Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-25-2016, 03:14 PM   #1
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 32
Pentax HD DA 1.4 teleconverter

The literature from Pentax is that this tele-converter is for APS-C Pentax cameras. With the new K1, will it still be fully functional without compromises? Will a new FF tele-converter be required in the future for the FF lenses?

04-25-2016, 03:16 PM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,958
It will still be fully functional, but it is not a full-frame teleconverter. It may work well with some lenses but not with others.

Tests will shed more light on this in due time

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

04-25-2016, 04:16 PM   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,496
All of the film tests I have seen have not shown problems but Pentax is sticking to saying this is not FF. My guess is that there is moderate vignetting nothing worse - perhaps some corner sharpness losses.
04-25-2016, 04:23 PM - 1 Like   #4
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,795
Curious why I would want to use the TC with the K-1?
If I am looking for a telephoto application isn't the K-3 and other APS-C format a better choice?

04-25-2016, 05:07 PM   #5
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
Curious why I would want to use the TC with the K-1?
If I am looking for a telephoto application isn't the K-3 and other APS-C format a better choice?
Absolutely! Putting the same lens on a K-3 makes more sense to me than putting a teleconverter on the K-1. You get slightly more magnification (1.5x vs 1.4x), you don't lose a stop on your exposure settings, and you don't have extra glass causing even subtle IQ loss.

So a "crop only" teleconverter is fine by me
04-25-2016, 05:30 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
Curious why I would want to use the TC with the K-1?
If I am looking for a telephoto application isn't the K-3 and other APS-C format a better choice?
It's not really an 'either/or' situation, crewl 1. And you pay on the super wide to medium wide end (vs. primes, in this case) with most DSLR systems. Depends on what you need optically. Respectfully: 1) 1.4x teleconverter, circa 5 ounces; vs. loaded Pentax K3, circa 29 ounces (as a 2nd body for 'reach'?) ...2) Why would you want to lug with you any lens longer than 200mm max. focal length if there was only a small chance you'd need something 300mm or longer, irrespective of whether you're carrying a K-1 or a K3? Consumer class zoom lenses extending from 55-70mm out to 300mm FL (or 250mm, in the case of the better Pentax DA* zoom) are almost universally of "mid-level" overall quality, typically entailing some notable performance deficit beyond 180-200mm FL compared to shorter. The Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM is the only such zoom from any manufacturer that I know of, from any era, that is about as strong as it ever gets (and that's pretty good) at maximum FL well above 200mm. That's why I chose it, as an *adjunct* to 100mm WR macro, 135mm, and 200mm primes... along with the lightweight APS-C *mirrorless* camera(s) on which to mount it. I believe that cropping a little to produce, say, a 420mm equivalent FL for some wildlife shots from the Canon is the better option compared to shooting with a DA Pentax or Tamron VC USD anywhere near 250-300mm actual FL on APS-C format. And the widely touted Tamron, for instance (n.a. for Pentax), is around double the 13.5 ounce weight of the Canon IS STM... and the Pentax, nearly that difference. So, a 'no-brainer', then, given my own primes-centric orientation? I have a Kenko Pro300 1.4x TC for Canon (and for Pentax; and a Tamron SP for Nikon AF) as well. 200mm FF prime + 1.4x TC + APS-C mirrorless = best IQ at ~420mm equiv. FL -- or at 280mm on a K-1 FF -- in practical, flexible terms. TC's can help. You can, of course, go the much, much more burdensome route -- both physically and financially -- for competitive modern lenses over ~200mm FL, starting around $1450... and going up fast from there. I like having on hand the Tokina AT-X version II AF 80-400mm for Pentax, though, at 37 ounces (uniquely compact and "featherweight" for that FL on Pentax). I 'watched' for 3-1/2 years+ to snag that. Two cents worth of advice on the matter from someone who's kind of 'picky'; but who doesn't enjoy suffering under a load.

Edit: Does this make sense, Sandy?

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 04-26-2016 at 03:44 AM. Reason: Better, clearer intro... clarifying details, hopefully helpful. No material change to the message.
04-25-2016, 05:40 PM   #7
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 556
FWIW the Pentax AF 1.7 was designed for full-frame. Don't sell TC's short for the K1. I think they'll serve a purpose.
04-25-2016, 06:15 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
Yep, including a vintage piece like the 1.7x TC. I don't think many here have yet grasped the huge IQ quality improvement 36.4mp with new generation processor will likely yield with many vintage FF lenses written off by the rather presumptuously ignorant as "outresolved by the sensor", or "unworthy" of it, at ~36mp. Familiar internet 'meme', right? You can see a Minolta MD 35mm f.2.8 pretty much embarrassing a Sony FE 35mm f.2.8 (over 10x the cost, and built less well than my own newly acquired Rokkor-X iteration -- $38) at 42.5mp (via Sony A7R II) on the artaphot.ch website. You might be shocked how the Leica 35mm Summilux ASPH "compares" on FF Sony. The idea here applies in spades when you're talking about lenses of greater than 200mm FL, out of which you hope to wring 'modern' performance where AF is not critical... while justifying the weight and bulk when you leave the house. Birders should buy birder approved lenses. Casual non-specialists in that sort of thing can probably apply the implicit investment more productively in other ways. BTW, my comments are specific to 36mp and up sensor packages. The current FF 24mp [Sony] sensor is plenty nice for what it is, but it won't yield the range of benefits I describe. It's apples to oranges, I'm afraid. Again, you can conveniently find examples of this at artaphot.ch; and elsewhere, of course, if you look.


