HD PENTAX DA AF 1.4X AW Rear Converter
Posted 28/04/2014 - 20:21
Link
I must admit I thought the same David, the price of the teleconverter was almost identical to the difference I would have to pay if I had part exchanged my K-5II and grip for a K-3 and grip. The extra megapixels on the K-3 give you as much cropping power as the converter on a K-5 so I would have thought it's only worthwhile if you plan to print large and need the extra file size.
Or you need to photograph a Robin at 60 feet
And no, I don't think you dropped on a particularly good copy of the DA*300mm ... from what I have seen they are all like that.
Loosing the Sigma is another matter, I have considered selling my 50-500mm OS but sometimes having a long range zoom in your bag can be most helpful.
Or you need to photograph a Robin at 60 feet
And no, I don't think you dropped on a particularly good copy of the DA*300mm ... from what I have seen they are all like that.
Loosing the Sigma is another matter, I have considered selling my 50-500mm OS but sometimes having a long range zoom in your bag can be most helpful.
Posted 28/04/2014 - 21:04
Link
Thanks for the considered response Mike, very useful information. I'll have to think long and hard about whether or not I should sell the Siggy, I'm reluctant to do so because I do like it.
Regards
David
Regards
David
Posted 28/04/2014 - 22:09
Link
davidstorm wrote:
I know a lot's been said already, but I'd be interested in views on whether the DA*300 plus TC produces better IQ than DA*300 alone and cropping, bearing in mind it will be used primarily on the K-3.
I'm reading with interest as I have exactly the same questions.
I know a lot's been said already, but I'd be interested in views on whether the DA*300 plus TC produces better IQ than DA*300 alone and cropping, bearing in mind it will be used primarily on the K-3.
Posted 17/05/2014 - 12:26
Link
Took the plunge when the price dropped dramatically.
Here a quick and dirty moon shot comparison with my usual workflow (click it to go large).
The straight 300mm shot needed almost nothing done to it. The converted shot was significantly softer and didn't respond well to my usual processing.
In this scenario, the up-sampled 300 shot was at least as nice I think. Which is astonishing really.
I'll upload the raws 'dreckly'.

Here a quick and dirty moon shot comparison with my usual workflow (click it to go large).
The straight 300mm shot needed almost nothing done to it. The converted shot was significantly softer and didn't respond well to my usual processing.
In this scenario, the up-sampled 300 shot was at least as nice I think. Which is astonishing really.
I'll upload the raws 'dreckly'.

Posted 17/05/2014 - 21:31
Link
I posted the following in another, and probably not the best, place, so can anyone here comment:
Anyone done a direct comparison between the Pentax 1.4x & the Sigma 1.4x with the long Sigma zooms (100-300 F4, 150-500, etc.)?
PS: I know it will probably not work with the HSM versions of these lenses.
Thanks in advance.
John
Anyone done a direct comparison between the Pentax 1.4x & the Sigma 1.4x with the long Sigma zooms (100-300 F4, 150-500, etc.)?
PS: I know it will probably not work with the HSM versions of these lenses.
Thanks in advance.
John
K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)
Posted 17/05/2014 - 22:52
Link
jeallen01 wrote:
I posted the following in another, and probably not the best, place, so can anyone here comment:
Anyone done a direct comparison between the Pentax 1.4x & the Sigma 1.4x with the long Sigma zooms (100-300 F4, 150-500, etc.)?
PS: I know it will probably not work with the HSM versions of these lenses.
Thanks in advance.
John
PS I meant to say that the Sigma does not appear to work with HSM lenses whereas the Pentax does
I posted the following in another, and probably not the best, place, so can anyone here comment:
Anyone done a direct comparison between the Pentax 1.4x & the Sigma 1.4x with the long Sigma zooms (100-300 F4, 150-500, etc.)?
PS: I know it will probably not work with the HSM versions of these lenses.
Thanks in advance.
John
K-3 II, K-3 and a K-70 from SRS (having now relegated the K-30 /"K-50" to a backup body), & some Sigma and Pentax lenses (and a lot of old 35mm gear!)
Posted 22/05/2014 - 21:13
Link
I suspect the benefit will come to wildlife photographers who need to heavily crop, at the point where the image without the TC would be close to getting pixellated, the TC image giving that bit more latitude.
Posted 22/05/2014 - 22:06
Link
dcweather wrote:
I suspect the benefit will come to wildlife photographers who need to heavily crop, at the point where the image without the TC would be close to getting pixellated, the TC image giving that bit more latitude.
I think it will also be very useful for butterfly and dragonfly pics, to fill the frame a bit more. I'm also going to try the 300 with a 2x TC with the glass removed, but with the aperture contacts, to see if this is more effective than using the Pentax 1.4 TC. The only downside to this will be manual focus.I suspect the benefit will come to wildlife photographers who need to heavily crop, at the point where the image without the TC would be close to getting pixellated, the TC image giving that bit more latitude.
Regards
David
Posted 22/05/2014 - 22:41
Link
get an "empty" PZ 2x and AF should work fine. I've tried it.
Posted 25/05/2014 - 01:47
Link
dcweather wrote:
I suspect the benefit will come to wildlife photographers who need to heavily crop, at the point where the image without the TC would be close to getting pixellated, the TC image giving that bit more latitude.
Yes, arguably doubling the effective pixel count of their sensor (32 MP for a K-5! There will be losses of course but it does reinforce your general point about heavy cropping, if the lens quality is there in the first place.
I suspect the benefit will come to wildlife photographers who need to heavily crop, at the point where the image without the TC would be close to getting pixellated, the TC image giving that bit more latitude.
K3/K5/10-17fisheye/15mmDA Ltd/18-55WR/55-300DA/100DFAMacroWR/50F1.4M/200F4M/DA*200F2.8/DA*300F4/DA*50-135/DA*60-250/Mitsuki 400F5.6/others.
Posted 26/05/2014 - 00:20
Link
dpm wrote:
get an "empty" PZ 2x and AF should work fine. I've tried it.
Good point, I've just bought one and may remove the glass as I think this may be more effective than using it with glass in. Even with a manual focus 2x 'sans glass' focussing is pretty easy in manual mode and the closer focussing with no loss of IQ is a real boon.get an "empty" PZ 2x and AF should work fine. I've tried it.
Regards
David
Posted 04/06/2014 - 08:20
Link
SO is the 1.4x better than just cropping on a k-3?
Posted 04/06/2014 - 10:29
Link
Yes I think so
Posted 04/06/2014 - 11:46
Link
dpm wrote:
get an "empty" PZ 2x and AF should work fine. I've tried it.
Just a quick update on this point, I have recently bought a Kenko 2x PZ-AF converter and found that it does not Autofocus with the Pentax SDM lenses, including the DA*300. This is nothing to do with aperture or loss of light as the camera states 'MF' as soon as the converter is attached. Not sure why this is, but the contacts cannot be right. It does work fine with the Sigma 150-500 and Sigma 17-70 HSM lenses though.get an "empty" PZ 2x and AF should work fine. I've tried it.
Regards
David
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.


4934 posts
14 years
Sheffield,
England
One consideration is whether I can do without my 150-500, which although excellent, cannot compete with the DA*300 for IQ. The Siggy at around 470mm is sharp, but the 300 beats it when cropping to the same magnification.
I know a lot's been said already, but I'd be interested in views on whether the DA*300 plus TC produces better IQ than DA*300 alone and cropping, bearing in mind it will be used primarily on the K-3.
Regards
David
Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs