Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1.5 converter with a 28-200mm zoom?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 5:18:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?

More about : converter 200mm zoom

Anonymous
December 17, 2004 5:18:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes, but it probably will not auto-focus, due to low light levels from
f/stops lost.

Bill Crocker

"Toomanyputters" <rainydays@theswamp.com> wrote in message
news:_lrwd.6700$hc7.836083@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
> zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?
>
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 5:18:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:20:14 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Crocker"
<wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Toomanyputters" <rainydays@theswamp.com> wrote in message
>news:_lrwd.6700$hc7.836083@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
>> zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?

>Yes, but it probably will not auto-focus, due to low light levels from
>f/stops lost.

Top posting corrected.

Adding a 1.5 TC will get the op a 42-300mm focal length range with the TC
attached. Whether there is any loss of stops depends on the specific design
of the converter. For example the Nikon TCs for the CPs are designed to
keep the same f stop.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Related resources
December 17, 2004 9:51:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Anal retentive bottom poster corrected.

> Yes, but it probably will not auto-focus, due to low
> Adding a 1.5 TC will get the op a 42-300mm focal length range with the TC
________________________________________________________
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> http://EdwardGRuf.com
> attached. Whether there is any loss of stops depends on the specific
design
> of the converter. For example the Nikon TCs for the CPs are designed to
> keep the same f stop.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:20:14 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Crocker"
> <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >"Toomanyputters" <rainydays@theswamp


--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0rl4s0dbh96mmvtp5ubrj8vrih3jqnbfsi@4ax.com...
> .com> wrote in message
> >news:_lrwd.6700$hc7.836083@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> >> Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a
28-200mm
> >> zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?
>
> >light levels from
> >f/stops lost.
>
> Top posting corrected.
>
December 17, 2004 9:53:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and I am
a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred mm area but
the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon 75-300 lens is
about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Toomanyputters" <rainydays@theswamp.com> wrote in message
news:_lrwd.6700$hc7.836083@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
> zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?
>
>
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 9:53:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 06:53:47 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Tony"
<tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

> I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and I am
>a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred mm area but
>the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon 75-300 lens is
>about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.

As to David's point. If you you'd bothered to look the S1 is a fixed lens
8MP camera. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/
The TCs in question mount in front of the lens. So there is no way to use
another lens. At least I looked before replying to the op. :-)
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 10:59:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Hlvwd.6732$hc7.859888@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Anal retentive bottom poster corrected.


As neither of you snipped the posts - the top poster won on points.
--
For Welsh Military Flying visit .......
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/V-A-S/
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 12:24:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:
> I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and
> I am a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred
> mm area but the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon
> 75-300 lens is about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.

... and how would he fit your Canon 75 - 300mm lens onto his Canon Pro1?
December 17, 2004 8:41:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I guess you wouldn't -- as a dyslexic I reas S1 as IS and... On the other
hand there is no front add TC in the world worth using.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:32fmtiF3l4ihjU1@individual.net...
> Tony wrote:
> > I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and
> > I am a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred
> > mm area but the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon
> > 75-300 lens is about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.
>
> .. and how would he fit your Canon 75 - 300mm lens onto his Canon Pro1?
>
>
December 17, 2004 8:46:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

How do you manage to ever reply since you are so bizzy bizzy bizzy fixing
fixing fixing other people's faults?
It must be very hard being obsessive compulsive, anal retentive, and an
asso pomposo all at once, Eddy. I recommend a good course of therapy - if
you can get up the never to leave the house. Perhaps if you hired someone to
vacuum in front of you everywhere you went. But they might skip places,
mightent they?

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3qd5s0llhqsut8h35agb68s3r88f1skddc@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 06:53:47 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Tony"
> <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and I
am
> >a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred mm area
but
> >the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon 75-300 lens is
> >about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.
>
> As to David's point. If you you'd bothered to look the S1 is a fixed lens
> 8MP camera. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/
> The TCs in question mount in front of the lens. So there is no way to use
> another lens. At least I looked before replying to the op. :-)
> ________________________________________________________
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:14:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Ed. Had a rough day son?