Last edited by Kayaker-J; 04-25-2016 at 09:01 PM. Reason: Additional information presented... clarification.
04-25-2016, 06:26 PM   #9
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,731
QuoteOriginally posted by Kayaker-J Quote
Respectfully: 1) 1.4x teleconverter, circa 5 ounces; vs. loaded Pentax K3, circa 29 ounces. ...2) Why would you want to lug with you any lens longer than 200mm max. focal length if there was only a small chance you'd need something 300mm or longer, irrespective of whether you're carrying a K-1 or a K3? Consumer class zoom lenses extending from 55-70mm out to 300mm FL (or 250mm, in the case of the better Pentax DA* zoom) are almost universally of "mid-level" overall quality, typically entailing some notable performance deficit beyond 180-200mm FL compared to shorter. The Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM is the only such zoom from any manufacturer that I know of, from any era, that is about as strong as it ever gets (and that's pretty good) at maximum FL above 200mm. That's why I chose it, as an adjunct to 100mm macro, 135mm, and 200mm primes... along with the lightweight APS-C *mirrorless* camera(s) on which to mount it. I believe that cropping a little to produce, say, a 420mm equivalent FL for some wildlife shots from the Canon is the better option compared to shooting with a DA Pentax or Tamron VC USD anywhere near 250-300mm actual FL on APS-C format. And the widely touted Tamron, for instance (n.a. for Pentax), is around double the 13.5 ounce weight of the Canon IS STM... and the Pentax, nearly that difference. So, a 'no-brainer', then, given my own primes-centric, IQ pursuing orientation? I have a Kenko Pro300 1.4x TC for Canon (and for Pentax; and a Tamron SP for Nikon AF) as well. 200mm FF prime + 1.4x TC + APS-C mirrorless = best IQ at ~420mm equiv. FL -- or 280mm on a K-1 FF -- in practical, flexible terms. You can, of course, go the much, much more burdensome route -- both physically and financially -- for competitive modern lenses over ~200mm FL, starting around $1450... and going up fast from there. I like having on hand the Tokina AT-X version II AF 80-400mm for Pentax, though, at 37 ounces (uniquely compact and "featherweight" for that FL on Pentax). Two cents worth of advice on the matter from someone who's kind of 'picky'; but who doesn't enjoy suffering.

Edit: Does this make sense, Sandy?
Respectfully, leave the K-1 home, take the K-3. No one is asking you to carry two bodies, or even own two bodies. If you're currently shooting the Canon glass you mention, do you even know what 24 MP APS-c looks like? I see a lot of 18 and 20 MP cameras over on the Canon site.

As a canoe and action guy who doesn't like to suffer, it's my K-1 that will stay home on occasion, not my K-3. My current set up is 18-135 with a DA*200 and both the HD DA 1.4 TC with the F1.7x AF adapter which stacked gives me 476mm APS-c or 714 FF. The DA*200 weighs 825 grams, the HD DA 1.4 TC weighs 126 and the F1.7x AF adapter weighs 144 for a total of 1095 grams. You just can't come close to matching this with an FF system. Not to mention that my 200mm lens is ƒ2.8. With my 18-135 (447 gm) and K-3 (800 kms) my total package is 2342 grams, and covers 18-456mm. or 5.16 pounds. With my 1.4 TC, DA*200 or 18-135 it's also water resistant. Something really good for watersport guys.

Seriously, you can't touch this with an FF package, same field of view and same weight, no matter what you do, and you definitely can't have it in FF with the equivalent of 200mm ƒ2.8 glass. So what has you wetting your pants over a K-1? A lot of guys who worry about weight are figuring out how to get by with 4/3 systems.

Also the DA*60-250 is a pretty awesome lens, but it's not light. It will pretty much smoke your Canon 55-200 in IQ and it's WR and constant ƒ4. It fits just fine in my orange pelican case, which fits just fine in my kayak.
04-25-2016, 06:30 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,898
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Absolutely! Putting the same lens on a K-3 makes more sense to me than putting a teleconverter on the K-1. You get slightly more magnification (1.5x vs 1.4x), you don't lose a stop on your exposure settings, and you don't have extra glass causing even subtle IQ loss.

