[phoebus]

I bought a Soligor 2x teleconverter when I was a teenager. It’s the most useless piece of photography equipment I own, and it has made me a life time sceptic of teleconverters.

I had a Kiron teleconverter back in the 1980s that I paired with my Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/2.8-4. It worked OK, but I didn't use that combination much because what teleconverters magnify best is camera shake.

I did try that pair a few years back with my K-5 to photograph the moon. Forget chromatic aberration manifesting as purple or green fringing--this was bright blue! I've been avoiding using teleconverters with high-contrast subjects ever since.

I'm not sure comparing 1980s cheap teleconverters with what a Pentax FF may provide is particularly valid.

Here is DA*200/2.8 with HD1.4x:

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[RobA_Oz]

I'm not sure comparing 1980s cheap teleconverters with what a Pentax FF may provide is particularly valid.

Here is DA*200/2.8 with HD1.4x:

I’ve had various tele-converters over the years (my first was actually part of the lens, a Tamron Twin-tele 135/200) and their performance has often been disappointing, with a few exceptions. With B&W film, they were useful if not wonderful, and colour aberration wasn’t too much of an issue.

The F 1.7x-AF has been a major exception, in my experience, not least because of its ability to add AF to MF lenses, but because it was optically superior to the ones that went before. I understand that there were dedicated Pentax tele-converters for particular star lenses, but I’ve never been lucky enough to own any of them.

Nonetheless, none that I’ve owned have worked particularly well with zoom lenses, and some have been downright awful.

Your shots with the HD1.4x give me hope that the next one from Pentax will be even better.

[Pentikonian]

My HD1.4 works nicely with my DA*200 and 300 on my K-1, with the exception of the vignetting. I generally don't use TCs on zooms.

If Pentax can equal or improve the performance on a FF TC, it will be a nice addition.

[mlt]

My HD1.4 works nicely with my DA*200 and 300 on my K-1, with the exception of the vignetting. I generally don't use TCs on zooms.

If Pentax can equal or improve the performance on a FF TC, it will be a nice addition.

Agree, cropping out the vignetting creates a very usable combination on the K-1, can work with that until a full frame TC is released.

[sergysergy]

I bought a Soligor 2x teleconverter when I was a teenager. It’s the most useless piece of photography equipment I own, and it has made me a life time sceptic of teleconverters.

2x are bad overall. Some of the 1.4x are very good

[ecostigny]

I'm not sure comparing 1980s cheap teleconverters with what a Pentax FF may provide is particularly valid.

Here is DA*200/2.8 with HD1.4x:

Considering the cost of HD Pentax-DA 1.4x AW AF Rear Converter, I would hope that its performance would make it an exception to the conventional wisdom concerning teleconverters. The lesson: you get what you pay for.

[y0chang]

I really don't understand why Pentax released a tele-converter that only has a crop-body image circle. Has any other company released a crop-body only teleconverter. It seems either short sighted or a waste of resources or both.

[Mistral75]

^ I presume it's because this converter was developed when Pentax only sold APS-C cameras with no plan to manufacture a 24x36 camera -remember Hoya killed the development of such a camera and Ricoh had to reactivate the project.

[luftfluss]

^ I presume it's because this converter was developed when Pentax only sold APS-C cameras with no plan to manufacture a 24x36 camera -remember Hoya killed the development of such a camera and Ricoh had to reactivate the project.

What's interesting though is the DA 1.4x TC and K-1 were introduced only 2 years apart.

[Mistral75]

^ Indeed but the HD Pentax-DA AF Rear Converter 1.4x AW had been on the roadmap since ages: March 2008 IIRC, shortly after the takeover by Hoya.

[RobA_Oz]

The real interest will be in what needs to be done to produce a tele-converter with the same optical performance that covers more than the APS-C image circle.

[Mikesul]

The real interest will be in what needs to be done to produce a tele-converter with the same optical performance that covers more than the APS-C image circle.

And that is probably a non-trivial task.

[reh321]

I bought a Soligor 2x teleconverter when I was a teenager. It’s the most useless piece of photography equipment I own, and it has made me a life time sceptic of teleconverters.

The Pentax 1.4X TC pairs well with the 55-300mm PLM; in fact, since I also have a DA 18-135mm DC lens, I almost always use the DA 1.4 TC + 55-300mm PLM together as a DA 77-420mm PLM.

I expect that Pentax will also do a good job with any future TCs they decide to manufacture.

[photoptimist]

2x are bad overall. Some of the 1.4x are very good

If 2X are bad, how about 3X?!?!?

In my photographic youth I had a 3X and a 2X teleconvertor. With extension tubes and a macro lens, the 3X+2X+tubes+macro delivered 12:1 -- a 3mm ant filled the very fuzzy frame!

[sergysergy]

I was never adventurous enough to try a 3x TC