[pacerr]

A few years ago I had in hand 2 Pz AF 1,4's. two Tam SP 1.4 TC's, one Tam 200 TC, and the Pentax 1.4 AF. [Don't ask!] I also had the Adaptall SP 300 (360), SP 180 (63B), SP 80-200 (30A) and the Pentax DA*300 and three DA 50-200s.

After months of careful record keeping and comparing lens combinations from a steady rest with weighted bags I had a grunch of images. Two reliable K-5's were used. A few lessons learned:

1) I'd acquired the Pentax AF TC to see if it was useful with the MF Adaptall lenses. I spent far more time reconfirming critical auto focus and pre-setting the manual lenses to the TC acceptance range than I did simply manually focusing MF lenses. The process was frustratingly nit-picky and too hit-or-miss.

2) Immediately viewing images straight OOC I could usually detect some minor differences in the TC results. But when mixing the images later (blind test), I couldn't be sure as to which TC was involved without reference to notes.

3) When comparing lens/TC combinations in field conditions and after routine post-processing tweaks it was simply impossible to reliably differentiate between images -- sometimes even using notes. The uncontrolled variables from shot-to-shot, scene-to-scene and lens-to-lens were greater than between TC's on a lens. Subject and camera motion and critical focus far outweighed any quality difference between TC's.

4) I always shoot TC's only with the optically best lens available that allows me to use the shooting position and perspective or viewpoint desired. Never at min or max aperture if at all possible -- better to bump ISO as that has the possibility of improvement in PP.

5) Any TC on the SP 500 f-8 (55B/BB) is too light-limiting to be practically useful in most conditions.*

6) Adding 40% to a 35mm lens (~50) can offer more utility than adding 40% to 300mm (420) when considering typical subject distances and circumstances; and motion blur issues are much less.

End game: I've kept only one Tamron Pz-AF 1.4 TC and don't regret selling the more expensive Pentax 1.4 AF. With current high pixel count sensors I rarely use it except to allow shooting from an alternative position; often garden and zoo close-ups at 5 - 10 ft.

* @CSA: Yeah, used yours.

[The Tam 200 TC was optically designed specifically for close-up, flat-focal-plane copy use (art & advertisement) and has no advantage otherwise or in the field. That TC came out shortly before the end of the Adaptall era and that info never was well advertised or common knowledge.]

[kypfer]

My Kenko Pz-AF Teleplus SHQ converter is labelled 1.5X, not 1.4x as quoted in many posts above … is this a slightly different device?
I usually use it as a "last resort" with my 150-500mm "bigma" … sometimes the results are good, sometimes no better than cropping an un-magnified image.
I've usually blamed the variation on atmospheric conditions causing subject distortion, but inefficient shake reduction may also be a factor.

[wadge22]

@csa I would feel pretty safe buying new from Amazon, since you are almost always covered by the return policy (I believe you can check that from the specific listing page to see what applies to that listing).
Looking now at the listing, it looks like it's from amazon UK. I've bought one order from there, and it went smoothly and the product was all good, although did take a week or so to arrive. They do have different terms for "amazon global" that are sufficiently long that I gave up on reading them this morning. It does note there are potentially warranty implications, although I'm guessing that's based on Ricoh's policies.
If I were buying one, I personally wouldn't hesitate to go for that deal. I can't offer more assurance than that, though.

[vonBaloney]

My Kenko Pz-AF Teleplus SHQ converter is labelled 1.5X, not 1.4x as quoted in many posts above … is this a slightly different device?
I usually use it as a "last resort" with my 150-500mm "bigma" … sometimes the results are good, sometimes no better than cropping an un-magnified image.
I've usually blamed the variation on atmospheric conditions causing subject distortion, but inefficient shake reduction may also be a factor.

The Kenko PZ-AF 1.5x SHQ is the same as the Tamron, possibly with different coatings. I've compared all of these side-by-side and the ONLY difference I could tell was slight color cast shifts which I would attribute to coatings. Again I don't know if that's a Kenko-vs-Tamron thing or just different generations of manufacturing. (One was a little pinkish/magenta, the other more green.) The Pentax was more neutral but not noticeably better than the other two in terms of detail under controlled conditions. However, in the real world the camera communication advantage is huge because if you are using a TC, you are probably shooting with a long lens and getting the shake reduction to work at it best is going to get you better results in that regard. (Certainly if you are working handheld.) So the Pentax is well worth it, but the idea that you're going to be blown away by the optical difference from the Tamron if you already have that is just unfounded -- good copies of the Tamron or Kenko are very very good. (And I've had like a dozen of them -- the only bad ones I've had were fogged inside as they are fairly simple construction and well-made.) There is also a good argument to be made that with the bodies we have these days, a 1.4x TC is fairly pointless and you should just crop and the results will be just as good. I can't argue with that either -- but having the extra reach through the viewfinder just helps me focus a little bit better (unless the light is poor, then it is better to take it off). But there aren't really situations where you can't a shot you couldn't otherwise with the same lens just because you don't have a TC mounted if you are using any of these modern DSLRs (especially at 24MP+).

[AstroDave]

My Kenko Pz-AF Teleplus SHQ converter is labelled 1.5X, not 1.4x as quoted in many posts above … is this a slightly different device?
I usually use it as a "last resort" with my 150-500mm "bigma" … sometimes the results are good, sometimes no better than cropping an un-magnified image.