So a "crop only" teleconverter is fine by me
Sandy, do you use teleconverters at all?
04-25-2016, 06:33 PM   #11
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 271
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
Curious why I would want to use the TC with the K-1?
If I am looking for a telephoto application isn't the K-3 and other APS-C format a better choice?
I find the TC a necessary addition to the 150-450 on a K-3 II, so I'd certainly be using it with the K-1.
The K-1 in crop mode, with the 150-450 +TC, may be a good combination for birding, if the suggested low noise performance is a reality.

Cheers,
Terry
04-25-2016, 06:53 PM   #12
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,731
That's what I keep thinking. I like using my TCs stacked all the time on APS-c, for birding. To match my current setup, I'd need a 300 2.8 and both TCs on the K-1/ The A-300 F-2.8 is 2970, just by itself.

On the other hand if you're looking for 200mm FF, the 18-135 is all you need.
04-25-2016, 07:06 PM   #13
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by Driline Quote
Sandy, do you use teleconverters at all?
On my DA*300 if I can't get enough reach with the K-3. Skittish birds, for instance. Or the moon - like last night with the Q7



I might use it a bit with the DFA*70-200 on the K-3.
I can't imagine an instance when I would use it with the K-1. But maybe I lack imagination.
04-25-2016, 07:12 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
Norm, I do not want to leave a K-1 home -- hardly ever -- whenever it happens I choose to spring for a K-1 a bit down the road! Just for one thing, doing so would screw up my high quality prime lens options immensely. I'll bet many here agree with that sentiment, with or without regard to the investment a K-1 entails. And nobody here, including yourself, has touted the underrated qualities of APS-C, executed optimally as a complete SYSTEM... much more often... than myself, in numerous threads... AND has put a considerable cash investment behind the opinion -- I was being too humble about the "two cents" bit [BTW, I've been largely absent here most of the past 10 months or so, due to a fairly serious disability: older guy, right, Norm? You keep in shape, I know.]. Contrary to what you sort of imply, and directly suggest, I, like you, prefer to have two bodies with me... at least two. Life feels much tougher to navigate not doing so, when you prefer prime lenses. I don't get what the beef is, frankly.

FYI: Sony A5000 (7.6 oz., just over 9 oz. loaded -- 2nd hand Kinotehnik LCDVF on the way)... new addition, Canon M3 (about 13.5 oz. loaded, with EVF attached). A5000: 20.1mp, with arguably better IQ by some margin at 100 & 200 ISO than the A6000 (compare at imageresource.com); M3: 24.2mp packed into a 1.6x crop factor! Forget crummy old 18mp DSLR's from Canon -- I, for one, never considered EVEN THINKING much about one, which is why I bought a Pentax, and became Pentax-centric, then & now!! I'm currently wondering if my K3 becomes the entirely superfluous item in this case, once a K-1 purchase is immanent. I have no intention of ditching the use of DA's 35mm/2.4, 35mm macro, 40mm, and 70mm on a K-1, which I would anticipate meeting virtually all my DSLR requirements, irrespective of cropping. And for an example, this -- 100mm WR macro + 1.4x TC... and/or SMC Pentax 67 200mm + 1.4x... COMPLEMENTED by A5000/"smart" adapted, OR M3: 11-22mm IS STM, nearly diffraction limited wide open (7.6 ounces!) + 55-250mm IS STM, pretty much the same (<13.5 oz.)... image stabilized on EITHER Sony or Canon (Pentaxians get spoiled). Or take this -- Nikkor 200mm f.4.0 AI-S + Tamron SP 1.4x TC = 280mm FF, optimum IQ for this combo at f.8.0 to ~f.10 or so for landscapes, INCLUSIVE of the TC factor... at around 23+ ounces. Works great with the Sigma or Nikon 52mm diameter thread apochromatic close-up lenses for near-macro. So leave another lens at home, if you wish. Again, I don't get the argument. Give me some credit for intelligence, please. -- Fred

P.S.- FURTHERMORE, Norm... 1.22x crop factor ON A PENTAX K-1 yields 24.46 mp's on LARGER and HIGHER QUALITY pixel sites.. with, acc.to Ricoh, superior overall processing, with noticeably lower noise from that factor ALONE, compared a D810; or to a K3 (with its somewhat less than 24 effective megapixels). And by your plan, you saved roughly THREE ounces in DSLR weight! ...And left a $1795 camera at home [!?]. ...I wish I knew who you thought your argument was directed toward -- it can't logically be me. BTW, how do you think your K-01 will do compared to the totally contemporary (save for the the hybrid detection AF speed) 24.2mp M3? DxO, for what that's worth, and noting their strange rating numbers, puts the M3's performance ABOVE that of ALL the sensor/processors in any rated Canon APS-C DSLR... including the circa $1800 variety! Maybe you need to brush up on your facts and make fewer assumptions, eh? Just a suggestion...

