Are Teleconvertors of no use on APS-C bodies?

**stemked** · 03-17-2016, 10:30 AM

Hi All.

I have come to enjoy many of Tony Northrup's posts on Youtube, but one that had me puzzled. One of his videos suggests (he is talking Canon/Nikon of course) that there is no reason to use a TC unless one is using a full-frame body. I had been kicking around getting the new Pentax TC to use with the 150-450, on my K3 or Kiis. Northrup suggest the sensors are packed so tightly on an APS-C body that there is no image gain with a TC. My own experience with my 600mm f5.6 A + 1.4-L would seem to support that finding although I thought it might just be a bad teleconverter. So is it simply better to crop or use the teleconvertor on a Pentax APS-c body?

Doug

biz-engineer · 03-17-2016, 10:49 AM

I suppose Tony Northrup is right is you consider that most current Canikon FF have less pixel density than their APSC counterparts. That wouldn't be so true when using a Canon 5Dsr / D810 or K-1.

**wtlwdwgn** · 03-17-2016, 11:16 AM

I'm not sure what Tony means by that. I use a TC on my long lenses on my APS-C DSLRs to get extra length even with the crop narrowing the angle of view.

**csa** · 03-17-2016, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by wtlwdwgn

I'm not sure what Tony means by that. I use a TC on my long lenses on my APS-C DSLRs to get extra length even with the crop narrowing the angle of view.

Same here, am using a 1.4x with my Pentax 55-300.

Adam · 03-17-2016, 01:04 PM - **1 Like**

Check out this comparison of cropping vs tc:

Pentax-DA 1.4x AW AF Rear Converter Review - DA 1.4x, A 1.4X-S, and Tamron Compared | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Originally posted by stemked

600mm f5.6 A + 1.4-L would seem to support that finding

At really long focal lengths you start to get diminishing returns because proper focus and perfect stability becomes harder and harder. That could potentially be a factor in your case, rather than the TC itself. (plus there's diffraction)

**babywriter** · 03-17-2016, 01:12 PM

I've been using a Sigma 2x APO EG teleconverter with a Pentax-M 200mm/f2.5 on a Pentax KS-2. I'm noticing a bit of image degradation when compared to the 200mm alone - it's truly a wonderful lens - but I'm uncertain whether that's because of the teleconverter or my technique. (I've been doing handheld only at this point, which is pushing things, I know, for a combined 600mm equivalent. Haven't had a chance to play with it on a tripod as yet - have only had the combination about 10 days.) If I nail the focus and keep the shutter speed up, the degradation is really only noticeable when I'm pixel-peeping. I've gotten several very nice shots that I'd be happy to print and frame. So, for me, the teleconverter is worth it at this point.

**wtlwdwgn** · 03-17-2016, 01:15 PM

And there's atmospheric distortion at infinity as well.

**tduell** · 03-17-2016, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by stemked

Hi All.

I have come to enjoy many of Tony Northrup's posts on Youtube, but one that had me puzzled. One of his videos suggests (he is talking Canon/Nikon of course) that there is no reason to use a TC unless one is using a full-frame body. I had been kicking around getting the new Pentax TC to use with the 150-450, on my K3 or Kiis. Northrup suggest the sensors are packed so tightly on an APS-C body that there is no image gain with a TC. My own experience with my 600mm f5.6 A + 1.4-L would seem to support that finding although I thought it might just be a bad teleconverter. So is it simply better to crop or use the teleconvertor on a Pentax APS-c body?
Doug

Hello Doug,
I have the Pentax 1.4xTC which I've used with the 150-450 on my K-3 II for birding, and it does help a lot in filling the frame especially when shooting small birds, but the down side is that getting good shots handheld is problematic and requires shutter speeds up around 1/1600...for me at least. Others may have a steadier hand.
If you have any experience with shooting small birds you will know that often you can't get close enough to get a reasonable size in the frame, and cropping such a small subject does lose IQ, so if you can hold it steady, the 150-450 + 1.4xTC can be a good solution.

Cheers,
Terry

Murra54 · 03-17-2016, 03:30 PM

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/294721-post-your-hd-pentax...-pictures.html

Have a look at this thread and you will see some of those terribly degraded images that PF photographers are making with the Pentax 150 -450 and the 1.4TC

**boriscleto** · 03-17-2016, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Murra54

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/294721-post-your-hd-pentax...-pictures.html

Have a look at this thread and you will see some of those terribly degraded images that PF photographers are making with the Pentax 150 -450 and the 1.4TC

But that thread has actual examples. Not just people talking...

rawr · 03-17-2016, 05:07 PM

Now that the K-1 is here, I'm hoping that Pentax release a new 1.4 TC that is fully FF compatible - a DFA 1.4 WR TC. Such a TC would make a lot of sense.

snostorm · 03-17-2016, 05:55 PM

Hi stemked,

Personal experience tells me this proposition does not hold up. I've been shooting birds with Pentax bodies, premium ultra tele primes, and a variety of quality TCs for over 10 years. During this time, the bodies I've used have increased from 6, to 10, then 14, 16, and finally 24 MP, and my results have gotten progressively better, not worse as would be expected if this principle of more pixel density + TC use were true. I'd have expected that a 4x difference in pixel density would really show up, but I actually get consistently better detail and images with my 16 and 24 pixel bodies than I ever did with the 6 and 10 MP bodies.

