Break the rules......

1. Medium Format lenses aren't particularly good on APS-C DSLR's.

2. Adding a 2x converter to a Medium format lens will make the images much worse.

3. Handholding 600mm (or 900mm equivalent) lenses will give too much shake.

So why did I just get a result like this...


Please click the link to get better resolution

From this combination (but without the tripod)...



It's not perfect, but I think it holds together pretty well considering it's a K5IIS, A-2X-L converter, 67 to PK adapter, A 300mm f4 645 lens and Manfrotto 293 support !

A good rig. I also use a 293 at times.

Great results by the way.

Best regards

I don't agree with you at all Lenny - that's the worst image of a caterpillar I have ever seen

Joking aside - in my experience - most such 'rules' are too much of a generalisation and exceptions can always be found.

Nicely done.

Carl

I think you answered your own question....it's not hand held

No - the photo of the set-up is how I intend to use it for Moon and Astro, bit the cucumber flower was handheld

I though results from the 645 Macro might break the rules, but the 300 should be pushing it - but clearly not!

The 293 is a lovely piece of kit - well engineered and nice to be able to use with the Manfrotto quick release plates.

It's because your rules are crap

1) a good lens is a good lens and a MF lens on APsc is just as good per pixel or per sensor area as it is on MF. It just won't be as good as an equivalent price APsc lens is.
2) yes but a converter doesn't,t degrade MF lenses any more than APsc.
3) and there's nothing wrong with a hand held long lens shot if your shutter speed is high enough or you rest it on summation.

But you know all this already or you wouldn't,t have bought the lens ...

The point I was trying to make was simply that if you were to read around the subject of Medium Format lenses on APS-C digital you would find a lot of advice telling you not to bother - I'm saying it can be worth a try! It wasn't a serious experiment, just a back garden photo that surprised me by its quality.

Not sure what you mean by point 1. - If an MF lens is as good per pixel, why will it not be as good as an equivalent price APSc lens? Isn't this a contradiction?

And as an aside, I owned the A300/4 645 lens long before I owned a DSLR, I didn't buy it for this purpose.