1.4 teleconverter with 645 macro lenses?

**barondla** · 06-15-2021, 11:08 PM

The Pentax 1.4 converter fits and works well with the A 120 macro lens. Does it fit the FA120 or DFA 90 macro lenses?

Thanks,

barondla

saionu · 06-16-2021, 12:08 AM - **1 Like**

Hello ! Check on this page:
HD PENTAX-DA AF REAR CONVERTER 1.4X AW / Converter / AF Lens Adapter / K-mount Lenses / Lenses / Products | RICOH IMAGING

---------- Post added 06-16-21 at 12:09 AM ----------

At the begining of page you will find this:
"*When this converter is mounted between a 35mm full-frame SLR camera body and a D FA-series lens, the image size is automatically cropped to the APS-C format."

**RICHARD L.** · 06-16-2021, 02:27 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by barondla

Does it fit the FA120 or DFA 90 macro lenses?

The 645 1.4X converter fits the FA 120 mm f/4 MACRO. As for the DFA 90 mm f/2.8, maybe Mike Oria could tell you.

Regards

Originally posted by saionu

Hello ! Check on this page:HD PENTAX-DA AF REAR CONVERTER 1.4X AW / Converter / AF Lens Adapter / K-mount Lenses / Lenses / Products | RICOH IMAGING---------- Post added 06-16-21 at 12:09 AM ----------At the begining of page you will find this:"*When this converter is mounted between a 35mm full-frame SLR camera body and a D FA-series lens, the image size is automatically cropped to the APS-C format."

We are talking about medium-format lenses and converters, not K mounts and APS-C.

**ProfessorBuzz** · 06-16-2021, 05:53 AM - **1 Like**

The 120, yes, but I don't know about the 90 - I haven't tried this and don't think it is compatible..
Info here:
Rear Converter-A 645 1.4X Reviews - Pentax 645 Teleconverters and Adapters - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

**kaseki** · 06-16-2021, 07:51 AM - **3 Likes**

You guys keep making me mess with my camera stuff instead of addressing my first love, dealing with household chores.

The 1.4X fits the 120mm FA but NOT the 90mm. On the 90 the structures overlap. On the 120 the aperture levers are carried across, but only 3 electrical connections. (The 120 has 7.)

Wasp · 06-16-2021, 07:53 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by kaseki

You guys keep making me mess with my camera stuff instead of addressing my first love, dealing with household chores.

I know the feeling. Words to live by.

**barondla** · 06-16-2021, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by RICHARD L.

The 645 1.4X converter fits the FA 120 mm f/4 MACRO. As for the DFA 90 mm f/2.8, maybe Mike Oria could tell you.

Regards

We are talking about medium-format lenses and converters, not K mounts and APS-C.

Thank you. Good to know the converter works on the macro. Knew the optics of the A 120 and FA were the same. The mechanicals are obviously different for AF.

---------- Post added 06-16-21 at 12:54 PM ----------

Originally posted by ProfessorBuzz

The 120, yes, but I don't know about the 90 - I haven't tried this and don't think it is compatible..
Info here:
Rear Converter-A 645 1.4X Reviews - Pentax 645 Teleconverters and Adapters - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Thanks for the info. Glad the converter works on the FA 120.

---------- Post added 06-16-21 at 01:02 PM ----------

Originally posted by kaseki

You guys keep making me mess with my camera stuff instead of addressing my first love, dealing with household chores.

The 1.4X fits the 120mm FA but NOT the 90mm. On the 90 the structures overlap. On the 120 the aperture levers are carried across, but only 3 electrical connections. (The 120 has 7.)

Sorry for taking you away from the household chores. A shame the 90 is incompatible with the 1.4x rear converter. Do you happen to have the Pentax 2x rear teleconverter? Obviously it woul fit. Just wondering how it would do optically? Especially for macro.