"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0rl4s0dbh96mmvtp5ubrj8vrih3jqnbfsi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:20:14 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Crocker"
> <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Toomanyputters" <rainydays@theswamp.com> wrote in message
>>news:_lrwd.6700$hc7.836083@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>>> Trying to understand what I gain by adding a 1.5 converter to a 28-200mm
>>> zoom lens on my Canon Pro1? 300mm?
>
>>Yes, but it probably will not auto-focus, due to low light levels from
>>f/stops lost.
>
> Top posting corrected.
>
> Adding a 1.5 TC will get the op a 42-300mm focal length range with the TC
> attached. Whether there is any loss of stops depends on the specific
> design
> of the converter. For example the Nikon TCs for the CPs are designed to
> keep the same f stop.
> ________________________________________________________
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:14:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:14:17 +1000, in rec.photo.digital "Pepys"
<[remove]camal19@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Ed. Had a rough day son?

No. I answered the op's question and made a comment that not all add-on
TC's for fixed lens digicams need not change the combined f# (yes I
erroneous called it f-stop) of the lens like those which mount between the
camera body and the lens of a dslr do. I also gave examples of such
converters that do not change the combined f#, two of which I have used
with my CP-990 and 5700, as opposed to the TC-20EII I just bought for my
D70.

I corrected the top posting as it takes away from following what the point
of my reply in regard to the question posed by both the op and the original
reply. Simply giving notice I did this means I had a bad day? Get a grip.
At least my reply was on topic and provided at least minimally relevant and
useful info.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
December 17, 2004 11:14:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

useful info.
of my reply in regard to the question posed by both the op and the original
> reply. Simply giving notice I did this means I had a bad day? Get a
grip.erroneous called it f-stop) of the lens like those which mount between
the
> camera body and the lens of a dslr do. I also gave
> I corrected the top posting as it takes away from following what the point
examples of suchrec.photo.digital "Pepys"
> <[remove]camal19@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Ed. Had a rough day son?
>
> No. I answered the op's question and made a comment that not all add-on
>
> converters that do not change the combined f#, two of which I have used
TC's for fixed lens digicams need not change the combined f# (yes I
>
>> At least my reply was on topic and provided at least minimally relevant
and
> ________________________________________________________
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> http://EdwardGRuf.com
> with my CP-990 and 5700, as opposed to the TC-20EII I just bought for my
> D70.
>

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fhe5s0944r2msmr88uvilio01i2fi3b9s0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:14:17 +1000, in
>
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 11:14:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Unfortunately, making a point of correct posting format brings out the
boors such as Tony.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 4:38:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <0rl4s0dbh96mmvtp5ubrj8vrih3jqnbfsi@4ax.com>,
Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

>Adding a 1.5 TC will get the op a 42-300mm focal length range with the TC
>attached. Whether there is any loss of stops depends on the specific design
>of the converter. For example the Nikon TCs for the CPs are designed to
>keep the same f stop.

Same for the Sony 1.7x converter for the F707 and F717.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 9:07:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <%nvwd.6733$hc7.860701@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

> I have yet to see a 28-200 that is acceptably sharp without a TC and I am
>a user of TCs. A 1.5 would indeed put you in the three hundred mm area but
>the Kenko Pro 300 is 120 dollars while the cheapest Canon 75-300 lens is
>about 170 - and good enough to use a TC on.

Pay attention! The poster is asking about a TC for a
non-interchangeable lens camera; the kind that screws on the front.
These can be just as sharp as the lens itself, if designed well. The
1.7x for the Sony 7x7 series is one such TC; it is as fast as the lens
itself, and does not compromise the overall optics visibly.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 9:09:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <YSEwd.35$i52.127912@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>I guess you wouldn't -- as a dyslexic I reas S1 as IS and... On the other
>hand there is no front add TC in the world worth using.

The Sony 1.7x TC for the 7x7 cameras is excellent. Too heavy for the
thread mount, though.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!