[Shanti]

@Norm do you have the 1.7 TC to compare with by chance? on 60-250 would be fine if you don't have the DA*300..thanks.

[normhead]

@Norm do you have the 1.7 TC to compare with by chance? on 60-250 would be fine if you don't have the DA*300..thanks.

I'd try and get to it tomorrow. I have both.

[Nickrs]

Does anybody know if this new tele-converter will work with the Pentax 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR lens. the Ricoh UK website makes no mention of it amongst the list of compatible lenses. I've updated to the new firmware on my K50 this evening but the only lens I possess which is expressly mentioned as compatible is my 35mm F2.4 prime, my 18-50 WR kit lens isn't mentioned either.

Nick

[Shanti]

I'd try and get to it tomorrow. I have both.

Good man thanks alot..I know focus accuracy must be better,but really wonder on IQ

[cali92rs]

Does anybody know if this new tele-converter will work with the Pentax 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR lens. the Ricoh UK website makes no mention of it amongst the list of compatible lenses. I've updated to the new firmware on my K50 this evening but the only lens I possess which is expressly mentioned as compatible is my 35mm F2.4 prime, my 18-50 WR kit lens isn't mentioned either.

Nick

I bet it will work, but may only autofocus with the center point (or centre as you might spell it )

[rvannatta]

I've got the better part of a fortune tied up in a couple long pieces of pentax glass, an FA600 f/4 and a FA 300 f/2.8

I've looked forward to a pentax TC without auto functions, --- I already own all the older ones including the 1.7x adapter
but 5 years of designing has produced a product that won't work with the FA glass, there isn't much point in me buying
it.

does anyone know the answer--- does it work or not...

[JASMAZ77]

I would still like to know if this teleconverter is compatible with my sigma and tamron lenses? I have been told australian stores will receive stock in early april and will be $605.
Does anyone know?

[VisualDarkness]

Does anybody know if this new tele-converter will work with the Pentax 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED WR lens. the Ricoh UK website makes no mention of it amongst the list of compatible lenses. I've updated to the new firmware on my K50 this evening but the only lens I possess which is expressly mentioned as compatible is my 35mm F2.4 prime, my 18-50 WR kit lens isn't mentioned either.

Nick

Why would you get the TC for use with the 50-200 instead of getting a 55-300? You will get better AF, a brighter lens and most probably better image quality.

[gazonk]

Why would you get the TC for use with the 50-200 instead of getting a 55-300? You will get better AF, a brighter lens and most probably better image quality.

I've used the 50-200 quite a bit and have the 55-300, and the 50-200 is a very nice lens on its own terms: Its compactness is simply unbeatable, and the IQ (IMHO) is better than many portray it. I don't think it makes any sense to put a TC on it, though, I very much doubt it is sharp enough for that. I'm looking forward to reports of whether the TC makes any sense on the 55-300, though.

[awaldram]

I've used the 50-200 quite a bit and have the 55-300, and the 50-200 is a very nice lens on its own terms: Its compactness is simply unbeatable, and the IQ (IMHO) is better than many portray it. I don't think it makes any sense to put a TC on it, though, I very much doubt it is sharp enough for that. I'm looking forward to reports of whether the TC makes any sense on the 55-300, though.

As a general rule never ever put converter on consumer lens.

Consumer lens are always only marginally corrected a converter how ever good will magnify any optical errors by the magnifictaion factor.

In this case adding a £400 converter to a £150 lens seems a strange concept from any angle.!

[Nickrs]

Why would you get the TC for use with the 50-200 instead of getting a 55-300? You will get better AF, a brighter lens and most probably better image quality.

I had worked that one out too. I've got a variety of second hand lenses off ebay including a Pentax auto focus 100-300 F4.5-5.6 and TAMRON 28-270 and even an old 1.5 manual focus teleconverter but when I was looking at the spec of this new teleconverter I noticed the 50-200 was omitted and I wondered why. The only new glass I've got for my K50 is the kit lens, a Pentax 35mm prime (F2.4), the Pentax 50-200 and a Sigma 10-20. Unless I start doing serious wildlife stuff I've considered the 50-200 good enough for my needs. I attach a couple of photos taken of the famous domed church in Mostar, Malta, the first is obviously a close up taken with my kit lens, the other was taken with my 50-200 whilst standing on the city walls of M'Dina some two to three miles away and I'm quite happy with the quality produced by the 50-200. Some random facts, M'Dina is King's Landing in the first series of "Game of Thrones" and the Dome of Mostar survived being hit by multiple bombs in WW2 one of which penetrated the roof and came to a halt in the middle of a congregation of 300 and did not explode! Nick



---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 11:03 AM ----------

As a general rule never ever put converter on consumer lens.

Consumer lens are always only marginally corrected a converter how ever good will magnify any optical errors by the magnifictaion factor.

