SDM TCs

[ozdean]

Don't you think a couple of 1.5x & 2x High quality SDM TCs would be good?
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
N.B. All my Images are Protected by Copyright

 

[Omega_Leader]

I have to disagree for two reasons. Pentax doesn't really have any real lenses to use TC's with, there are no long f2.8 lenses and the 300mm f4.0 isn't fast enough to really benefit.

Secondly and perhaps most importantly, for the couple of comparisons I've seen cropping (i.e. digital zoom) is as good as or perhaps better with good lenses. I'm thinking of a comparison I saw with the 300mm f4.0 at the other (I.e. PF) forum.

I'd much rather see a longer lens, or a faster lens. (a 350mm f2.8 would be a nice show stopper without breaking the bank for many).

 

[miles green]

Yes, I am reach-deprived!

If they want to be really sluggish and not launch the 500, the least they could do is give us a 1.4x TC. f/5.6 is not that bad anyway!

Ricoh, I've been visiting the Canon website again!

Don't you think a couple of 1.5x & 2x High quality SDM TCs would be good?
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
N.B. All my Images are Protected by Copyright

--
-----------------------------------------------
Miles Green
Corfu

 

[Joseph Tainter]

Yes, as long as it/they will do both SDM and shaft drive.

I won't buy any more SDM lenses, but I have a good number of F* and FA* telephotos.

Oh, wait....Ned Bunnell says those are no good for digital.

Joe

 

[DLBlack]

Yes, I am reach-deprived!

If they want to be really sluggish and not launch the 500, the least they could do is give us a 1.4x TC. f/5.6 is not that bad anyway!

Ricoh, I've been visiting the Canon website again!

I have been looking at the Sigma website. The 500/4.5 is looking really good.

Don't you think a couple of 1.5x & 2x High quality SDM TCs would be good?
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
N.B. All my Images are Protected by Copyright

--
-----------------------------------------------
Miles Green
Corfu

Dave
--

 

[Russell Evans]

Oh, wait....Ned Bunnell says those are no good for digital.

Be fair, he only said the lenses might not be that great on FF digital bodies.

Thank you
Russell

 

[miles green]

Yes, I am reach-deprived!

If they want to be really sluggish and not launch the 500, the least they could do is give us a 1.4x TC. f/5.6 is not that bad anyway!

Ricoh, I've been visiting the Canon website again!

I have been looking at the Sigma website. The 500/4.5 is looking really good.

It sure is Dave, and MightyMike isn't making things any easier!

Don't you think a couple of 1.5x & 2x High quality SDM TCs would be good?
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
N.B. All my Images are Protected by Copyright

--
-----------------------------------------------
Miles Green
Corfu

Dave
--

--
-----------------------------------------------
Miles Green
Corfu

 

[Gary2010]

I have been trying to convince the wife that I really need the Sigma 500mm f4.5. So far the Tamron 400mm f4 is having to do......

 

[KentG]

A 350/2.8 from a major lens maker would list around $4000. What is your level of breaking the bank? Only Olympus has ever made this particular lens formula. It would be cheaper than a 400/2.8 ($5000) but more than a 300/2.8 ($3300). Plus it would have a 125mm front filter ring so a rear filter is a must.
Kent Gittings

 

[KentG]

But they work perfectly fine on APS-C bodies.
Kent Gittings

 

[Joseph Tainter]

Oh, wait....Ned Bunnell says those are no good for digital.

Be fair, he only said the lenses might not be that great on FF digital bodies.

No, he didn't say that he was commenting about full frame.

In fairness, his words were something like "just don't cut it." He excepted the FA 31.

Joe

 

[geoffcole]

I have been trying to convince the wife that I really need the Sigma 500mm f4.5. So far the Tamron 400mm f4 is having to do......

Hell I'd love a Pentax 400mm f4

--
http://geoffcole.smugmug.com/

 

[Alex Sarbu]

Oh, wait....Ned Bunnell says those are no good for digital.

Be fair, he only said the lenses might not be that great on FF digital bodies.

No, he didn't say that he was commenting about full frame.

In fairness, his words were something like "just don't cut it." He excepted the FA 31.

To be fair , you should quote him instead of interpreting his words from some vague memories:
Ned Bunnel said:

In our case, if we developed a full frame camera, it's likely that very few of our recent DA lenses (those designed for APS-C) would be able to properly fill the viewing area of this new sensor. And although we have some wonderful FA lenses, like my favorite FA 31mm Limited, I'm not sure even this lens would be up to the optical challenge.

I know that our engineers have studied these issues and would probably not agree totally with my simplistic explanation. However, I think it's important to understand that going to a full frame sensor means not only having to design a brand new camera from ground up, but likely a new line of lenses that meet the more demanding optical requirements .

Source: http://nedbunnell.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html
What a surprise... I see no "just don't cut it", nor "no good for digital"

Alex S

 

[Joseph Tainter]

My comment was about remarks he posted here, not his blog. Search for that if you want to.

I don't read his blog.

Joe

 

[wlachan]

Don't you think a couple of 1.5x & 2x High quality SDM TCs would be good?

but for which lens I wonder? Pentax offer no fast super-tele which is worthy of a 1st class TC. None. Nada.
--
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan