[kkoether]

Now I'm kind of curious how it stacks up against the 1.4X-L I have. I kind of want to see about getting on as a loaner for a bit and seeing how they compare with moon shots. It has been my understanding that the 1.4x converters are better IQ wise than the 2x ones.

Keep an eye on our forum Marketplace. I got mine off of there a few years back for $360.00. They do occasionally pop up. It's well worth it with the seals and the fact that it reports itself to the camera for correct focal length for shake reduction etc.

[UncleVanya]

I wouldn’t expect it to outperform the 1.4x-L. I compared mine to the rear converter 1.4x-s A series and found them very similar. The L series are optimized for long lenses.

[MossyRocks]

Keep an eye on our forum Marketplace. I got mine off of there a few years back for $360.00. They do occasionally pop up. It's well worth it with the seals and the fact that it reports itself to the camera for correct focal length for shake reduction etc.

The lens I would want to use it with is my 400 so the reporting to the camera and seals don't get me anything. Of all the converters that I don't own the 1.7x one that give AF does somewhat peak my interest as that give that old 400 some autofocus functionality. I have the 2X-L and 1.4X-L for extra reach but a modern HD 1.4X would be something to consider for the shorter glass. Like I said renting or borrowing one would be something I would want to do just to see how it compares as $360 probably won't be worth a purchase given how many lenses I currently own and that it very likely won't be better 1.4X-L.

I wouldn’t expect it to outperform the 1.4x-L. I compared mine to the rear converter 1.4x-s A series and found them very similar. The L series are optimized for long lenses.

True, but the HD 1.4X is more modern so in theory I would think it would be better than the older 1.4x ones that aren't the L. It is more of a curiosity to feed my need to tinker.

[normhead]

In my case, the HD DA 1.4 accurately produces the correct focal length. My F 1.7x AF converter aways asks for input... only my Tamron 2x PZ botches the focal length. But that TC is only used on my Tamron 300 2.8 with the K-1, and is heavy enough it's always on tripod. So it rarely if ever affects my images. I tend to forget about the FL until I see the exif.

It does take a very sharp lens to look good with a 2x converter on it.

Of all the converters that I don't own the 1.7x one that give AF does somewhat peak my interest as that give that old 400 some autofocus functionality.

That's the guy you want. For my Tamron 300 2.8 it give me 500 4.5, for a fraction the price of a 500 4.5. With the 400 it will give you 680 4.5, that's over 1000mm equivalent on a K-3.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-11-2022 at 09:15 AM.

[UncleVanya]

The lens I would want to use it with is my 400 so the reporting to the camera and seals don't get me anything. Of all the converters that I don't own the 1.7x one that give AF does somewhat peak my interest as that give that old 400 some autofocus functionality. I have the 2X-L and 1.4X-L for extra reach but a modern HD 1.4X would be something to consider for the shorter glass. Like I said renting or borrowing one would be something I would want to do just to see how it compares as $360 probably won't be worth a purchase given how many lenses I currently own and that it very likely won't be better 1.4X-L.



True, but the HD 1.4X is more modern so in theory I would think it would be better than the older 1.4x ones that aren't the L. It is more of a curiosity to feed my need to tinker.

I compared the non long 1.4x-s and the hd da and didn’t see much quality difference. The af was the deciding factor. The hd da also vignettes heavily on full frame. My tests used the fa* 300 f4.5.

The F AFA 1.7x is pretty good but I expect your 2x-L to be close in quality the 1.7x might be closer than expected due to the slightly lower magnification.

[pid]

Now I'm kind of curious how it stacks up against the 1.4X-L I have. I kind of want to see about getting on as a loaner for a bit and seeing how they compare with moon shots. It has been my understanding that the 1.4x converters are better IQ wise than the 2x ones.

I have both converters and they are both of good IQ (depending on the IQ of the combined lens.) The 1.4x-L from Pentax does a extremly well job on the DFA*200/2.8. The IQ is perfect. No decrease of image Quality, better than with the also very good HD 1.4x, but full FF. Cons: only manual and only compatible with very few lenses because of the extruding construction of the converter.

[UncleVanya]

I have both converters and they are both of good IQ (depending on the IQ of the combined lens.) The 1.4x-L from Pentax does a extremly well job on the DFA*200/2.8. The IQ is perfect. No decrease of image Quality, better than with the also very good HD 1.4x, but full FF. Cons: only manual and only compatible with very few lenses because of the extruding construction of the converter.

I had no idea that converter worked with the da* 200 (there isn’t a dfa 200 despite it being a full frame lens).

[normhead]

No decrease of image Quality,

As determined how?
The 3% loss in resolution of the HD DA 1.4 TC should not be noticeable unless pixel peeping with squinty eyes. We don't have the design numbers from the 1.4x-L but less than 3% would be impressive.

[normhead]

I had no idea that converter worked with the da* 200 (there isn’t a dfa 200 despite it being a full frame lens).

I think there may eventually be a D FA*200 2.8, but I also think Pentax realizes the AF speed of that lens and all the early SDM lenses is a little slow. If they do get around to upgrading it, like the DA*16-50 PLM it will get a new focus motor, and like the DA 55-300 PLM, a few more elements to correct CA and purple fringing than the current model. Modern sensors require a bit more than just having an image circle big enough to cover the sensor.

At this time, people seriously need to stop looking at designations and paying more attention to the results achieved with the lenses. The surprises can be rewarding.