Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 16 Jan 2018 (Tuesday) 08:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1.7X TC- much needed

 
TerryWSmith
Goldmember
Avatar
1,023 posts
Gallery: 427 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5515
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Oregon
     
Jan 16, 2018 08:05 |  #1

With the 5DIII and 5DIV bodies accepting tele converters so well it sure seems
like a 1.7X is needed. Bridging the gap from 1.4 to 2 would be very desirable.
I have tried aftermarkets but the quality is not there. Curious what thoughts
are or if any talks are in the works?

T.


Canon 5DIII,7D, 7DII, 50D,28-135 f4.5/5.6 IS
50 F1.8 , Canon 70-200 F2.8L Canon EF 300 F2.8 L
Canon EF 17-40L F4, Canon Ef 500 F4 IS
TAMRON 150-600 F5/6.3
http://www.terrywsmith​.smugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,729 posts
Gallery: 1114 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 8155
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jan 16, 2018 08:19 |  #2

With your 300L, the 1.7 takes it to 500. You have a 500L, so might as well just use that. But, if you add the 1.7 it takes it to 800. So, looks like you have more ability to get an 800L than a Canon 1.7 TC.

Otherwise, this sort of thing is already sort of handled with the 5DIV's resolution, and readily handled by the 5DSR's resolution, where the pixel density can be an alternative to simply needing a TC.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TerryWSmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,023 posts
Gallery: 427 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5515
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Oregon
     
Jan 16, 2018 11:56 |  #3

MalVeauX wrote in post #18542132 (external link)
With your 300L, the 1.7 takes it to 500. You have a 500L, so might as well just use that. But, if you add the 1.7 it takes it to 800. So, looks like you have more ability to get an 800L than a Canon 1.7 TC.

Otherwise, this sort of thing is already sort of handled with the 5DIV's resolution, and readily handled by the 5DSR's resolution, where the pixel density can be an alternative to simply needing a TC.

Very best,

Well aware of what it will give me in focal length- every photographer wants options and the full frame cameras
simply do not have the reach- a TC certainly helps you from having to go buy a longer lens and cropping may be an option
but I would prefer the image up front.

T.


Canon 5DIII,7D, 7DII, 50D,28-135 f4.5/5.6 IS
50 F1.8 , Canon 70-200 F2.8L Canon EF 300 F2.8 L
Canon EF 17-40L F4, Canon Ef 500 F4 IS
TAMRON 150-600 F5/6.3
http://www.terrywsmith​.smugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
graham121
Senior Member
Avatar
779 posts
Gallery: 87 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3572
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Pakenham, VIC, Aus
     
Jan 16, 2018 17:22 |  #4

Unfortunately a 1.7x converter would prevent the use of F5.6 lenses and limit use to F4 or faster lenses if AF is still required due to the F8 limitation on even the best of the current bodies and this alone would probably make it an uneconomical proposition.


A coupla bodies and a few lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CisherPhotography
Member
84 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 346
Joined May 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
     
Jan 16, 2018 17:31 |  #5

Sorry If I read your response wrong.
But you'd be mistaken on the 800mm.

500mm with a 1.7 TC is 850mm.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CisherPhotography
Member
84 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 346
Joined May 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
     
Jan 16, 2018 17:39 |  #6

I had a similar thought yesterday.

I thought a 1.6 teleconverter would be a good idea for canon.

It'd be a nice middle ground. Giving us a bit more reach as opposed to the 1.4, without losing too much light and IQ.

Anyone know where this would bring the fstop on a f2.8 or f4 lens?

F2.8= f5?
F4= f7.1?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,410 posts
Gallery: 212 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6978
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 16, 2018 17:49 |  #7

CisherPhotography wrote in post #18542524 (external link)
Sorry If I read your response wrong.
But you'd be mistaken on the 800mm.

500mm with a 1.7 TC is 850mm.

It's within engineering precision.

A 1.7x is nonsense. The whole idea of 1.4x and 2x is to increase by factors of 1.41 (approx), which is the square root of 2. If you used two 1.4x extenders, that would equal 2x. So if you are wanting a 1.7x, that suggests basing the intervals on a factor of 1.2 (approx), which is the fourth root of 2. Each step would change the aperture by 1/2 stop. The sequence would then be 1.2x, 1.4x, 1.7x, and 2x. That is splitting things too fine! As Mal pointed out, we can crop, and we can zoom.

