Anyone using extension tubes or teleconverters with their 645?

**barondla** · 03-22-2020, 07:39 AM

Have 120 f4 macro, 80-160, and arriving soon the 55 f2.8. Is there any use for the tubes or converters on a 645Z? Or, are these photos better left to the K-1?
Thanks,
barondla

**blackcloudbrew** · 03-22-2020, 08:33 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by barondla

Have 120 f4 macro, 80-160, and arriving soon the 55 f2.8. Is there any use for the tubes or converters on a 645Z? Or, are these photos better left to the K-1?
Thanks,
barondla

I have them, but so far, haven't needed to use them on my 645z, particularly as I picked up the 120 macro last year and I've had a 300 lens for my 645z. I'm just guessing here, but extension tubes and teleconverters are - theoretically - cheaper ways and lighter ways to do the same thing as macro lenses and telephoto lenses can. Ok, that's obvious, but early on when I was building up my lens stable for my 645 and later 645n, I picked up tubes and converters on the cheap to allow my to do those types of photography. Hardly need them now. Regardless, and more to your question, I would be quite surprised if tubes and converters work better on one or another camera system.

photoptimist · 03-22-2020, 09:35 AM - **1 Like**

One can do macro in any format with great results. The high resolution and high IQ of the 645Z would certainly enable stunning macro shots.

That said, if the goal is high magnification at the print-end, then the "reach" of smaller formats means they need less optical magnification to achieve a given print magnification.

Consider the task of filling the screen (or a print) with the image of a 1 inch critter or flower:

With an APS-C camera, most macro lenses would easy produce the almost-1:1 magnification needed to fill the screen.

With the K-1, a 100/2.8 macro would also need maybe 50mm of added extension tubes to do the same.

With the 645Z, a 120/4 macro would also need 91 mm of added extension tubes to do the same.

As with all things in larger formats, shots often involve bigger, longer, more complex setups to do the same thing but the reward comes from the added resolution and IQ of the larger format.

chrism888 · 03-23-2020, 01:34 AM - **1 Like**

I use a 645z combined with a 120mm macro and a set of tubes, works very well with fairly close shots, also the set up has a ring flash

johnha · 03-23-2020, 02:51 AM - **1 Like**

I have a set of 6x7 extension tubes for my 67 and have used the shortest one to get a tighter head shot with my early 200/4 with it. Haven't tried them on the D (don't know if they'd retain open aperture metering). I now have the late 67 200/4 which focuses closer so doesn't need them.

**jimpurcell** · 03-23-2020, 03:49 PM - **1 Like**

I have both. I find myself using the extension tubes on my 645d or 645z for macros. I have tried teleconverters but have yet to like the results.

**rdenney** · 03-24-2020, 12:25 PM - **1 Like**

The 645 A 1.4x teleconverter is fine, but not better than the prime lens of the same focal length. So, even the outstanding 300 A* with the 1.4 is no better than the FA 400/5.6. But if you don't own a 400, or don't have room for it in the bag, the 1.4x converter is a problem-solver. Teleconverters need a superb lens to start with, however. Whatever faults the lens has will be magnified, and then added to whatever faults the converter has. I made this image using the teleconverter on the 400:

I have extension tubes for my 67, though I've rarely used them. But I do have the 135mm macro lens for the 67. For my old Pentacon Six stuff, I have the Pentacon bellows and a range of extension tubes. The only tube I've used consistently is the thin (10mm) tube that came with the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8, which makes it good for tight head shots.

Rick "who also posted a review in the Reviews section about the 1.4x 645A converter" Denney

**barondla** · 03-24-2020, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by rdenney

The 645 A 1.4x teleconverter is fine, but not better than the prime lens of the same focal length. So, even the outstanding 300 A* with the 1.4 is no better than the FA 400/5.6. But if you don't own a 400, or don't have room for it in the bag, the 1.4x converter is a problem-solver. Teleconverters need a superb lens to start with, however. Whatever faults the lens has will be magnified, and then added to whatever faults the converter has. I made this image using the teleconverter on the 400:

I have extension tubes for my 67, though I've rarely used them. But I do have the 135mm macro lens for the 67. For my old Pentacon Six stuff, I have the Pentacon bellows and a range of extension tubes. The only tube I've used consistently is the thin (10mm) tube that came with the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8, which makes it good for tight head shots.

Rick "who also posted a review in the Reviews section about the 1.4x 645A converter" Denney

Not seeing the 400mm + 1.4 teleconverter example picture. Your 1.4 converter review has great info. Thanks for doing the research and posting. Any experience with the 2X?
Thanks,
barondla

**rdenney** · 03-25-2020, 07:23 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by barondla

Not seeing the 400mm + 1.4 teleconverter example picture.

Try refreshing your browser, or a different browser, or a different service. The photo is on a scratch area of my website, hosted by Earthlink, but sometimes there are too many hops to get to it, or something like that. I see it on all my devices and browsers, even through the gubmint VPN.

I'm frustrated at trying to show images properly. The forum software undermines sharpness by resizing and scaling images even when they fit in the desired size window--my test images were magnified enough to get around that. Tapatalk also resizes and rescales images without the option. The photo hosting sites are something I just won't do--I don't want have them disappear behind a pay wall (or a bankruptcy) at any unannounced moment, nor do I want to feed advertisements I don't get paid for to people who see my images. And I have never yet been able to see Ed Hurst's photos without cutting and pasting the link into a browser to pull up Photobucket or whatever it is he uses. So, I do it this way. No method is perfect, it would seem.

Rick "tired of nanny browsers that require certificates for information that does not need to be certificated, adding cost and complexity to sharing images with nothin in return" Denney

johnha · 03-31-2020, 09:40 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by johnha

I have a set of 6x7 extension tubes for my 67 and have used the shortest one to get a tighter head shot with my early 200/4 with it. Haven't tried them on the D (don't know if they'd retain open aperture metering).

Update: I've had a go with using Pentax 67 extension tubes (no. 2 specifically) on my 67 135mm macro on the Pentax 645 to 67 adapter on my D*.

It seems to retain open aperture metering and auto stop-down useable in manual and Av - but I'm not sure how?

The 67 extension tube doesn't seem to link the aperture simulator of the lens to the 645 adapter - which I'd expect would be needed?

* Resulting with roughly enough magnification to fill the frame with a 6x7 transparency.

**kaseki** · 04-01-2020, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by johnha

Update: I've had a go with using Pentax 67 extension tubes (no. 2 specifically) on my 67 135mm macro on the Pentax 645 to 67 adapter on my D*.

It seems to retain open aperture metering and auto stop-down useable in manual and Av - but I'm not sure how?

The 67 extension tube doesn't seem to link the aperture simulator of the lens to the 645 adapter - which I'd expect would be needed?

* Resulting with roughly enough magnification to fill the frame with a 6x7 transparency.

Have you observed the iris closing when the shutter is actuated? It may be that the camera is just adjusting the shutter speed to fit the light level received with the shutter open. I suppose the depth of field of the resulting image would also be a clue.

**RICHARD L.** · 04-01-2020, 10:26 AM - **1 Like**

I have 645 auto extension tubes and the two 645 converters. My copy of the 2X converter produces only dismal results and I have stopped using it. I use the 1.4X converter with my FA 400 mm f/5.6 tele on the Pentax K1 FF body (560 mm resulting combo). The 1.4X produces decent pictures. Having acquired recently an FA 120 mm Macro, I have no use for the extension tubes any more. I shoot butterflies with my K3 and DFA 100 mm f/2.8 macro with flash now.

Regards,

Richard

**barondla** · 04-01-2020, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by rdenney

The 645 A 1.4x teleconverter is fine, but not better than the prime lens of the same focal length. So, even the outstanding 300 A* with the 1.4 is no better than the FA 400/5.6. But if you don't own a 400, or don't have room for it in the bag, the 1.4x converter is a problem-solver. Teleconverters need a superb lens to start with, however. Whatever faults the lens has will be magnified, and then added to whatever faults the converter has. I made this image using the teleconverter on the 400:

I have extension tubes for my 67, though I've rarely used them. But I do have the 135mm macro lens for the 67. For my old Pentacon Six stuff, I have the Pentacon bellows and a range of extension tubes. The only tube I've used consistently is the thin (10mm) tube that came with the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8, which makes it good for tight head shots.

Rick "who also posted a review in the Reviews section about the 1.4x 645A converter" Denney

Image shows up on my laptop. Nice eagle picture. They aren't easy to photograph,
Thanks for sharing,
barondla

johnha · 04-01-2020, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by kaseki

Have you observed the iris closing when the shutter is actuated? It may be that the camera is just adjusting the shutter speed to fit the light level received with the shutter open. I suppose the depth of field of the resulting image would also be a clue.

Yep the aperture closes, the stop down lever is connected to the lens through the tube, I just can't seem to see how the aperture simulator works. The finder image remains full btightmness as you stop the lens down ( ens switch set to auto).