Here's a bit more on the claimed 1.5X - it really is 1.4X (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5-k-5-ii/248310-magnificati...erters-k5.html), as vonBalony has also pointed out (here and there!)

[pacerr]

Then there's the other part of your problem -- support, stability and weight management.

Here's my solution for mobility afield -- a stubby mono-pod. Just long enough to be supported by a pants or shirt pocket, a belt holster or cell phone wallet. Like the waist belt for large flag poles in parades...? Balance out the support triangle with an appropriately short camera strap.

This gear is highly modifiable for seasonal clothes, you never trip over those %^$#@ 'pod legs and you can (mostly) have both hands free when needed. Transferring some of the weight off your neck and onto your belt makes a lot of difference and frees the fingers of the support hand to manipulate the lens; especially helpful with MF lenses.

This isn't intended to replace the function of a 10 pound tripod. It does augment SR (IME about two stops worth), provides noticeable relief from fatigue and potentially gets you into places that prohibit tripods or out into the weeds.

A two-legged Gorillapod bi-pod offers even more options and adjustments for on-person support and the three-legged one may also serve as a stand-alone solution as well; the extra leg isn't THAT noticeable.

[Des]

My Kenko Pz-AF Teleplus SHQ converter is labelled 1.5X, not 1.4x as quoted in many posts above … is this a slightly different device?

Here's a bit more on the claimed 1.5X - it really is 1.4X (Magnification Factors for several Kenko Teleconverters on K5 - PentaxForums.com), as vonBalony has also pointed out (here and there!)

Just a footnote to Dave's response. It seems there are actually two versions of the Kenko 1.5x Pz-AF Teleplus SHQ. One magnifies 1.4x (possibly a clone of the Tamron-F 1.4X Pz_AF) and the other a bit over 1.5x. Teleconverter magnification comparison. (5 imgs): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I have the one that is 1.4x. I can't compare with the Pentax DA 1.4x, but optically I have found it OK.




But the fact that the camera doesn't know the effective focal length (unless you are using a MF lens and enter it manually) does affect SR. This is a real limitation. I tend now to turn SR off when using it.

It's only the price that puts me off getting the Pentax TC. I'm not sure whether I would use it more often than I now use the Kenko. There is always the question with TCs, especially on cameras with 24mp+ sensors, whether using a TC produces better results than cropping. This will depend on the size of the subject in the frame and how much the TC affects AF performance with the particular lens/camera combination.

[clackers]

My Kenko Pz-AF Teleplus SHQ converter is labelled 1.5X, not 1.4x as quoted in many posts above … is this a slightly different device?
I usually use it as a "last resort" with my 150-500mm "bigma" … sometimes the results are good, sometimes no better than cropping an un-magnified image.

Yep, Tamron used it, AFAIK.

[UncleVanya]

The advantage of a tc vs cropping is that it lets you see and frame easier. The downside is that if the result isn’t better detailed you gave up light to do that.

[pacerr]

The advantage of a tc vs cropping is that it lets you see and frame...

Yes, but . . . with the TC I'm stuck with the frame AS SHOT. With cropping I have many more options in later in composition. I can't remember being notably dissatisfied later when I didn't 'permanently crop' in that tiny VF with a TC.


Given time 'on target' you can enjoy the best of both methods.

[csa]

Here's my solution for mobility afield -- a stubby mono-pod.

The majority of my photos are on the spur of the moment; seeing wildlife, etc. I simply grab the camera & shoot. A mono-pod simply would make me miss shots, trying to get it in place.

[clackers]

The advantage of a tc vs cropping is that it lets you see and frame easier. The downside is that if the result isn’t better detailed you gave up light to do that.

Yes, and it hurts to double the ISO, since the shutter speed has to remain high for wildlife. The texture is damaged by noise grain in feather and furs, and noise reduction (either baked in or post processed) removes texture even further by simply smoothing it out.

You can get some horrible plastic looking birds and animals as a result!

The DA55-300 is a slow aperture lens, and the TC makes it even slower.

[UncleVanya]

Yes, and it hurts to double the ISO, since the shutter speed has to remain high for wildlife. The texture is damaged by noise grain in feather and furs, and noise reduction (either baked in or post processed) removes texture even further by simply smoothing it out.

You can get some horrible plastic looking birds and animals as a result!

The DA55-300 is a slow aperture lens, and the TC makes it even slower.

To be fair in good light you may still get away with it. In poor light… nope. Post processing can’t fix every situation with bad lighting, only some.

[clackers]

To be fair in good light you may still get away with it. In poor light… nope. Post processing can’t fix every situation with bad lighting, only some.

And the same goes for focusing, too.

TCs are designed for fast lenses ... f2.8, f4 ...

[mirocal]

I had the Tamron 1.4X Pz-AF paired with the Pentax DFA 300/4 for a couple of years, then got the Pentax 1.4X TC as soon as it was released. The Tamron failed to focus reliably with 300/4 and mounted on a K-5 body. Most of the time I had to focus manually, or at least pre-focus in range. When in focus, the images were not too bad, however Pentax is in a completely different class: there is no image quality degradation between 300/4 and 300/4 + 1.4X TC, and focus is fast and precise (on a K3-II). Truly there is no competition, regardless of price. As for the Pentax 1.4X TC, I only wish Pentax will update it with a full frame version. Things seem to take a lifetime to change at Pentax, but oh well, at least they're still in business.