A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tele-extender quandary: 1.4x or 2x



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 6th 05, 07:46 PM
Norm Dresner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Tele-extender quandary: 1.4x or 2x

I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on it, I
started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I get
almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more? It
now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective -- purchase,
the extra stop be damned.

What do you think?

TIA
Norm

  #2  
Old June 6th 05, 10:25 PM
McLeod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
wrote:

I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on it, I
started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I get
almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more? It
now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective -- purchase,
the extra stop be damned.

What do you think?


The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
different from the speed of the lens it's attached to. Kind of a moot
point with auto everything cameras.
  #3  
Old June 6th 05, 11:08 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

McLeod wrote:

The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
different from the speed of the lens it's attached to.


Is this some kind of joke?

  #4  
Old June 6th 05, 11:55 PM
RichA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
wrote:

I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on it, I
started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I get
almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more? It
now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective -- purchase,
the extra stop be damned.

What do you think?

TIA
Norm


Kind of a toss-up. You'll get more edge of field degradation with the
2x, given that both are similar optical designs, but then you are able
to get closer with the 2x meaning smaller enlarging or printing.
The only true drawback would be the drop in illumination due to the
extra telephoto length of the 2x.
-Rich
  #5  
Old June 7th 05, 02:25 AM
McLeod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 6 Jun 2005 15:08:42 -0700, "
wrote:

McLeod wrote:

The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
different from the speed of the lens it's attached to.


Is this some kind of joke?


Nope. I'm not sure if I understand your question.
  #6  
Old June 7th 05, 02:10 PM
Paul Bielec
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

McLeod wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
wrote:


I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on it, I
started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I get
almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more? It
now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective -- purchase,
the extra stop be damned.

What do you think?



The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
different from the speed of the lens it's attached to. Kind of a moot
point with auto everything cameras.


I don't know about Nikon system.
But with Canon, my DSLR will auto focus if the combined max apperture is
f5.6 or greater. My zoom is a 70-200 f4 L. It should (the converter is
still on the shopping list) AF with 1.4x as it looses only 1 stop.
However, with 2x I'd loose AF.
  #7  
Old June 7th 05, 02:28 PM
Norm Dresner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On 6 Jun 2005 15:08:42 -0700, "
wrote:

McLeod wrote:

The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
different from the speed of the lens it's attached to.


Is this some kind of joke?


Nope. I'm not sure if I understand your question.


With the 2x, the difference is exactly 2 stops. 1 stop or 2 stops, it's
just as easy either way.

Norm

  #8  
Old June 7th 05, 02:30 PM
Graham Holden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:55:16 -0400, RichA wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
wrote:

I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on it, I
started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I get
almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more? It
now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective -- purchase,
the extra stop be damned.

What do you think?

TIA
Norm


Kind of a toss-up. You'll get more edge of field degradation with the
2x, given that both are similar optical designs, but then you are able
to get closer with the 2x meaning smaller enlarging or printing.
The only true drawback would be the drop in illumination due to the
extra telephoto length of the 2x.
-Rich


I've not used either convertor, only own D70, but bear in mind that the
D70's auto-focus system will probably stop working sooner (at f/5.6) than
the N90's (I don't know when, but the impression I have is that the N90 is
a more "professional" body?). Depending on the sort of photos you're
taking, and the lens(es) you want to attach the convertor to, this _may_
make the 1.4x + enlarging better. Of course, if you're doing everything
manually, it probably makes no difference.

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
  #9  
Old June 7th 05, 02:31 PM
Norm Dresner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Paul Bielec" wrote in message
...
McLeod wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
wrote:


I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on

it, I
started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I

get
almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more?

It
now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective --

purchase,
the extra stop be damned.

What do you think?



The 1.4 does only one thing the 2x doesn't do and that's make
calculating manual apertures easier. A 1.4x is exactly one stop
different from the speed of the lens it's attached to. Kind of a moot
point with auto everything cameras.


I don't know about Nikon system.
But with Canon, my DSLR will auto focus if the combined max apperture is
f5.6 or greater. My zoom is a 70-200 f4 L. It should (the converter is
still on the shopping list) AF with 1.4x as it looses only 1 stop.
However, with 2x I'd loose AF.


Actually, with my Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6, I'm already having difficulty
autofocusing at the 300mm end without any additional light loss. Most of
the time, just zooming out to around 250mm, focusing, and then zooming back
is all it takes. But given that I'm already having difficulty with the
autofocus, I don't see that adding any additional "autofocus trouble" is
that much of a loss anyway.