03-22-2020, 07:39 AM	#1
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	Anyone using extension tubes or teleconverters with their 645? Have 120 f4 macro, 80-160, and arriving soon the 55 f2.8. Is there any use for the tubes or converters on a 645Z? Or, are these photos better left to the K-1? Thanks, barondla

03-22-2020, 08:33 AM - 1 Like	#2
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	Originally posted by barondla Have 120 f4 macro, 80-160, and arriving soon the 55 f2.8. Is there any use for the tubes or converters on a 645Z? Or, are these photos better left to the K-1? Thanks, barondla I have them, but so far, haven't needed to use them on my 645z, particularly as I picked up the 120 macro last year and I've had a 300 lens for my 645z. I'm just guessing here, but extension tubes and teleconverters are - theoretically - cheaper ways and lighter ways to do the same thing as macro lenses and telephoto lenses can. Ok, that's obvious, but early on when I was building up my lens stable for my 645 and later 645n, I picked up tubes and converters on the cheap to allow my to do those types of photography. Hardly need them now. Regardless, and more to your question, I would be quite surprised if tubes and converters work better on one or another camera system. Last edited by blackcloudbrew; 03-22-2020 at 08:57 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is anyone using extension tubes with K-1 that don't vignette ~200mm lenses	barondla	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	13	09-02-2019 12:35 AM
Anyone actually use their OVF on their GR	pentaxian_tmb	Ricoh GR	7	10-02-2018 07:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: (2) Sets of Asahi M42 extension tubes in their original cases.	gsrokmix	Sold Items	6	05-25-2017 03:56 PM
All these $10 PKA teleconverters that you can de-glass to make extension tubes...	GibbyTheMole	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	05-18-2012 09:43 AM
Anyone tried to make their extension tubes P/KA?	Class A	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	05-01-2010 10:15 PM

03-22-2020, 09:35 AM - 1 Like	#3
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,122	One can do macro in any format with great results. The high resolution and high IQ of the 645Z would certainly enable stunning macro shots. That said, if the goal is high magnification at the print-end, then the "reach" of smaller formats means they need less optical magnification to achieve a given print magnification. Consider the task of filling the screen (or a print) with the image of a 1 inch critter or flower: With an APS-C camera, most macro lenses would easy produce the almost-1:1 magnification needed to fill the screen. With the K-1, a 100/2.8 macro would also need maybe 50mm of added extension tubes to do the same. With the 645Z, a 120/4 macro would also need 91 mm of added extension tubes to do the same. As with all things in larger formats, shots often involve bigger, longer, more complex setups to do the same thing but the reward comes from the added resolution and IQ of the larger format.

03-23-2020, 01:34 AM - 1 Like	#4
chrism888 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 178	I use a 645z combined with a 120mm macro and a set of tubes, works very well with fairly close shots, also the set up has a ring flash

03-23-2020, 02:51 AM - 1 Like	#5
johnha Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Lancashire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,155	I have a set of 6x7 extension tubes for my 67 and have used the shortest one to get a tighter head shot with my early 200/4 with it. Haven't tried them on the D (don't know if they'd retain open aperture metering). I now have the late 67 200/4 which focuses closer so doesn't need them.

03-23-2020, 03:49 PM - 1 Like	#6
jimpurcell Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Tucson Photos: Albums Posts: 90	I have both. I find myself using the extension tubes on my 645d or 645z for macros. I have tried teleconverters but have yet to like the results.

03-24-2020, 12:25 PM - 1 Like	#7
rdenney Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: NoVA Posts: 635	The 645 A 1.4x teleconverter is fine, but not better than the prime lens of the same focal length. So, even the outstanding 300 A* with the 1.4 is no better than the FA 400/5.6. But if you don't own a 400, or don't have room for it in the bag, the 1.4x converter is a problem-solver. Teleconverters need a superb lens to start with, however. Whatever faults the lens has will be magnified, and then added to whatever faults the converter has. I made this image using the teleconverter on the 400: I have extension tubes for my 67, though I've rarely used them. But I do have the 135mm macro lens for the 67. For my old Pentacon Six stuff, I have the Pentacon bellows and a range of extension tubes. The only tube I've used consistently is the thin (10mm) tube that came with the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8, which makes it good for tight head shots. Rick "who also posted a review in the Reviews section about the 1.4x 645A converter" Denney

03-24-2020, 10:58 PM	#8
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714 Original Poster	Originally posted by rdenney The 645 A 1.4x teleconverter is fine, but not better than the prime lens of the same focal length. So, even the outstanding 300 A* with the 1.4 is no better than the FA 400/5.6. But if you don't own a 400, or don't have room for it in the bag, the 1.4x converter is a problem-solver. Teleconverters need a superb lens to start with, however. Whatever faults the lens has will be magnified, and then added to whatever faults the converter has. I made this image using the teleconverter on the 400: I have extension tubes for my 67, though I've rarely used them. But I do have the 135mm macro lens for the 67. For my old Pentacon Six stuff, I have the Pentacon bellows and a range of extension tubes. The only tube I've used consistently is the thin (10mm) tube that came with the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8, which makes it good for tight head shots. Rick "who also posted a review in the Reviews section about the 1.4x 645A converter" Denney Not seeing the 400mm + 1.4 teleconverter example picture. Your 1.4 converter review has great info. Thanks for doing the research and posting. Any experience with the 2X? Thanks, barondla