Do we also need a 1.6x?? (just noticed CisherPhotography's post). :rolleyes: :-)


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,410 posts
Gallery: 212 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6978
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 16, 2018 17:50 |  #8

Maybe what we need is a zooming tele-extender! ;-)a


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,410 posts
Gallery: 212 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6978
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 16, 2018 17:51 |  #9

CisherPhotography wrote in post #18542529 (external link)
I had a similar thought yesterday.

I thought a 1.6 teleconverter would be a good idea for canon.

It'd be a nice middle ground. Giving us a bit more reach as opposed to the 1.4, without losing too much light and IQ.

Anyone know where this would bring the fstop on a f2.8 or f4 lens?

F2.8= f5?
F4= f7.1?

Close enough.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,064 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2838
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 16, 2018 17:56 |  #10

TerryWSmith wrote in post #18542125 (external link)
With the 5DIII and 5DIV bodies accepting tele converters so well it sure seems like a 1.7X is needed. Bridging the gap from 1.4 to 2 would be very desirable.

I completely agree with you, Terry.

The reason I liked my 400 f2.8 lens so much was due to its versatility. . Use it on a 1.6 crop, a 1.3 crop, or a full frame. . Use any of those combinations with a 1.4x or a 2x extender. . That's a lot of versatility!

However, once I got my 300-800mm f5.6, I have not used the 400 f2.8 nearly as much. . Why? . Because the 300-800mm is even more versatile, and doesn't require that I switch camera bodies and fiddle with tele-extenders. . But the downside is that I am sacrificing depth of field shallowness on those occasions where shallow DOF is desirable and where I am shooting at 600mm or less.

If a 1.7 tele-extender were available, and if it performed as well as the 1.4x (no difference in image quality even when viewing at 100%), then it would breathe new life into my 400 f2.8, and I would use it much more often than I do currently.

.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18542132 (external link)
. . . this sort of thing is already sort of handled with the 5DIV's resolution, and readily handled by the 5DSR's resolution, where the pixel density can be an alternative to simply needing a TC.

This resolution argument seems to say that you can just shoot a little wider than you really want to, and then just crop into the image. . But this messes with depth of field, which is so extremely important.

There are so many times when I want to get extremely picky about how much depth of field I have for a shot, and shooting wide and them cropping just throws away all of that attention to detail that I try to give my shots.

A third of a stop can actually make a big difference in how appealing a photo is, and shooting wide and then cropping in is often equivalent to giving up a significant amount of DOF - at least a third of a stop, and much more than 1/3 stop in many instances.

.

graham121 wrote in post #18542516 (external link)
Unfortunately a 1.7x converter would prevent the use of F5.6 lenses and limit use to F4 or faster lenses if AF is still required due to the F8 limitation on even the best of the current bodies and this alone would probably make it an uneconomical proposition.

I'm wondering if things would just be rigged to 'report' f8, even though they would actually be at f9. . I think that this is done with the Sigma and Tamron lenses, that are f6.3 but report f5.6. So why couldn't a 1.7 tele-extender be rigged up the same way?


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CisherPhotography
Member
84 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 346
Joined May 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
     
Jan 16, 2018 17:58 as a reply to  @ Archibald's post |  #11

Lol




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,410 posts
Gallery: 212 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6978
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 16, 2018 18:23 |  #12

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18542542 (external link)
I completely agree with you, Terry.

The reason I liked my 400 f2.8 lens so much was due to its versatility. . Use it on a 1.6 crop, a 1.3 crop, or a full frame. . Use any of those combinations with a 1.4x or a 2x extender. . That's a lot of versatility!

However, once I got my 300-800mm f5.6, I have not used the 400 f2.8 nearly as much. . Why? . Because the 300-800mm is even more versatile, and doesn't require that I switch camera bodies and fiddle with tele-extenders. . But the downside is that I am sacrificing depth of field shallowness on those occasions where shallow DOF is desirable and where I am shooting at 600mm or less.

If a 1.7 tele-extender were available, and if it performed as well as the 1.4x (no difference in image quality even when viewing at 100%), then it would breathe new life into my 400 f2.8, and I would use it much more often than I do currently.

.

This resolution argument seems to say that you can just shoot a little wider than you really want to, and then just crop into the image. . But this messes with depth of field, which is so extremely important.

There are so many times when I want to get extremely picky about how much depth of field I have for a shot, and shooting wide and them cropping just throws away all of that attention to detail that I try to give my shots.

