Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-01-2022, 01:21 PM   #1
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 1
Pentax 67 with Stacked Converters vs 400mm with 1.4X/2X

Hi all,

Firstly, sorry for my poor english as I am not a native speaker. I am doing a project which requires quite some reach for the lens. I have done some tests and found out that I would need around 600-800mm lens for my Pentax 67. I am considering purchasing a 200/4 lens with 2 converters stacked or a 400/4 (old) lens with a 1.4X/2X converter. However, the 400/4 is quite a huge lens that is inconvenient for nomal use and I wonder if I will ever use it again after the project. I am kind of on the fence because I am not sure about the quality of 400/4. What do you guys think about it? Should I go for a 200mm or a 400mm lens? Thanks for all your help!

WIlson

08-01-2022, 01:37 PM - 1 Like   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MossyRocks's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,697
My understanding is that stacking converters doesn't offer much if anything that can't be done with a good crop and would mostly just make a mess of things and then there is the light loss. A good 2x matched to the lens you are using is about as good as one could get. This article came to mind when I saw your question and should provide some reasonable answers.
08-01-2022, 01:59 PM   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,404
QuoteOriginally posted by MossyRocks Quote
My understanding is that stacking converters doesn't offer much if anything that can't be done with a good crop and would mostly just make a mess of things and then there is the light loss. A good 2x matched to the lens you are using is about as good as one could get. This article came to mind when I saw your question and should provide some reasonable answers.
That particular use was with cheap teleconverters. The moon shot (linked in the article you posted) used higher quality teleconverters:

Extra Reach for Shooting the Moon | PetaPixel

Iíve done some stacking for moon images. Itís doable with high quality glass but debatable vs cropping. If this project is on an actual 67 itís film and scanning the negative at high resolution will be important.
08-01-2022, 04:11 PM - 1 Like   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,244
The 400 Takumar is quite well corrected for color and other aberrations. It does well with the Pentax 1.4X grey converter. Using two 2x converters on the 200 is not only magnifying the image but also magnifying the aberrations. The 200 with the 1.4X works fine but going much beyond that, the image starts to degrade. The 400 Takumar at f'/11 without a converter is very sharp. It is a much better lens than the 300 Takumar.

08-02-2022, 09:33 AM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MossyRocks's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,697
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
That particular use was with cheap teleconverters. The moon shot (linked in the article you posted) used higher quality teleconverters:

Extra Reach for Shooting the Moon | PetaPixel

I’ve done some stacking for moon images. It’s doable with high quality glass but debatable vs cropping. If this project is on an actual 67 it’s film and scanning the negative at high resolution will be important.
That is true I can't stack my converters even though I was curious if the 1.4X-L could stack with the 2X-L and found out the answer is no. I think one of the biggest things is making sure one is using a quality converter that works well with your lens. In my case that is the 1.4X-L and 2X-L with the A* 400/2.8 but I would have to defer to others for the 6x7 setups.
08-02-2022, 10:06 AM - 1 Like   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Wales
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,661
normhead posted in the 300mm lens club considering results from stacking tc's with the DA* 200mm f2.8. Results I thought were pretty impressive ( think the pics are now missing from the actual post), that is a sharp lens. cooltouch posted a thread on mflenses where he stacked successive tc's on his tamron 300mm f2.8. His main conclusion was that the increased magnification did pull more information from his subject: a small panel with writing on it. Previous posters have already remarked on whether cropping is a more effective way to go; along with that using eg a pentax Q or toher small sensor camera with a suitable lens gives huge 35mm equivalent focal length (~ 5x crop factor with Q) and could be a way to go. I can add that the subject is important. IME wildlife, for example, cropping tends to be the way to go, upping the focal length and therefore also F stop and therfore much slower shutter speeds magnifies all the difficulties with extreme telephoto photography: vibration, shake, subject movement. And I find that fine detail is also compromised more quickly with tc's. However subjects like ships, where a very stable setup can be used, can benefit from the inherent increased info that cooltouch demonstrated. Atmospherics, however, can often be the limiting factor in such long distance photography regardless of the mode.
In any case, if you want to try the tc route, the lenses mentioned are the type whch will work best.

Last edited by marcusBMG; 08-02-2022 at 10:13 AM.
08-02-2022, 12:45 PM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 7,621
Check the Pentax 67 Rear Converter manual and it indicates stacking rear converters is not recommended. (See above post by Steve. (Desertscape))

Phil.

08-04-2022, 03:02 PM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 190
I am having the 2x Vivitar 67 Pentax teleconverter, and the 300mm F4 lens. My location full moon is happening at 12th August, means one week from now.

(If remembering this, and being in my home) will shoot the moon with and without the teleconverter. My location is having some (not much, Helsinki) light noise; however I am thinking it would be beneficial for you for seeing the result.