03-25-2020, 07:23 AM - 1 Like	#9
rdenney Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: NoVA Posts: 635	Originally posted by barondla Not seeing the 400mm + 1.4 teleconverter example picture. Try refreshing your browser, or a different browser, or a different service. The photo is on a scratch area of my website, hosted by Earthlink, but sometimes there are too many hops to get to it, or something like that. I see it on all my devices and browsers, even through the gubmint VPN. I'm frustrated at trying to show images properly. The forum software undermines sharpness by resizing and scaling images even when they fit in the desired size window--my test images were magnified enough to get around that. Tapatalk also resizes and rescales images without the option. The photo hosting sites are something I just won't do--I don't want have them disappear behind a pay wall (or a bankruptcy) at any unannounced moment, nor do I want to feed advertisements I don't get paid for to people who see my images. And I have never yet been able to see Ed Hurst's photos without cutting and pasting the link into a browser to pull up Photobucket or whatever it is he uses. So, I do it this way. No method is perfect, it would seem. Rick "tired of nanny browsers that require certificates for information that does not need to be certificated, adding cost and complexity to sharing images with nothin in return" Denney

03-31-2020, 09:40 PM - 1 Like	#10
johnha Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Lancashire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,155	Originally posted by johnha I have a set of 6x7 extension tubes for my 67 and have used the shortest one to get a tighter head shot with my early 200/4 with it. Haven't tried them on the D (don't know if they'd retain open aperture metering). Update: I've had a go with using Pentax 67 extension tubes (no. 2 specifically) on my 67 135mm macro on the Pentax 645 to 67 adapter on my D. It seems to retain open aperture metering and auto stop-down useable in manual and Av - but I'm not sure how? The 67 extension tube doesn't seem to link the aperture simulator of the lens to the 645 adapter - which I'd expect would be needed? Resulting with roughly enough magnification to fill the frame with a 6x7 transparency.

04-01-2020, 10:08 AM	#11
kaseki Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,138	Originally posted by johnha Update: I've had a go with using Pentax 67 extension tubes (no. 2 specifically) on my 67 135mm macro on the Pentax 645 to 67 adapter on my D. It seems to retain open aperture metering and auto stop-down useable in manual and Av - but I'm not sure how? The 67 extension tube doesn't seem to link the aperture simulator of the lens to the 645 adapter - which I'd expect would be needed? Resulting with roughly enough magnification to fill the frame with a 6x7 transparency. Have you observed the iris closing when the shutter is actuated? It may be that the camera is just adjusting the shutter speed to fit the light level received with the shutter open. I suppose the depth of field of the resulting image would also be a clue.

04-01-2020, 10:26 AM - 1 Like	#12
RICHARD L. Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Quebec City, Quebec Posts: 6,575	I have 645 auto extension tubes and the two 645 converters. My copy of the 2X converter produces only dismal results and I have stopped using it. I use the 1.4X converter with my FA 400 mm f/5.6 tele on the Pentax K1 FF body (560 mm resulting combo). The 1.4X produces decent pictures. Having acquired recently an FA 120 mm Macro, I have no use for the extension tubes any more. I shoot butterflies with my K3 and DFA 100 mm f/2.8 macro with flash now. Regards, Richard

04-01-2020, 10:48 AM	#13
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714 Original Poster	Originally posted by rdenney The 645 A 1.4x teleconverter is fine, but not better than the prime lens of the same focal length. So, even the outstanding 300 A* with the 1.4 is no better than the FA 400/5.6. But if you don't own a 400, or don't have room for it in the bag, the 1.4x converter is a problem-solver. Teleconverters need a superb lens to start with, however. Whatever faults the lens has will be magnified, and then added to whatever faults the converter has. I made this image using the teleconverter on the 400: I have extension tubes for my 67, though I've rarely used them. But I do have the 135mm macro lens for the 67. For my old Pentacon Six stuff, I have the Pentacon bellows and a range of extension tubes. The only tube I've used consistently is the thin (10mm) tube that came with the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180/2.8, which makes it good for tight head shots. Rick "who also posted a review in the Reviews section about the 1.4x 645A converter" Denney Image shows up on my laptop. Nice eagle picture. They aren't easy to photograph, Thanks for sharing, barondla

04-01-2020, 01:41 PM	#14
johnha Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Lancashire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,155	Originally posted by kaseki Have you observed the iris closing when the shutter is actuated? It may be that the camera is just adjusting the shutter speed to fit the light level received with the shutter open. I suppose the depth of field of the resulting image would also be a clue. Yep the aperture closes, the stop down lever is connected to the lens through the tube, I just can't seem to see how the aperture simulator works. The finder image remains full btightmness as you stop the lens down ( ens switch set to auto).