Thanks everyone,
barondla

**RICHARD L.** · 06-16-2021, 12:32 PM - **1 Like**

I have a copy of the 645 2X converter and I must tell you "it is a joke". It produces fuzzy pictures and is "dismal" in performance. Maybe I fell on a poor copy, but it sells for peanuts used on eBay or elsewhere and it is not worth a dime IMHO.

Regards

**kaseki** · 06-16-2021, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by barondla

... A shame the 90 is incompatible with the 1.4x rear converter. Do you happen to have the Pentax 2x rear teleconverter? Obviously it woul fit. Just wondering how it would do optically? Especially for macro. ...

I don't. Would you consider two 1.4X in series? I think for macro the extenders would be appropriate.

**barondla** · 06-16-2021, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by kaseki

I don't. Would you consider two 1.4X in series? I think for macro the extenders would be appropriate.

Don't think two 1.4x converters will mount together. It is unfortunate an extension tube won't fit on the front of the 1.4 converter. If it fit, the smallest tube would allow mounting two 1.4 converters together. Would also allow 1.4 converter on 90 macro and other lenses with insufficient mechanical clearance.

Thanks,

barondla ( always trying to use parts together in strange ways)

**kaseki** · 06-17-2021, 07:42 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by barondla

Don't think two 1.4x converters will mount together. It is unfortunate an extension tube won't fit on the front of the 1.4 converter. If it fit, the smallest tube would allow mounting two 1.4 converters together. Would also allow 1.4 converter on 90 macro and other lenses with insufficient mechanical clearance.

Thanks,

barondla ( always trying to use parts together in strange ways)

For the curious, the incompatibility between the 1.4X converter and the extension tubes is due to the tubes containing a rectangular 'mask' that interferes.

For the case of the 1.4X teleconverter mating to another, the distance from the most protruding metal at the front of the 1.4X teleconverter to the electrical pin flange is 11 mm, while the distance at the back from flange to glass is only about 8 mm.

Richard L.'s experience with the 2X differs from that of the single reviewer in the lens reviews section. Are there a preponderance of reviews elsewhere trashing this device?

**barondla** · 06-17-2021, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by kaseki

For the curious, the incompatibility between the 1.4X converter and the extension tubes is due to the tubes containing a rectangular 'mask' that interferes.

For the case of the 1.4X teleconverter mating to another, the distance from the most protruding metal at the front of the 1.4X teleconverter to the electrical pin flange is 11 mm, while the distance at the back from flange to glass is only about 8 mm.

Richard L.'s experience with the 2X differs from that of the single reviewer in the lens reviews section. Are there a preponderance of reviews elsewhere trashing this device?

I've considered sacrificing a small tube to make it compatible with the 1.4 teleconverter and lenses with shallow clearance. Unfortunately the masks also contain electrical contacts. Have to think about that.

Thanks,
barondla

**TDvN57** · 06-17-2021, 04:41 PM - **1 Like**

Two 1.4 Teleconverters do fit together.

I also had a bad experience with the 2x teleconverters until one day I accidentally took a picture wide open instead of stopping down to my usual f8. The picture was surprisingly better than stopped down. I still need to do more tests and verify, but that day was a surprise to me.

My guess is that the combination of amplifying the lens' shortcomings, the tc shortcomings, and the shift of f stop beyond the sweet spot combines into a very much not sharp picture. Opening the lens to its maximum at least keeps it closer to the sweet spot.

**RICHARD L.** · 06-17-2021, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by TDvN57

I also had a bad experience with the 2x teleconverters until one day I accidentally took a picture wide open instead of stopping down to my usual f8. The picture was surprisingly better than stopped down. I still need to do more tests and verify, but that day was a surprise to me.My guess is that the combination of amplifying the lens' shortcomings, the tc shortcomings, and the shift of f stop beyond the sweet spot combines into a very much not sharp picture. Opening the lens to its maximum at least keeps it closer to the sweet spot.

Good to know, Theuns. I always close my apertures somewhat so I will give it a try at various "larger" apertures. Maybe I missed the sweet spot completely without knowing. Now, trying to find it in my stuff ...