But why even take my word for it. Mount one of your super teles and a TC on a sturdy tripod and take a series of shots of the same subject in good light (and a nice high shutter speed) with your K5 and K3, then pick the best from each body. If this principle is true, then the 1.5x difference in pixel density should show you consistently degraded images with the K3. If not, then believe your eyes, not some guy making what might seem like a logical argument on the internet.

Scott

Sandy Hancock · 03-17-2016, 06:04 PM

I'd say he got it the wrong way around. Why put a teleconverter on a full frame camera when you could just put the native lens on a crop body and get similar results without losing 1EV?

normhead · 03-17-2016, 06:41 PM

Anyone who thinks they can reliably hold a lens equivalent to 600mm, seriously needs to rethink that decision. Don't take my word for it. Take a few images on a sturdy tripod with a 2 second delay, and see if you can match it hand held. That will limit the un-relability of looking at what other people can do, and show you what you can do.

bertwert · 03-17-2016, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Anyone who thinks they can reliably hold a lens equivalent to 600mm, seriously needs to rethink that decision. Don't take my word for it. Take a few images on a sturdy tripod with a 2 second delay, and see if you can match it hand held. That will limit the un-relability of looking at what other people can do, and show you what you can do.

Yep!

I have actually managed to handhold an 800mm telescope on my K-50 (1200mm eqv.) but I was kneeling one knee on the ground and the telescope balanced on my knee.
I think it's time to make an adapter to use this on a monopod as the tripod is too

big most of the time.

03-17-2016, 10:30 AM	#1
stemked Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Indianapolis Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 527	Are Teleconvertors of no use on APS-C bodies? Hi All. I have come to enjoy many of Tony Northrup's posts on Youtube, but one that had me puzzled. One of his videos suggests (he is talking Canon/Nikon of course) that there is no reason to use a TC unless one is using a full-frame body. I had been kicking around getting the new Pentax TC to use with the 150-450, on my K3 or Kiis. Northrup suggest the sensors are packed so tightly on an APS-C body that there is no image gain with a TC. My own experience with my 600mm f5.6 A + 1.4-L would seem to support that finding although I thought it might just be a bad teleconverter. So is it simply better to crop or use the teleconvertor on a Pentax APS-c body? Doug

03-17-2016, 01:04 PM - 1 Like	#5
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	Check out this comparison of cropping vs tc: Pentax-DA 1.4x AW AF Rear Converter Review - DA 1.4x, A 1.4X-S, and Tamron Compared \| PentaxForums.com Reviews Originally posted by stemked 600mm f5.6 A + 1.4-L would seem to support that finding At really long focal lengths you start to get diminishing returns because proper focus and perfect stability becomes harder and harder. That could potentially be a factor in your case, rather than the TC itself. (plus there's diffraction) Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why are FF images so much more pleasing than APS-C?	chaza01	Pentax Full Frame	259	12-12-2019 10:04 PM
Confused about Angle of View of Lenses on FF vs APS-C?	Kath	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	10-01-2015 09:55 AM
Do you use your 50mm on APS-C?	yusuf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	43	04-23-2014 10:22 AM
Lenses mountable on Pentax APS-C bodies?	tripodquest	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	32	12-10-2013 11:42 AM
Tilt shift lenses made for Pentax APS-C bodies	Buckeye	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	11-12-2010 07:43 AM

03-17-2016, 10:49 AM	#2
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,229	I suppose Tony Northrup is right is you consider that most current Canikon FF have less pixel density than their APSC counterparts. That wouldn't be so true when using a Canon 5Dsr / D810 or K-1.

03-17-2016, 11:16 AM	#3
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,838	I'm not sure what Tony means by that. I use a TC on my long lenses on my APS-C DSLRs to get extra length even with the crop narrowing the angle of view.

03-17-2016, 12:25 PM	#4
csa Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Montana mountains Posts: 10,133	Originally posted by wtlwdwgn I'm not sure what Tony means by that. I use a TC on my long lenses on my APS-C DSLRs to get extra length even with the crop narrowing the angle of view. Same here, am using a 1.4x with my Pentax 55-300.