In this case adding a £400 converter to a £150 lens seems a strange concept from any angle.!

I agree, but using a £400 teleconverter with several cheap lenses may make slightly more sense, the 35mm F2.4 only cost me £135 and that is on the compatible lens list. I think it may have to do with the maximum aperture on the 50-200 or it could just be an accidental omission, this is a bit like discussing the number of angels dancing on a pin head. I'm saving up for a 55-300 and then I'm going to sell off most of my old stuff.

Nick

[awaldram]

I had worked that one out too. I've got a variety of second hand lenses off ebay including a Pentax auto focus 100-300 F4.5-5.6 and TAMRON 28-270 and even an old 1.5 manual focus teleconverter but when I was looking at the spec of this new teleconverter I noticed the 50-200 was omitted and I wondered why. The only new glass I've got for my K50 is the kit lens, a Pentax 35mm prime (F2.4), the Pentax 50-200 and a Sigma 10-20. Unless I start doing serious wildlife stuff I've considered the 50-200 good enough for my needs. I attach a couple of photos taken of the famous domed church in Mostar, Malta, the first is obviously a close up taken with my kit lens, the other was taken with my 50-200 whilst standing on the city walls of M'Dina some two to three miles away and I'm quite happy with the quality produced by the 50-200. Some random facts, M'Dina is King's Landing in the first series of "Game of Thrones" and the Dome of Mostar survived being hit by multiple bombs in WW2 one of which penetrated the roof and came to a halt in the middle of a congregation of 300 and did not explode! Nick



---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 11:03 AM ----------



I agree, but using a £400 teleconverter with several cheap lenses may make slightly more sense, the 35mm F2.4 only cost me £135 and that is on the compatible lens list. I think it may have to do with the maximum aperture on the 50-200 or it could just be an accidental omission, this is a bit like discussing the number of angels dancing on a pin head. I'm saving up for a 55-300 and then I'm going to sell off most of my old stuff.

Nick

Hi Nick,

Nothing in your lens selection will benfit from a £400 SDM focusing 'Smart' converter.
Your right no lens with an open aperture >4 should be on the comparable list
So it not he 50-200 missing but the strange inclusion of the 55-300.

Unless you are buying into SDM/HSM why do you want this converter.

I'd watch ebay as many fine converters will appear in the near future.

any of the Tamron SP , kenko/teleplus Pz are great general pupose converters
and the Sigma matched converters are very good (but whatch fitting if not using Sigma 'compatable' lens.

All will drive screw AF without issue.

[rawr]

is compatible with my sigma and tamron lenses

Depends on how you define 'compatible'. Optically, it will of course work in some fashion, unless the rear of your lens protrudes out too much, or something. But the AF may or may not work properly (depending on the AF mechanism of the lens). The adapter will probably also not pass through to the camera information (eg focal length) about 3rd party lenses in the same way as it may Pentax lenses.

Probably best to try it out in the store with your Tamron or Sigma's if the issue is critical to you before buying one.

[normhead]

With my old Sigma 70-300, I was told by Sigma that their TCs would be damaged if I tried to mount a TC on them. Even if the lens attached without incident in focusing the rear element could focus the TC. With my 1.7 I did attach it, and it didn't work, so hopefully I got it off before anything was damaged, but, there may be physical reasons why your lens, what ever it is, doesn't work with the TC. Just getting one and trying it out is not a good option. Or if you choose to do so, don't press the issue if it doesn't work when you try it. When I saw my 18-135 wasn't compatible, I immediately assumed it was a physical incompatibility...people need to take that into consideration.

Unless you are buying into SDM/HSM why do you want this converter.

I guess having done the pre-requisite testing before given such advice, you somehow ascertained that the IQ of all these TCs is equal. Given the number of folks who have proclaimed loud and clear that TCs ruin your IQ, who didn't have a Pentax TC, and the images posted showing that the 1.7 actually increases the amount of detail in your images, I think it's safe to assume, that you don't get in a cheap TC what you get in a more expensive one. Or are you putting what reputation you have left on the line and saying that all TCs are equal. It's kind of like asking why would you buy a DA*300 ƒ4 when you can buy a DA 55-300 that does the same thing?

[Nickrs]

Thanks for the advice, I remember when I had a Russian SLR and spent hours playing with chemicals in the dark back in the olden days the received wisdom even then was that teleconverters were not generally a good idea. Actually my Sigma 10-20 is HSM but I can't think why would I want to put a teleconverter on that anyway! At the moment I not that interested in photographing butterflies half a mile away or my neighbours in their bathroom so I can't think of a valid reason to raid the piggy bank, but I was just curious as to why the 55-200 is not compatible .


N

Just for the fun of it here is the bomb in the church in Mostar, I assume it has been defused and the random child is for scale.