Obvious, I am not answering to your question... I am playing with the cards I am having in my hand.

(re: @gofour3, the internet findings of your mentioned "Pentax 67 Rear Converter", is unsurprisingly telling, "Two or more cannot use").
Attached Images
 

Last edited by ppohja; 08-04-2022 at 03:14 PM.
08-07-2022, 02:07 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Quebec City, Quebec
Posts: 4,717
Last winter, I mounted a grey 1.4X Pentax converter on my P67 500 mm f/5.6 tele, then mounted my Pentax 645Z digital with the proper Pentax adapter on it. Apart from producing a dark, difficult to focus critically viewfinder image, this combination produced surprisingly good images. Pentax does not recommend using a converter with the 500 mm f/5.6 on a P67 body, though, because of risks of vignetting. This is a heavy combination and you need a solid tripod plus Gimbal head to manage this "bazooka".

09-10-2022, 09:01 AM   #10
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,448
I've not used a 67 body, however I've done a full set of comparisons of cropping versus stacking TCs, with my own gear(645Z and 67/645 glass), and have been able to draw definitive conclusions from that data.

With my rig, in every case, stacking glass is always preferable to cropping away pixels. Period.

The 67 M*300/4 is a wonderful candidate for adding one or two rear converters (1.4x & 2.0x), with very impressive results.

I've also added same teleconverters to the 645 A* 600/5.6 with great results.

On my crop rig, the DA* 150-450 also excels when magnified by TC, versus discarding pixels.

Fwiw, Good luck.
09-12-2022, 11:54 AM - 3 Likes   #11
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,448
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
I've not used a 67 body, however I've done a full set of comparisons of cropping versus stacking TCs, with my own gear(645Z and 67/645 glass), and have been able to draw definitive conclusions from that data.

With my rig, in every case, stacking glass is always preferable to cropping away pixels. Period.

The 67 M*300/4 is a wonderful candidate for adding one or two rear converters (1.4x & 2.0x), with very impressive results.

I've also added same teleconverters to the 645 A* 600/5.6 with great results.

On my crop rig, the DA* 150-450 also excels when magnified by TC, versus discarding pixels.

Fwiw, Good luck.
Here is the 67 M*300/4 with 1.4x AND a 2.0x TC, adapted to the 645Z.
Shangri-La Revealed
09-13-2022, 07:24 AM - 1 Like   #12
Pentaxian
Ed Hurst's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,468
That's a stunningly marvellous shot, Mike!
09-13-2022, 10:35 AM - 1 Like   #13
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,588
Mystical and spectacular image mikeSF. You've totally disproved the "stacked converters are useless" urban legend.
Thanks for sharing,
barondla
09-13-2022, 12:08 PM - 1 Like   #14
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
TDvN57's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Berlin
Posts: 930
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
Here is the 67 M*300/4 with 1.4x AND a 2.0x TC, adapted to the 645Z.
Shangri-La Revealed
Very nice shot Mike. Have you found any difference in the sequence in which the TC's are stacked?
09-13-2022, 06:48 PM - 1 Like   #15
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,448
QuoteOriginally posted by TDvN57 Quote
Very nice shot Mike. Have you found any difference in the sequence in which the TC's are stacked?
I also tested that and there was a slight difference, but now I cannot recall. I will pull out my notes.
I believe i have been mounting the 1.4x to the lens and the 2x to the 1.4 most often, based on that info, but i will verify.

---------- Post added 09-13-22 at 06:50 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Mystical and spectacular image mikeSF. You've totally disproved the "stacked converters are useless" urban legend.
Thanks for sharing,
barondla
ha, i believed it too until i started watching these wildlife shooters with multiple TCs delivering cracking bird images.

---------- Post added 09-13-22 at 06:50 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Ed Hurst Quote
That's a stunningly marvellous shot, Mike!
aw shuck, thanks, friend. when you come out, i can get you up there.
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!
1.4x, 200mm, 2x, 400mm, 400mm f/4, 645d, 645z, camera, converters, converters vs 400mm, lens, medium format, mike, pentax, pentax67, pm, post, project, shot, thanks
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax rear-converters A 1.4X-L + A 2X-L palikrovol Sold Items 11 04-19-2021 12:23 PM
DA*60-250 with stacked HD DA 1.4 TC and F1.7 AF adapter stacked to get to 600mm normhead Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 41 04-19-2016 07:07 PM
K3 with Stacked 1.4 and F1.7X Rear Converters DDoram Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 14 06-26-2014 12:37 AM
Pentax-A* 400mm/f2.8 ED-IF Lens + A 1.4X-L & A 2X-L Converters rgknief60 Pentax Price Watch 2 03-30-2013 10:54 AM
Night Test sigma 70-200mm and 1.4x, 2x tc's stacked... Pentax K5 burnie Post Your Photos! 2 02-11-2012 05:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:00 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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