[gatorguy]

What I've been doing is tinkering with pairing the M42's with a helicoid and various fast 50's to hack together a macro setup. What I found is the TC's seem to help increase DOF. Here's a couple shots of some admittedly overexposed and dirty bugs.

and a quick exposure comped crop to show the detail that I managed to salvage.

With the use case being macro, have you looked into the Raynox converters?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/275182-REG/Raynox_DCR_250_DCR_250_2_5...981&

[junkbench]

I haven't used a 2x yet that I was really pleased with, and that includes a Kiron TC i quickly decided was a no-go, some forgotten name that was forgettable for a reason, and a dedicated Sigma 2x for my Sigma 70-200. That last one I'm still a little on the fence about so since you asked specifics I may test that one again, but on a tripod instead of handheld.

In the old 1.4TC's I have a Kiron that I guess is OK but the lens by itself is probably better. TBH I never looked that close but apparently have never been impressed.

I also had a Tamron 1.4 autofocusing one that I liked, but probably for the AF as much as the added distance. I didn't like it enough to keep it.

I still have a Sigma AF 1.4 I acquired to use with the aforementioned Sigma 70-200 2.8, but it's another I've not found much need for so it doesn't get used. IIRC it does perform OK but I can't say whether the lens by itself cropped would be equal or better,so that's another I'd have to look at more carefully to have a solid opinion on it.

I also have the old Pentax autofocusing 1.7 I've kept around for use with my manual focus lenses but I haven't actually found a reason to use it much either.

I do own one TC that I've had consistently good results with and that's the Pentax HD DA1.4. On the DA*200 and*300 I don't see any image degradation. I also carried it one day for the FA15-30 on my K1 to avoid toting a second lens and as I recall it did well with that one too.But it's a LOT more expensive than those old manual focus TC's.

By the way, we do have some user reviews here for third-party teleconverters if you haven't noticed them.
Miscellaneous Lenses for Pentax: Teleconverters (All Brands) - Pentax Lens Review Database

HD DA 1.4 sounds awesome if your getting no degradation at all on a zoom lens like that, 40% increase makes it a cheap investment relative to buying (and carrying) a 600mm lens!

I have not used specifically a raynox adapter, but I do have a bunch of different diopters and nose-screw lense adapters for macro - I really cant say anything too good about them, is raynox really that different?.

It's good to get some perspective on TC's from soneone like you who owns several, so thank you for the reply, have you tried any of them for macro purposes?

You know the reason I joined was the reviews and I never checked out TC reviews at all because I just never thought of them as being more than a gimmicky type of thing, I guess its the youtoobverse and elsewhere that rubbed off on me, I had the two M42's and I dont even think I mounted them one time or even tried them out until, gosh, a month or so ago and the K mount showed up recently and it got me to try it and post this thread because of what it spit out.

[gatorguy]

HD DA 1.4 sounds awesome if your getting no degradation at all on a zoom lens like that, 40% increase makes it a cheap investment relative to buying (and carrying) a 600mm lens!

I have not used specifically a raynox adapter, but I do have a bunch of different diopters and nose-screw lense adapters for macro - I really cant say anything too good about them, is raynox really that different?.

It's good to get some perspective on TC's from soneone like you who owns several, so thank you for the reply, have you tried any of them for macro purposes?

You know the reason I joined was the reviews and I never checked out TC reviews at all because I just never thought of them as being more than a gimmicky type of thing, I guess its the youtoobverse and elsewhere that rubbed off on me, I had the two M42's and I dont even think I mounted them one time or even tried them out until, gosh, a month or so ago and the K mount showed up recently and it got me to try it and post this thread because of what it spit out.

We have some members here who use the Raynox, and many have praised them for macro. If none of them chime in you might do a forum search for Raynox..

EDIT: we do have a dedicated lens club thread for them:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/74221-raynox-macro-club-54.html

[UncleVanya]

HD DA 1.4 sounds awesome if your getting no degradation at all on a zoom lens like that, 40% increase makes it a cheap investment relative to buying (and carrying) a 600mm lens!

I have not used specifically a raynox adapter, but I do have a bunch of different diopters and nose-screw lense adapters for macro - I really cant say anything too good about them, is raynox really that different?.

It's good to get some perspective on TC's from soneone like you who owns several, so thank you for the reply, have you tried any of them for macro purposes?

You know the reason I joined was the reviews and I never checked out TC reviews at all because I just never thought of them as being more than a gimmicky type of thing, I guess its the youtoobverse and elsewhere that rubbed off on me, I had the two M42's and I dont even think I mounted them one time or even tried them out until, gosh, a month or so ago and the K mount showed up recently and it got me to try it and post this thread because of what it spit out.

Any high quality footer diopter lens will be made of multiple lenses and apo. The cheap ones are not in the same league.

Read here: Using Raynox Adapters For Extreme Macro

---

Last edited by UncleVanya; 08-16-2022 at 01:31 PM.

[kypfer]

From a long-time teleconverter enthusiast … it's only relatively recently, using a 24mPixel APS-c camera, that I'm finding cropping can sometimes exceed the results achieved with a teleconverter, but the very nature of my (mostly wildlife) photography often means that no two shots are exactly the same.
I do usually carry a Kenko 1.5x … these days the 2x rarely even comes out of the drawer, let alone out of the bag!


On a different note - nice photogenic cat
Mine's all black, so difficult to light, and she objects to the noise of an autofocus lens!

[Wasp]

I gave up on 2x converters a long time ago. That two stop loss in speed is a total deal breaker for me. I still have a Takumar 2x converter somewhere that sees very little use. It is useful for taking pictures of the moon when combined with a 400mm, the combo being equivalent to 1200mm ion crop frame, but I only do that when there is a lunar eclipse.

I have the SMC Pentax A 1.4x L converter, but it only works with one lens that I have - the SMC Pentax A 400mm f/5.6. The two has served me well since the late eighties, on film and digital.

I was about to buy a used SMC Pentax A 1.4x S converter a few years ago, but someone beat me to it. I have not seen one in the local market again.

I recently got the SMC Pentax 1.7x AF converter/adapter. It works very well, but I have not used it a lot.

[luftfluss]

I think getting the best out of a teleconverter requires the user to up their game in terms of technique and (especially for older TC's) post-processing.

Out of the dozen or so TC's I've used, the best 1.4x is the Pentax Rear Converter-A 1.4x-L, which only works with select lenses.

The best 2x I've used is the Pentax Rear Converter-A 2x-L, which again only works with select lenses.

I only use teleconverters to extend the reach of long telephoto lenses. For macro, the Raynox adapters (DCR-150, DCR-250) are both convenient and excellent. Canon and Nisi also make well-regarded diopters, although lacking the "clip-on" feature of Raynox.

For fun, here is an eagle portrait shot from about 40 yards with a Tamron 300/2.8 360B + Pentax Rear Converter-A 2x-S + Pentax F 1.7x AFA...

[junkbench]

I decided to play around with the 3x soligor and 2x super albinar, I mounted the super albinar 2x with a matrix 28mm f2.8 lens (no idea original manufacturer but its just a 1:4 sold under various names reviewed here) - I'm surprised by how versatile the setup was, I set it to 55mm in SR and away we went, I pushed it as close as I could with the leatherman shot, I have mixed feelings on the bokeh it produced, overall I give it a thumbs up, it takes a 28mm and gives it a pretty decent result, def liking the super albinar because the matrix 28mm isn't known to be the sharpest lens and it's no fast 50.






Then I saw a wasps nest....

I did the outlandish and mounted a Soligor 28-200 F3.5 M42 zoom macro coupled with the Soligor 3x M42 converter to capture a wasps nest that I did not want to get anywhere close to. This zoom macro has the longest focus distance for macro that I own, it's literally like 6 feet or something minimum and works fully extended which is why I decided to try it at all, kind of the kid in me "what will happen?" well, this is what happened - and a ton of other stuff even worse which pains my poor eyes...







Next test, I'm going to throw a 200mm prime on with a helicoid and the 2x and 3x and try going after the same wasps nest to see what I can get. I would have tried some other combos and such but I didn't want to risk getting stung!

[Sam_I_am]

I decided to play around with the 3x soligor and 2x super albinar, I mounted the super albinar 2x with a matrix 28mm f2.8 lens (no idea original manufacturer but its just a 1:4 sold under various names reviewed here) - I'm surprised by how versatile the setup was, I set it to 55mm in SR and away we went, I pushed it as close as I could with the leatherman shot, I have mixed feelings on the bokeh it produced, overall I give it a thumbs up, it takes a 28mm and gives it a pretty decent result, def liking the super albinar because the matrix 28mm isn't known to be the sharpest lens and it's no fast 50.






Then I saw a wasps nest....

I did the outlandish and mounted a Soligor 28-200 F3.5 M42 zoom macro coupled with the Soligor 3x M42 converter to capture a wasps nest that I did not want to get anywhere close to. This zoom macro has the longest focus distance for macro that I own, it's literally like 6 feet or something minimum and works fully extended which is why I decided to try it at all, kind of the kid in me "what will happen?" well, this is what happened - and a ton of other stuff even worse which pains my poor eyes...







Next test, I'm going to throw a 200mm prime on with a helicoid and the 2x and 3x and try going after the same wasps nest to see what I can get. I would have tried some other combos and such but I didn't want to risk getting stung!

I can't see the pics. Hopefully it's just me.

[gatorguy]

I can't see the pics. Hopefully it's just me.

Nope, it's not just you.

[junkbench]

Sorry guys, will try inserting (again) here:

Matrix28s & Wasps Nest

[mlag]

Sorry guys, will try inserting (again) here:

Matrix28s & Wasps Nest

Pics are visible now...

[UncleVanya]

Sorry guys, will try inserting (again) here:

Matrix28s & Wasps Nest

These are a little blurry. I couldn't grab the EXIF right this sec - so I'm not sure if they were shot with too slow a shutter speed, too high an ISO, low depth of field, or just the degraded due to the TC.

BUT - if the choice is shot or not shot - take a shot.

[junkbench]

These are a little blurry. I couldn't grab the EXIF right this sec - so I'm not sure if they were shot with too slow a shutter speed, too high an ISO, low depth of field, or just the degraded due to the TC.

BUT - if the choice is shot or not shot - take a shot.

Oh absolutely the bees sure are, the matrix 28 kind of impressed me given its low sharpness rating and I shot wide open - more impressed with the versatility it afforded the lens (the 2x albinar tc), the bees, I laughed at it, like I said, I tried the insanity of a 3x converter on an ancient zoom which has the craziest far macro mode I've ever seen, I think its minimum focus is like 6 or 7 feet or something, it's a soligor 28-200mm 3.8-4.5? might be 3.5-4.5 but its slow. I just lacked the stones to get anywhere near the wasp nest and thought it'd be a funny exercise, I was surprised I got anything viewable considering freehand shot SR set to 600 on a fully extended zoom and a 3x converter on a 10mp k10d. I had some great results with the yashica 50/1.7 and the 2x converter though, I'll post those too - not of bees unfortunately.

[UncleVanya]

Oh absolutely the bees sure are, the matrix 28 kind of impressed me given its low sharpness rating and I shot wide open - more impressed with the versatility it afforded the lens (the 2x albinar tc), the bees, I laughed at it, like I said, I tried the insanity of a 3x converter on an ancient zoom which has the craziest far macro mode I've ever seen, I think its minimum focus is like 6 or 7 feet or something, it's a soligor 28-200mm 3.8-4.5? might be 3.5-4.5 but its slow. I just lacked the stones to get anywhere near the wasp nest and thought it'd be a funny exercise, I was surprised I got anything viewable considering freehand shot SR set to 600 on a fully extended zoom and a 3x converter on a 10mp k10d. I had some great results with the yashica 50/1.7 and the 2x converter though, I'll post those too - not of bees unfortunately.

I think it was a good experiment and worth the time to do it. I agree about getting too close to wasps!