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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 01:45 AM |
American Fender Telecaster vs Mexican Tele | RandP | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 10th 05 02:18 AM |
FA: 1.4x CANON FD EXTENDER 1.4x-A TELECONVERTER | sgfan3 | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | January 28th 04 11:02 PM |
FA: Tamron 1.4x tele extender | Joe McCary | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 21st 03 04:17 AM |