[yucafrita]

Both new converters are fullframe and with all AF systems compatible.

Both converters? Are there two new TCs on the roadmap?

[Kunzite]

New tele lenses?

Intriguing. There are 2 tele lenses on the roadmap, but only one (the f/4 obviously) is suited for a teleconverter.

[JPT]

How about an update of the 200mm f2.8? The existing one does cover full frame, but ideally it should be remade as a D-FA with a new motor. Would make most sense for use with a TC too.

[Kunzite]

If I remember correctly, a while ago there was a patent for a new 200mm f/2.8.
As I said: intriguing

(But even the existing DA* 200 and 300mm would benefit from a FF RC)

[Chris Mak]

Both new converters are fullframe and with all AF systems compatible.
But still no exactly shipping date.
Still in late prototype condition.
Maybe because of the new tele lenses.
Best regards

Now wait a minute, "new telelenses"?
FF no doubt, but what kind of new telelenses?
300mm f2.8?
500mm f4?

Chris

[Mistral75]

If I remember correctly, a while ago there was a patent for a new 200mm f/2.8.
(...)

That patent included 24x36 200mm f/2.8 examples but also examples of a 15-45mm f/2.8 for a 1/1.7" sensor and eventually proved to be the patent of the 06 Telephoto Zoom's optical formula.

[Kunzite]

Wait... the same patent for a telephoto prime and a zoom? How is that possible?

I cannot confirm it though. Searching after patent 2016-51100 I'm getting:
"This invention relates to an inner focus type telephoto lens."
Example 1:
Focal distance 200.000
F number 2.80
Half field angle 6.3 degrees
Image height 22.000

Example 2:
Focal distance 199.989
F number 2.80
Half field angle 6.3 degrees
Image height 22.000

Example 3:
Focal distance 200.000
F number 2.80
Half field angle 6.3 degrees
Image height 22.000

Example 4:
Focal distance 230.000
F number 3.22
Half field angle 5.4 degrees
Image height 22.000

Example 5:
Focal distance 200.000
F number 2.80
Half field angle 6.3 degrees
Image height 22.000

Example 6:
Focal distance 300.000
F number 4.05
Half field angle 7.1 degrees
Image height 22.000

[Mistral75]

Sorry, I made a confusion with the patent 2012-189817 which was, at that time, meant to be that of the future D FA★ 70-200mm f/2.8 but was actually that of the 06 Telephoto Zoom 15-45mm f/2.8.

You were referring to the patent 2016-051100 which includes six examples: four of a 200mm f/2.8, one of a 230mm f/3.2 and one of a 300mm f/4, all of them covering the 24x36 format.

[Kunzite]

Thanks. I quite lost the egami links when that blog was taken down
AFAIR there was a real D FA* 70-200 patent too, right?

L.E. It was the "100-300 f/4" patent, 2016-080717 example 5.

[Paul the Sunman]

Intriguing. There are 2 tele lenses on the roadmap, but only one (the f/4 obviously) is suited for a teleconverter.

The DFA* 85 f/1.4 would certainly be suitable as well, and is a (mild) tele lens.

People seem to use the DFA 150-450 f/4.5-5.6 successfully with the DA 1.4x TC, both on APS-C and FF (with vignetting), so its not out of the question that the road mapped DFA ~65-300 could be used with a 1.4x FF TC.

[Kunzite]

Yes, of course you can use it on other lenses. But I'm trying to guess if the telephotos Asahiman is talking about are those already on the roadmap or not. Should I dare to raise my hopes?

[Chris Mak]

Yes, of course you can use it on other lenses. But I'm trying to guess if the telephotos Asahiman is talking about are those already on the roadmap or not. Should I dare to raise my hopes?

A 2xTC has very restricted applications, like a fast 300mm or 400mm (see the Can/Son/Nik 400mm f2.8 lenses).
It makes no sense on a slower lens, nor does it make sense on other than tele-lenses. A 85/1.4 lens will lose all of its charm with a 2.0TC on it. Honestly, I can only see use for it with 200/300/400 mm f2.8 lenses.

Chris

[Kunzite]

Barry Pearson tested the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 with the DA 1.4xRC, and the results were horrible. I would not be surprised if the same will happen with the D FA* 85mm f/1.4, too.

[normhead]

A 2x TC has very restricted applications

You forgot where I've seen them used most, on 70-200 2.8 lenses where they are in fact very useful. Since I try to use ƒ5.6 on APS-c or ƒ8 on FF for DoF purposes, it really makes no difference to me most of the time, whether in fact I'm shooting with a 200 2.8 or a 400 5.6, they both give me my preferred apertures.

---------- Post added 11-05-18 at 10:53 AM ----------

Barry Pearson tested the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 with the DA 1.4xRC, and the results were horrible. I would not be surprised if the same will happen with the D FA* 85mm f/1.4, too.

It gives you nothing a 70 2.8 wouldn't do be better. I'm not really sure people should be looking at TCs for lenses under 70mm.
That being said, the 1.4 TC works great on my DA* 60-250 ƒ4. No one ever said TCs work on every lens. You buy them for what they work on and they provide a demonstrable advantage. My DA* 60-250, DA*200, and Tamron 300 2.8 work really well with it.

Not working on a 1.4 lens is just back ground noise. Irrelevant.
You buy lenses and TCs for what they do. There just is no piece of photographic equipment that does everything. How is what they don't do relevant?

Should others say "I'd buy the DFA 50 1.4 but it sucks for wildlife." I've never heard that.
How is that different from saying TCs don't work on your 50 1.4? It's not designed for that. (duh).
Do we really need people pointing out that most things don't do things they aren't designed to do?

Are there really people who would buy a TC to put on the 50 1.4 instead of just buying the DA 70 2.4?
By the way, the TC works fine on an FA 50 2.8 macro, but nevertheless, when I want 70mm macro, I use my Sigma 70 2.8. We (Tess and I) really only use TCs to extend the magnification of our macros in the shorter focal lengths. All of our 4 macros (FA 50, Sigma 70, Tamron 90 and DFA 100) work well with the 1.4 and 1.7 TCs.

That gives you two valid uses for TCs, magnification in macros, and extra reach on telephotos. ) Kind of like APS-c cameras, the famous double whammy. Long (or macro) 2.8 glass and 1.4 TC on APS-c). That's what they are designed for. Use them for something else at your peril. Same as using your DFA 50 1/4 for shooting images of bears, a subject for which extending your reach is almost always a good idea.

Shooting a Grizzly with a DFA 50 1.4 can cause your death. The perils of not liking DFA 50 1.4 images with the TC on it are by comparison minor. Maybe I should be mentioning that over in the DFA 50 1.4 thread.
Buy what you need for the purpose you need it for, don't worry about what it doesn't do.

Was someone seriously thinking of buying a TC to use with a 1.4 lens? Tell them to try it out first.

[Kunzite]

Right. That's why I thought of the 2 tele lenses - the D FA 70-200 and the longer D FA - on the roadmap, and not of the mid-tele 85mm. It might work, but.. why?
Barry tested the RC with the D FA* 50mm as no more than a curiosity, I'm sure. He did it so we won't have to bother He never said anything negative about it not working well.

The 1.4xRC worked very well on my DA* 60-250, too I would buy a D FA 1.4xRC and try it on the 150-450, perhaps adding a D FA 300mm f/4 (if they make one) or the D FA 70-200 f/4 as a lighter option.