A third of a stop can actually make a big difference in how appealing a photo is, and shooting wide and then cropping in is often equivalent to giving up a significant amount of DOF - at least a third of a stop, and much more than 1/3 stop in many instances.

.

I'm wondering if things would just be rigged to 'report' f8, even though they would actually be at f9. . I think that this is done with the Sigma and Tamron lenses, that are f6.3 but report f5.6. So why couldn't a 1.7 tele-extender be rigged up the same way?

Hmm - I don't think these suggestions about DOF are right.

I believe that for the same subject size, DOF depends only on aperture (keeping the sensor format the same).


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,064 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2838
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 16, 2018 18:34 |  #13

Archibald wrote in post #18542569 (external link)
Hmm - I don't think these suggestions about DOF are right.

I believe that for the same subject size, DOF depends only on aperture (keeping the sensor format the same).

I don't know what to say to that. . I mean, if you have been on these forums for almost 10 years, and still don't understand the impact that sensor size has on DOF, then, well ...... that's unfortunate.

Maybe this will make sense:

Shooting on a full frame sensor, and then cropping the image, is the same as shooting on a smaller sensor (all else being equal). . And we all know that the same shot with the same framing on a crop sensor has greater DOF than on a full frame sensor. . So the same thing applies to cropping in to a large image - in fact, that's why the term "crop sensor" was coined.

But this really isn't supposed to be discussion about sensor sizes - it's supposed to be about a 1.7x tele-extender. . Sorry for the detour.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,729 posts
Gallery: 1114 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 8155
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited 6 months ago by MalVeauX. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 16, 2018 19:49 |  #14

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18542542 (external link)
This resolution argument seems to say that you can just shoot a little wider than you really want to, and then just crop into the image. . But this messes with depth of field, which is so extremely important.

There are so many times when I want to get extremely picky about how much depth of field I have for a shot, and shooting wide and them cropping just throws away all of that attention to detail that I try to give my shots.

A third of a stop can actually make a big difference in how appealing a photo is, and shooting wide and then cropping in is often equivalent to giving up a significant amount of DOF - at least a third of a stop, and much more than 1/3 stop in many instances.

I think I understand what you're getting at Tom, however I think you took my comment out of context here as my comment is specific to 30~50MP sensors, where pixel density is significant and you have control over more than you would if using a smaller sensor, or a lower resolution sensor, and this approach as an alternative to a TC (especially one that does not exist).

Using a smaller sensor (changing relative field of view), and/or using a TC (increasing focal length, and slowing focal-ratio) reduce versatility if Depth of Field is your main concern. Having 50MP on a larger sensor is more versatile, if Depth of Field is of utmost importance in this application. And that is what was mentioned, referring to the 5DIV & 5DSR. You're not throwing away attention to detail, you're keeping it as an option.

Also, sensor size is not what changes depth of field. That changes field of view relative to the focal-length. Proximity (distance to subject) focus distance is what is changing depth of field, assuming focal-ratio is the same, with the relative focal length.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TerryWSmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,023 posts
Gallery: 427 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5515
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Oregon
     
Jan 17, 2018 10:57 |  #15

Archibald wrote in post #18542535 (external link)
It's within engineering precision.

A 1.7x is nonsense. The whole idea of 1.4x and 2x is to increase by factors of 1.41 (approx), which is the square root of 2. If you used two 1.4x extenders, that would equal 2x. So if you are wanting a 1.7x, that suggests basing the intervals on a factor of 1.2 (approx), which is the fourth root of 2. Each step would change the aperture by 1/2 stop. The sequence would then be 1.2x, 1.4x, 1.7x, and 2x. That is splitting things too fine! As Mal pointed out, we can crop, and we can zoom.

Do we also need a 1.6x?? (just noticed CisherPhotography's post). :rolleyes: :-)


Thank you so much for the condescending @$$ hat response your intelligence is amazing!!!!!!
Not sure if you thought value was being added to this thread but not even close.


T.


Canon 5DIII,7D, 7DII, 50D,28-135 f4.5/5.6 IS
50 F1.8 , Canon 70-200 F2.8L Canon EF 300 F2.8 L
Canon EF 17-40L F4, Canon Ef 500 F4 IS
TAMRON 150-600 F5/6.3
http://www.terrywsmith​.smugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,544 views & 41 likes for this thread
1.7X TC- much needed
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is atticusjuea
386 guests, 279 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.