DA*60-250 with stacked HD DA 1.4 TC and F1.7 AF adapter stacked to get to 600mm

pathdoc · 04-14-2016, 04:27 PM

Any of those bird pictures is as good as any bird on branch pic I have ever taken at close range without glass behind the primary lens. Or better. Mostly better.

**jatrax** · 04-14-2016, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Or better. Mostly better.

Better than any bird picture I have ever taken. Period. But then birds and I don't get along well.

normhead · 04-14-2016, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by bertwert

Great results!

Wouldn't that be f/9.5 fully open instead of f/6.7?
f/4 - 1.5 stop (for the 1.7x) = f/6.7
f/6.7 - 1 stop (for the 1.4x) = f/9.5

I put the A-400 ƒ5.6 on the camera with the 1.7 on, it said 9.5. You win.

bertwert · 04-14-2016, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I put the A-400 ƒ5.6 on the camera with the 1.7 on, it said 9.5.

The A-400 talked?
Amazing

normhead · 04-14-2016, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by bertwert

The A-400 talked?
Amazing

It talks to the camera screen. The camera screen communicates with me... it makes little squiggly lines that I understand.

**goatsNdonkey** · 04-14-2016, 07:39 PM

normhead, those are great pictures, especially the first one with the male house finch. However you connected the components, it worked well. A single 3x TC might have worked better, if it were equivalent in optical quality to your two TCs. Used 2x and 3x ones seem to be by far the most commonly available. But I don't see any reason to knock what you are doing.

pathdoc · 04-15-2016, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by goatsNdonkey

A single 3x TC might have worked better, if it were equivalent in optical quality to your two TCs.

If. That's potentially a very big if. I have a 3X teleconverter back from the original K mount days. The results it gives are godawful.

normhead · 04-15-2016, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

If. That's potentially a very big if. I have a 3X teleconverter back from the original K mount days. The results it gives are godawful.

That's what I was going to say, the reason I never owned a converter before the F 1.7 was I'd never seen work from one I could appreciate. The ones from the 60s and 70s are terrible, and a lot of the attitudes towards them are hold overs from that period.

**goatsNdonkey** · 04-15-2016, 06:22 AM

I just have a 2x TC, but years ago in my screw mount days I also owned a 3x. I didn't use it, not because of a quality problem, but mainly because I didn't want that much light loss. I'd like to snag a decent 1.4x sometime, and if I did I'd probably never use the 2x. I don't know if there were any particularly high quality 3x TCs. Perhaps the lens makers who might have made them would have rather people just buy a longer lens from them.

Actually, my suggestion that using one 3x would be magnification-wise like using your 1.4+1.7 combo was the result of fuzzy math. A single TC that would give the same magnification would actually need to be approx. 2.4x. I guess a high quality 2x TC would get you close, but why bother when you're getting such great results.

normhead · 04-15-2016, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by goatsNdonkey

I just have a 2x TC, but years ago in my screw mount days I also owned a 3x. I didn't use it, not because of a quality problem, but mainly because I didn't want that much light loss. I'd like to snag a decent 1.4x sometime, and if I did I'd probably never use the 2x. I don't know if there were any particularly high quality 3x TCs. Perhaps the lens makers who might have made them would have rather people just buy a longer lens from them.

Actually, my suggestion that using one 3x would be magnification-wise like using your 1.4+1.7 combo was the result of fuzzy math. A single TC that would give the same magnification would actually need to be approx. 2.4x. I guess a high quality 2x TC would get you close, but why bother when you're getting such great results.

That's what I was thinking. I was kind of hoping to get something comparable to the Canon 2x, but this in my mind is better. More options. I can select 1.4, 1.7 or 2.4 depending on circumstances, that's almost like having a zoom.

**goatsNdonkey** · 04-15-2016, 06:56 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

. . . . in my mind is better. More options. I can select 1.4, 1.7 or 2.4 depending on circumstances . . . .

Like a lens with a 3-speed transmission!

12345 · 04-15-2016, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by goatsNdonkey

Like a lens with a 3-speed transmission!

That is funny!

normhead · 04-15-2016, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by goatsNdonkey

Like a lens with a 3-speed transmission!

Don't forget the original FL. Four on the floor. Well, if you leave you camera bag on the floor, it's four on the floor.

Since the 60-250 theoretically has an infinite number of focal lengths, You have infinity times 4 number of FL settings.

bertwert · 04-15-2016, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Since the 60-250 theoretically has an infinite number of focal lengths, You have infinity times 4 number of FL settings.

Uhh... ok then...

normhead · 04-15-2016, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by bertwert

Uhh... ok then...