Best Regards

**barondla** · 06-17-2021, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by TDvN57

Two 1.4 Teleconverters do fit together.

I also had a bad experience with the 2x teleconverters until one day I accidentally took a picture wide open instead of stopping down to my usual f8. The picture was surprisingly better than stopped down. I still need to do more tests and verify, but that day was a surprise to me.

My guess is that the combination of amplifying the lens' shortcomings, the tc shortcomings, and the shift of f stop beyond the sweet spot combines into a very much not sharp picture. Opening the lens to its maximum at least keeps it closer to the sweet spot.

Surprised to learn two converters fit together. Would be interesting to compare two 1.4 vs the 2x. Suspect the 2x should win vs twice as many optical elements.

Funny you mention shooting the 2x lens combo wide open. I bought a 2x at an incredible price from Japan. Slapped it on the FA 400 and was underwhelmed. To be fair the tripod needed to be bigger and there was some wind. But still, pretty soft

A couple of days ago I put the 2x on the 645 A 120 macro to get greater working distance and magnification. Bug moved on and spoiled the shot. The corn field was nicely lit and I took a non macro shot. Amazed how sharp the 120 macro and 2x looked. Didn't shoot wide open. It was F6.7. This 2x requires more investigation. Think you may be correct. Perhaps diffraction plays a big roll. Not knocking the 2x yet.

Thanks,
barondla

06-15-2021, 11:08 PM	#1
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715	1.4 teleconverter with 645 macro lenses? The Pentax 1.4 converter fits and works well with the A 120 macro lens. Does it fit the FA120 or DFA 90 macro lenses? Thanks, barondla

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Abstract ROCKS, 645Z + 645 FA 200 mm f/4 + 645 1,4X teleconverter.	RICHARD L.	Post Your Photos!	3	02-16-2021 03:16 PM
Nature Test : Pentax 645 FA 200 mm f/4 + 645 1,4X teleconverter	RICHARD L.	Post Your Photos!	0	07-17-2020 10:25 AM
For Sale - Sold: REDUCED: 67-645 adapter [SOLD: Two 645 Bodies, A-Lenses 200mm, 80-160mm]	AquaDome	Sold Items	7	10-10-2014 09:57 AM
Pentax 645 120mm macro and Pentax 645 35mm lenses and Pentax 6x7 45mm lens.	Newmoon	Pentax Medium Format	11	03-14-2012 02:10 PM

06-16-2021, 12:08 AM - 1 Like	#2
saionu Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2021 Location: Constanta Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 54	Hello ! Check on this page: HD PENTAX-DA AF REAR CONVERTER 1.4X AW / Converter / AF Lens Adapter / K-mount Lenses / Lenses / Products \| RICOH IMAGING ---------- Post added 06-16-21 at 12:09 AM ---------- At the begining of page you will find this: "*When this converter is mounted between a 35mm full-frame SLR camera body and a D FA-series lens, the image size is automatically cropped to the APS-C format."

06-16-2021, 02:27 AM - 1 Like	#3
RICHARD L. Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Quebec City, Quebec Posts: 6,623	Originally posted by barondla Does it fit the FA120 or DFA 90 macro lenses? The 645 1.4X converter fits the FA 120 mm f/4 MACRO. As for the DFA 90 mm f/2.8, maybe Mike Oria could tell you. Regards Originally posted by saionu Hello ! Check on this page:HD PENTAX-DA AF REAR CONVERTER 1.4X AW / Converter / AF Lens Adapter / K-mount Lenses / Lenses / Products \| RICOH IMAGING---------- Post added 06-16-21 at 12:09 AM ----------At the begining of page you will find this:"When this converter is mounted between a 35mm full-frame SLR camera body and a D FA-series lens, the image size is automatically cropped to the APS-C format." We are talking about medium-format lenses and converters, not K mounts and APS-C.*

06-16-2021, 05:53 AM - 1 Like	#4
ProfessorBuzz Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 1,903	The 120, yes, but I don't know about the 90 - I haven't tried this and don't think it is compatible.. Info here: Rear Converter-A 645 1.4X Reviews - Pentax 645 Teleconverters and Adapters - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

06-16-2021, 07:51 AM - 3 Likes	#5
kaseki Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,138	You guys keep making me mess with my camera stuff instead of addressing my first love, dealing with household chores. The 1.4X fits the 120mm FA but NOT the 90mm. On the 90 the structures overlap. On the 120 the aperture levers are carried across, but only 3 electrical connections. (The 120 has 7.)