BTW, any Pentaxian who would like to make a judgement on all this for his or herself can do so in a matter of minutes -- just go to dustinabbott.net and look at the M3 image gallery postings from American southwest landscape subjects in Dustin's review of the M3. You won't need to waste your time looking over test patterns at 100% crop. These shots were taken with the M3 and the EF-M 22mm f.2.0 (3.7 ounces!) and the EF-M 11-22mm f.4.0+ (7.6 ounces!). They're kind of jaw-dropping, IMO, especially considering the size of the kit. These are NOT "kit" lenses, people. It's Sony who have the lens problem. The 55-200 EF-M lens, BTW, weighs 9.1 ounces, if that's of interest to anyone. My FF 28mm f.2.8 IS USM (bought used, of course -- it's a commodity, given Canon's popularity) is sharp wide open across most of the frame, REALLY pretty sharp to the borders at f.3.2... image stabilized on Canon OR Sony... at 45mm 'normal' or 42mm 'wide-normal' equivalent (as preferred to 50-52mm by me), respectively... at a pittance in weight and bulk compared to Sigma Art, e.g., OR Samyang/Rokinon MF. The M3 with EVF just LOVES Pentax DA Limited lenses, FA 100mm WR macro, FA 77mm, FA 31mm... 28mm f.3.5 SMC Pentax-'K'! Can't quite say the same for live view MF on a K3, can you? And hey, Norm, haven't you noticed that Pentax has nothing remotely comparable (nor does Nikon, yet)? Oh, I'm sure you have. My guiding principles would be, "think outside the box"; "do your own thing and help by explaining it to others"; and "less fanboy, more making practical sense". I don't see why this has to take such justification. I can't buy or use a Pentax camera and lenses that don't exist.

One more bit of advice for the curious: Don't think of evaluating the items I mentioned by B&H prices. No knock on them, but so many people with half-baked ideas have dissed the Canon M-system, mostly based on the *original* M1 release w/o firmware updates (and, unjustifiably, 20.1mp Sony, too -- Hello, K-S1 and K-S2 owners) that I REJOICE! Why? Where others saw faults, I saw opportunity. Hey, Chris at The Camera Store: you don't have to freak out completely over some defeatable LED's, all right? This is exactly the way I looked at the K-01 when that one hit these shores. Marc Newson, Marc Smoosh-son -- who cares? Norm, you have[/had] a K-01 and defended it's usefulness vigorously here. So... did you pay $799 for a one lens kit? ...Or did you wait for the 'fire sale'? Well, I will quietly suggest that the M-system fire sale is on, prematurely & big time, if you know where to look and are O.K. with buying a "bundle". That's it on that.

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 04-26-2016 at 03:59 AM. Reason: Clarification & additional information.
04-25-2016, 07:45 PM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,417
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Absolutely! Putting the same lens on a K-3 makes more sense to me than putting a teleconverter on the K-1. You get slightly more magnification (1.5x vs 1.4x), you don't lose a stop on your exposure settings, and you don't have extra glass causing even subtle IQ loss.

So a "crop only" teleconverter is fine by me
Let's correct an glaring error here, a TC does give you more magnification, the aps-c sensor ONLY gives you reduced field of view.

A 300mm on a K1 with a TC will have greater magnification than the 300 on the K3. The difference in the FoV of 420mm (K1) versus 450mm (K3) will be about 1 degree, but the K1 + TC setup up will have greater optical magnification. So you get about the same FoV, more magnification AND more MP with the K1 combo. So yes that Stop of light may be worth it.

If the Pentax TC truly is limiting on a FF sensor, there's always the Tamron 1.4 or maybe the Pentax 1.7x will get a new life. I have the Tamron already, so I'll see how that works.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
combo, crop, dslr, fov, full frame, full-frame, k-1, k-3, k1, lloyd, magnification, pentax, pentax hd da, pentax k-1, pentax news, pentax rumors, sensor, tamron, tc
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax HD TC 1.4 + DA* 300 - IQ timautin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 88 04-28-2015 10:47 AM
Teleconverter for Pentax HD DA 55-300mm? AggieDad Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 03-02-2015 04:35 PM
Wanted - Acquired: looking for an hd da af 1.4 teleconverter wibbly Sold Items 3 01-05-2015 09:47 PM
DA* Lens Performance on FF (with [HD] 1.4x Teleconverter) Joshua A Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 11-01-2014 01:57 PM
HD 55-300mm on new 1.4 teleconverter AW mythguy9 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 09-28-2014 03:40 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top