Norm

  #10  
Old June 7th 05, 03:20 PM
Norm Dresner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Graham Holden" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:55:16 -0400, RichA wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:29 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
wrote:

I've been planning to buy a 1.4x Tele-extender for my Film+Digital Nikon
system (N90+D70) for some time and just before I pulled the trigger on

it, I
started to wonder if a 1.4x is worth all that much. I mean, wouldn't I

get
almost as good quality results by enlarging the pictures that much more?

It
now seems to me that 2x is a better -- i.e. more cost effective --

purchase,
the extra stop be damned.

What do you think?

TIA
Norm


Kind of a toss-up. You'll get more edge of field degradation with the
2x, given that both are similar optical designs, but then you are able
to get closer with the 2x meaning smaller enlarging or printing.
The only true drawback would be the drop in illumination due to the
extra telephoto length of the 2x.
-Rich


I've not used either convertor, only own D70, but bear in mind that the
D70's auto-focus system will probably stop working sooner (at f/5.6) than
the N90's (I don't know when, but the impression I have is that the N90 is
a more "professional" body?).


Yeah. With the Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6 ED lens, the D70 (but not the N90)
often has trouble focusing at the 300mm end -- just zooming in to around
250, focusing, and zooming back out works but so does manual focusing and it
isn't (IMHO) any slower or less accurate. Given that I've already lost the
AF at 300 mm, I can't see that losing it when either converter is in place
is any great loss and even the 1.4x would lose at almost any focal length
past 125-150mm anyway on the D70. The other long lens I have is a manual
focus 500mm Mirror whose use isn't affected by these considerations.

Depending on the sort of photos you're
taking, and the lens(es) you want to attach the convertor to, this _may_
make the 1.4x + enlarging better. Of course, if you're doing everything
manually, it probably makes no difference.


Any extender provides better printed enlargements than just increasing the
magnification from the "negative" to the print.
BUT ... I've been making most of my 4x6 sample and test-prints at 300 dpi
because I don't really see any great difference between 300 and 400 dpi.
Since the D70 has 3000 pixels (the long way), that's a 10:1 ratio I have to
play with in making enlargement so an 8x10 would have the same (printed)
resolution as my 4x6 do. Certainly limiting the enlargement to 5x7, I
haven't lost anything by enlarging by, say, and extra 50% rather than using
a 1.4x converter. And certainly any really critical pictures are taken with
the N90 on either ISO 64 slide film or ISO 100 negative so going to 8x10
from a, say, half-frame usually isn't that much of a compromise.

Since the vast majority of my pictures are either nature/macro shots of
flowers and insects or the grandkids, either converter is irrelevant. But I
like to do some bird photography and an occasional distant landscape for
which both the 300mm zoom or the 500mm mirror are inadequate. I also do
some sports photography, but only as a spectator, and there I need all of
the lens I can get but since it's almost always in daylight (my choice),
lens speed isn't a major factor.

In a perfect world, we'd all own f/1.0 zoom lenses that cover the 12-1200mm
range and weigh about 4 oz. Oh, yeah, and they'd cost $99 at Wal-Mart!
But this is the real world and I have only a limited budget for photo
equipment since travel is so expensive and equipment is bulky and heavy. I
think that I'm willing to suffer the extra f-stop of light loss for the
extra extension of the focal length but there's still that damned daemon in
the back of my head that says, "If you'd only have bought ..."

BTW, Generally my philosophy is that film is the cheapest thing I have and
that the right lens is worth its weight in gold compared to the cost of
going back to take another shot. But at ~25 pounds, my 35mm Nikon-crammed
backpack is getting heavier with each thing I add to it and the ~15 pound
bag with the Bronica isn't any lighter since it also mandates that I carry
an additional tripod adequate to the camera.

Norm

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does 1.4X Extender Show On RAW Data? Giulia Digital Photography 5 April 29th 05 01:18 AM
FS: Wide & Tele Lenses for Coolpix 5700 Richard Slay Digital Photography 0 February 18th 05 02:45 AM
American Fender Telecaster vs Mexican Tele RandP 35mm Photo Equipment 0 February 10th 05 03:18 AM
FA: 1.4x CANON FD EXTENDER 1.4x-A TELECONVERTER sgfan3 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 January 29th 04 12:02 AM
FA: Tamron 1.4x tele extender Joe McCary General Equipment For Sale 0 July 21st 03 04:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.