06-16-2021, 07:53 AM - 2 Likes	#6
Wasp Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Pretoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,661	Originally posted by kaseki You guys keep making me mess with my camera stuff instead of addressing my first love, dealing with household chores. I know the feeling. Words to live by.

06-16-2021, 10:52 AM	#7
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715 Original Poster	Originally posted by RICHARD L. The 645 1.4X converter fits the FA 120 mm f/4 MACRO. As for the DFA 90 mm f/2.8, maybe Mike Oria could tell you. Regards We are talking about medium-format lenses and converters, not K mounts and APS-C. Thank you. Good to know the converter works on the macro. Knew the optics of the A 120 and FA were the same. The mechanicals are obviously different for AF. ---------- Post added 06-16-21 at 12:54 PM ---------- Originally posted by ProfessorBuzz The 120, yes, but I don't know about the 90 - I haven't tried this and don't think it is compatible.. Info here: Rear Converter-A 645 1.4X Reviews - Pentax 645 Teleconverters and Adapters - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Thanks for the info. Glad the converter works on the FA 120. ---------- Post added 06-16-21 at 01:02 PM ---------- Originally posted by kaseki You guys keep making me mess with my camera stuff instead of addressing my first love, dealing with household chores. The 1.4X fits the 120mm FA but NOT the 90mm. On the 90 the structures overlap. On the 120 the aperture levers are carried across, but only 3 electrical connections. (The 120 has 7.) Sorry for taking you away from the household chores. A shame the 90 is incompatible with the 1.4x rear converter. Do you happen to have the Pentax 2x rear teleconverter? Obviously it woul fit. Just wondering how it would do optically? Especially for macro. Thanks everyone, barondla

06-16-2021, 12:32 PM - 1 Like	#8
RICHARD L. Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Quebec City, Quebec Posts: 6,623	I have a copy of the 645 2X converter and I must tell you "it is a joke". It produces fuzzy pictures and is "dismal" in performance. Maybe I fell on a poor copy, but it sells for peanuts used on eBay or elsewhere and it is not worth a dime IMHO. Regards

06-16-2021, 01:20 PM	#9
kaseki Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,138	Originally posted by barondla ... A shame the 90 is incompatible with the 1.4x rear converter. Do you happen to have the Pentax 2x rear teleconverter? Obviously it woul fit. Just wondering how it would do optically? Especially for macro. ... I don't. Would you consider two 1.4X in series? I think for macro the extenders would be appropriate.

06-16-2021, 02:16 PM	#10
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715 Original Poster	Originally posted by kaseki I don't. Would you consider two 1.4X in series? I think for macro the extenders would be appropriate. Don't think two 1.4x converters will mount together. It is unfortunate an extension tube won't fit on the front of the 1.4 converter. If it fit, the smallest tube would allow mounting two 1.4 converters together. Would also allow 1.4 converter on 90 macro and other lenses with insufficient mechanical clearance. Thanks, barondla ( always trying to use parts together in strange ways)

06-17-2021, 07:42 AM - 1 Like	#11
kaseki Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,138	Originally posted by barondla Don't think two 1.4x converters will mount together. It is unfortunate an extension tube won't fit on the front of the 1.4 converter. If it fit, the smallest tube would allow mounting two 1.4 converters together. Would also allow 1.4 converter on 90 macro and other lenses with insufficient mechanical clearance. Thanks, barondla ( always trying to use parts together in strange ways) For the curious, the incompatibility between the 1.4X converter and the extension tubes is due to the tubes containing a rectangular 'mask' that interferes. For the case of the 1.4X teleconverter mating to another, the distance from the most protruding metal at the front of the 1.4X teleconverter to the electrical pin flange is 11 mm, while the distance at the back from flange to glass is only about 8 mm. Richard L.'s experience with the 2X differs from that of the single reviewer in the lens reviews section. Are there a preponderance of reviews elsewhere trashing this device?

