by pathdoc How far away from you were the subjects? This is great! The only issue (and depending on what you're shooting and where, it may not be one) is that the DOF seems to be really, really thin. Between 12-15 feet. Thin DoF is pretty much a function of long.

04-04-2016, 10:13 AM	#6
SBeck Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 113	Interesting... so the DA converter and the lens are not doing the focusing, the 1.7 sandwiched in the middle is?

04-04-2016, 10:24 AM	#7
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448 Original Poster	Yes.... thats the way it works. I guess someone could also try two 1.4 TCs for full AF and less magnification, I just don't own 2 1.4 TCs .

04-04-2016, 10:59 AM	#8
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by SBeck so the DA converter and the lens are not doing the focusing, the 1.7 sandwiched in the middle is? Which carries its own advantages, as the 1.7 is "seeing" an f/2.8 lens, not the whole shebang that the in-camera AF would have to cope with. How does all this go down with quickshift? ---------- Post added 04-04-16 at 15:30 ---------- Originally posted by normhead Thin DoF is pretty much a function of long. One would have thought distance would minimise that, but yeah, not at the ranges you're talking.

04-04-2016, 11:25 AM	#10
zzeitg Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: South Bohemia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,017	Originally posted by normhead Yes.... thats the way it works. I guess someone could also try two 1.4 TCs for full AF and less magnification, I just don't own 2 1.4 TCs . This would be very interesting. We would get 392mm with f5.6. Small size, lightweight set. Just perfect as walkaround combo. One question concerning your test. You mentioned it resulted in f8. But why? f2.8 x 1.4 x 1.7 is 6.66, so I would expect something like f7.1.

04-04-2016, 11:36 AM	#11
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,642	Norm - I'm astounded by the results. I really wouldn't have thought stacking TCs would allow for such nice IQ. Great stuff!

04-04-2016, 11:44 AM	#12
SBeck Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 113	Originally posted by zzeitg This would be very interesting. We would get 392mm with f5.6. Small size, lightweight set. Just perfect as walkaround combo. One question concerning your test. You mentioned it resulted in f8. But why? f2.8 x 1.4 x 1.7 is 6.66, so I would expect something like f7.1. Two stacked 1.4 would also maintain the weather sealing through the whole thing (and transmit focal length to the camera, I believe?). Although putting the 1.7 in the mix is an easy way of using screw drive instead of SDM on the 200. Wonder how either of these combos is at tracking moving subjects at a distance?

04-04-2016, 12:49 PM	#14
SBeck Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 113	I'd be more interested in sports field distances than birds in flight, personally. Either way, I'm impressed and sorely tempted to spend some more money that I don't have.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-04-2016, 01:33 PM	#15
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,642	Originally posted by normhead I have seen so many poor results with stacked TCs, I only did this because someone asked me to. I think the difference between myself and others might be, starting with a high quality ƒ2.8 lens, and then adding two high quality TCs. Indeed, there are lenses and there are lenses I wouldn't even think to try this with anything other than an excellent lens, but you've demonstrated that if you work with decent glass, the results can be very good indeed. Honestly, if a new user had come onto the forum showing these results and claiming they were from a stacked TC setup then, frankly, I'd have been sceptical...