You don't sound convinced, say that with some enthusiasm.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: DA 60-250mm zoom with extra tripod mount, HD DA 1.4 TC	dshombert	Sold Items	4	08-17-2015 05:19 AM
Macro Failure to capture With K-x and stacked lenses	smf	Photographic Technique	21	01-08-2015 01:25 PM
K3 with Stacked 1.4 and F1.7X Rear Converters	DDoram	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	14	06-26-2014 12:37 AM
For Sale - Sold: Da 15 ltd, da 70 ltd, dfa 100 wr, da* 60-250, f 1.7x af adapter	dltorre	Sold Items	11	06-14-2014 07:38 AM
For Sale - Sold: DA* 60-250, DA 35 Macro Ltd, DA 18-55 WR, Kenko 1.5X TC with SDM contacts	buzzvic	Sold Items	10	09-08-2012 07:35 PM

04-14-2016, 04:27 PM	#16
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Any of those bird pictures is as good as any bird on branch pic I have ever taken at close range without glass behind the primary lens. Or better. Mostly better.

04-14-2016, 04:37 PM	#17
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by pathdoc Or better. Mostly better. Better than any bird picture I have ever taken. Period. But then birds and I don't get along well.

04-14-2016, 05:07 PM	#18
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by bertwert Great results! Wouldn't that be f/9.5 fully open instead of f/6.7? f/4 - 1.5 stop (for the 1.7x) = f/6.7 f/6.7 - 1 stop (for the 1.4x) = f/9.5 I put the A-400 ƒ5.6 on the camera with the 1.7 on, it said 9.5. You win.

04-14-2016, 05:09 PM	#19
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,173	Originally posted by normhead I put the A-400 ƒ5.6 on the camera with the 1.7 on, it said 9.5. The A-400 talked? Amazing

04-14-2016, 05:14 PM	#20
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by bertwert The A-400 talked? Amazing It talks to the camera screen. The camera screen communicates with me... it makes little squiggly lines that I understand.

04-14-2016, 07:39 PM	#21
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,727	normhead, those are great pictures, especially the first one with the male house finch. However you connected the components, it worked well. A single 3x TC might have worked better, if it were equivalent in optical quality to your two TCs. Used 2x and 3x ones seem to be by far the most commonly available. But I don't see any reason to knock what you are doing.

04-15-2016, 04:13 AM	#22
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by goatsNdonkey A single 3x TC might have worked better, if it were equivalent in optical quality to your two TCs. If. That's potentially a very big if. I have a 3X teleconverter back from the original K mount days. The results it gives are godawful.

04-15-2016, 05:55 AM	#23
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by pathdoc If. That's potentially a very big if. I have a 3X teleconverter back from the original K mount days. The results it gives are godawful. That's what I was going to say, the reason I never owned a converter before the F 1.7 was I'd never seen work from one I could appreciate. The ones from the 60s and 70s are terrible, and a lot of the attitudes towards them are hold overs from that period.

04-15-2016, 06:22 AM	#24
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,727	I just have a 2x TC, but years ago in my screw mount days I also owned a 3x. I didn't use it, not because of a quality problem, but mainly because I didn't want that much light loss. I'd like to snag a decent 1.4x sometime, and if I did I'd probably never use the 2x. I don't know if there were any particularly high quality 3x TCs. Perhaps the lens makers who might have made them would have rather people just buy a longer lens from them. Actually, my suggestion that using one 3x would be magnification-wise like using your 1.4+1.7 combo was the result of fuzzy math. A single TC that would give the same magnification would actually need to be approx. 2.4x. I guess a high quality 2x TC would get you close, but why bother when you're getting such great results.

04-15-2016, 06:33 AM	#25
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by goatsNdonkey I just have a 2x TC, but years ago in my screw mount days I also owned a 3x. I didn't use it, not because of a quality problem, but mainly because I didn't want that much light loss. I'd like to snag a decent 1.4x sometime, and if I did I'd probably never use the 2x. I don't know if there were any particularly high quality 3x TCs. Perhaps the lens makers who might have made them would have rather people just buy a longer lens from them. Actually, my suggestion that using one 3x would be magnification-wise like using your 1.4+1.7 combo was the result of fuzzy math. A single TC that would give the same magnification would actually need to be approx. 2.4x. I guess a high quality 2x TC would get you close, but why bother when you're getting such great results. That's what I was thinking. I was kind of hoping to get something comparable to the Canon 2x, but this in my mind is better. More options. I can select 1.4, 1.7 or 2.4 depending on circumstances, that's almost like having a zoom.

04-15-2016, 06:56 AM - 1 Like	#26
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,727	Originally posted by normhead . . . . in my mind is better. More options. I can select 1.4, 1.7 or 2.4 depending on circumstances . . . . Like a lens with a 3-speed transmission!

04-15-2016, 07:12 AM	#27
12345 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 520	Originally posted by goatsNdonkey Like a lens with a 3-speed transmission! That is funny!

04-15-2016, 07:54 AM	#28
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by goatsNdonkey Like a lens with a 3-speed transmission! Don't forget the original FL. Four on the floor. Well, if you leave you camera bag on the floor, it's four on the floor. Since the 60-250 theoretically has an infinite number of focal lengths, You have infinity times 4 number of FL settings.

04-15-2016, 09:03 AM	#29
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,173	Originally posted by normhead Since the 60-250 theoretically has an infinite number of focal lengths, You have infinity times 4 number of FL settings. Uhh... ok then...

04-15-2016, 10:13 AM	#30
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Originally posted by bertwert Uhh... ok then... You don't sound convinced, say that with some enthusiasm.