06-17-2021, 10:06 AM	#12
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715 Original Poster	Originally posted by kaseki For the curious, the incompatibility between the 1.4X converter and the extension tubes is due to the tubes containing a rectangular 'mask' that interferes. For the case of the 1.4X teleconverter mating to another, the distance from the most protruding metal at the front of the 1.4X teleconverter to the electrical pin flange is 11 mm, while the distance at the back from flange to glass is only about 8 mm. Richard L.'s experience with the 2X differs from that of the single reviewer in the lens reviews section. Are there a preponderance of reviews elsewhere trashing this device? I've considered sacrificing a small tube to make it compatible with the 1.4 teleconverter and lenses with shallow clearance. Unfortunately the masks also contain electrical contacts. Have to think about that. Thanks, barondla

06-17-2021, 04:41 PM - 1 Like	#13
TDvN57 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Berlin Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,150	Two 1.4 Teleconverters do fit together. I also had a bad experience with the 2x teleconverters until one day I accidentally took a picture wide open instead of stopping down to my usual f8. The picture was surprisingly better than stopped down. I still need to do more tests and verify, but that day was a surprise to me. My guess is that the combination of amplifying the lens' shortcomings, the tc shortcomings, and the shift of f stop beyond the sweet spot combines into a very much not sharp picture. Opening the lens to its maximum at least keeps it closer to the sweet spot.

06-17-2021, 05:09 PM	#14
RICHARD L. Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Quebec City, Quebec Posts: 6,623	Originally posted by TDvN57 I also had a bad experience with the 2x teleconverters until one day I accidentally took a picture wide open instead of stopping down to my usual f8. The picture was surprisingly better than stopped down. I still need to do more tests and verify, but that day was a surprise to me.My guess is that the combination of amplifying the lens' shortcomings, the tc shortcomings, and the shift of f stop beyond the sweet spot combines into a very much not sharp picture. Opening the lens to its maximum at least keeps it closer to the sweet spot. Good to know, Theuns. I always close my apertures somewhat so I will give it a try at various "larger" apertures. Maybe I missed the sweet spot completely without knowing. Now, trying to find it in my stuff ... Best Regards

06-17-2021, 05:23 PM	#15
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715 Original Poster	Originally posted by TDvN57 Two 1.4 Teleconverters do fit together. I also had a bad experience with the 2x teleconverters until one day I accidentally took a picture wide open instead of stopping down to my usual f8. The picture was surprisingly better than stopped down. I still need to do more tests and verify, but that day was a surprise to me. My guess is that the combination of amplifying the lens' shortcomings, the tc shortcomings, and the shift of f stop beyond the sweet spot combines into a very much not sharp picture. Opening the lens to its maximum at least keeps it closer to the sweet spot. Surprised to learn two converters fit together. Would be interesting to compare two 1.4 vs the 2x. Suspect the 2x should win vs twice as many optical elements. Funny you mention shooting the 2x lens combo wide open. I bought a 2x at an incredible price from Japan. Slapped it on the FA 400 and was underwhelmed. To be fair the tripod needed to be bigger and there was some wind. But still, pretty soft A couple of days ago I put the 2x on the 645 A 120 macro to get greater working distance and magnification. Bug moved on and spoiled the shot. The corn field was nicely lit and I took a non macro shot. Amazed how sharp the 120 macro and 2x looked. Didn't shoot wide open. It was F6.7. This 2x requires more investigation. Think you may be correct. Perhaps diffraction plays a big roll. Not knocking the 2x yet. Thanks, barondla