03-17-2016, 01:12 PM	#6
babywriter Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: central Iowa Photos: Gallery Posts: 969	I've been using a Sigma 2x APO EG teleconverter with a Pentax-M 200mm/f2.5 on a Pentax KS-2. I'm noticing a bit of image degradation when compared to the 200mm alone - it's truly a wonderful lens - but I'm uncertain whether that's because of the teleconverter or my technique. (I've been doing handheld only at this point, which is pushing things, I know, for a combined 600mm equivalent. Haven't had a chance to play with it on a tripod as yet - have only had the combination about 10 days.) If I nail the focus and keep the shutter speed up, the degradation is really only noticeable when I'm pixel-peeping. I've gotten several very nice shots that I'd be happy to print and frame. So, for me, the teleconverter is worth it at this point.

03-17-2016, 01:15 PM	#7
wtlwdwgn Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Billings, MT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,838	And there's atmospheric distortion at infinity as well.

03-17-2016, 03:26 PM	#8
tduell Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,513	Originally posted by stemked Hi All. I have come to enjoy many of Tony Northrup's posts on Youtube, but one that had me puzzled. One of his videos suggests (he is talking Canon/Nikon of course) that there is no reason to use a TC unless one is using a full-frame body. I had been kicking around getting the new Pentax TC to use with the 150-450, on my K3 or Kiis. Northrup suggest the sensors are packed so tightly on an APS-C body that there is no image gain with a TC. My own experience with my 600mm f5.6 A + 1.4-L would seem to support that finding although I thought it might just be a bad teleconverter. So is it simply better to crop or use the teleconvertor on a Pentax APS-c body? Doug Hello Doug, I have the Pentax 1.4xTC which I've used with the 150-450 on my K-3 II for birding, and it does help a lot in filling the frame especially when shooting small birds, but the down side is that getting good shots handheld is problematic and requires shutter speeds up around 1/1600...for me at least. Others may have a steadier hand. If you have any experience with shooting small birds you will know that often you can't get close enough to get a reasonable size in the frame, and cropping such a small subject does lose IQ, so if you can hold it steady, the 150-450 + 1.4xTC can be a good solution. Cheers, Terry

03-17-2016, 03:30 PM	#9
Murra54 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Bendigo, Victoria Posts: 389	https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/294721-post-your-hd-pentax...-pictures.html Have a look at this thread and you will see some of those terribly degraded images that PF photographers are making with the Pentax 150 -450 and the 1.4TC

03-17-2016, 03:48 PM	#10
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by Murra54 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/294721-post-your-hd-pentax...-pictures.html Have a look at this thread and you will see some of those terribly degraded images that PF photographers are making with the Pentax 150 -450 and the 1.4TC But that thread has actual examples. Not just people talking...

03-17-2016, 05:07 PM	#11
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Now that the K-1 is here, I'm hoping that Pentax release a new 1.4 TC that is fully FF compatible - a DFA 1.4 WR TC. Such a TC would make a lot of sense.

03-17-2016, 05:55 PM	#12
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Hi stemked, Personal experience tells me this proposition does not hold up. I've been shooting birds with Pentax bodies, premium ultra tele primes, and a variety of quality TCs for over 10 years. During this time, the bodies I've used have increased from 6, to 10, then 14, 16, and finally 24 MP, and my results have gotten progressively better, not worse as would be expected if this principle of more pixel density + TC use were true. I'd have expected that a 4x difference in pixel density would really show up, but I actually get consistently better detail and images with my 16 and 24 pixel bodies than I ever did with the 6 and 10 MP bodies. But why even take my word for it. Mount one of your super teles and a TC on a sturdy tripod and take a series of shots of the same subject in good light (and a nice high shutter speed) with your K5 and K3, then pick the best from each body. If this principle is true, then the 1.5x difference in pixel density should show you consistently degraded images with the K3. If not, then believe your eyes, not some guy making what might seem like a logical argument on the internet. Scott

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2016, 06:04 PM	#13
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	I'd say he got it the wrong way around. Why put a teleconverter on a full frame camera when you could just put the native lens on a crop body and get similar results without losing 1EV?

03-17-2016, 06:41 PM	#14
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Anyone who thinks they can reliably hold a lens equivalent to 600mm, seriously needs to rethink that decision. Don't take my word for it. Take a few images on a sturdy tripod with a 2 second delay, and see if you can match it hand held. That will limit the un-relability of looking at what other people can do, and show you what you can do.

03-17-2016, 06:43 PM	#15
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,173	Originally posted by normhead Anyone who thinks they can reliably hold a lens equivalent to 600mm, seriously needs to rethink that decision. Don't take my word for it. Take a few images on a sturdy tripod with a 2 second delay, and see if you can match it hand held. That will limit the un-relability of looking at what other people can do, and show you what you can do. Yep! I have actually managed to handhold an 800mm telescope on my K-50 (1200mm eqv.) but I was kneeling one knee on the ground and the telescope balanced on my knee. I think it's time to make an adapter to use this on a monopod as the tripod is too big most of the time.