Teleconverter noob question

[gilroy]

Can I use a 1.4X or 2X teleconvertor with a minolta 200 HS lens? I have only read/heard about them in conjunction with zoom lenses. I usually dont shoot very long (beyond 200mm) but occasionally I see a bird or distant object that I would like to capture and the 200mm doesnt go too far then.
What are my options in manufacturers and pricing?

Thanks much!

Regards,
Gilroy

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes. The white 200mm f/2.8 works with Sony, Minolta or independent converters - 1.4X or 2X, but if you want a good independent you are limited to 2X with proper shake control (SSS via EXIF information). Min/Sony converters of either power aree OK.

It's actually a much better combination than with a zoom.

David

[InTheSky]

The Minolta II 2x and 1.4x are working perfectly on the 200 HS (I have both for the 200mm). The 1.4x make you feel like you are not affecting the image from open aperture to the last. For the 2X, there is some CA wide open, but this slowly disappear at F/8.0 (F/4.0 on the 200mm). I have the 2x in my hand only since 1 week, so this is the result for the moment (I was giving a second chance to the 2x after not satisfy result in the past). If you want to try the original 1.4 x and 2.x (not version II or D or Sony), they will work but make the focus drive working twice the speed, probably not good for the motor focus of the camera (needing more torque ...).

The Tamron SP 2X and the Sigma EX DG 1.4x (not reporting the 1.4x present for lens info) also work on the 200 HS, I have tried them too.

The large hole in back of the 200HS make it able to accept I think any kind of tele converter.

Regards,

Frank

[gilroy]

Edited double response.

[gilroy]

Thanks again for your responses David and Frank.

David, I have the white minolta 200mm HS APO. Out of curiosity, why do you consider the teleconv combo better than a zoom?

Frank, this is very useful information. I am leaning towards a 2X at the moment, just so that I can get as far of a reach as I can with a single investment. However, your point about the CA with it makes me think a bit. I almost never shoot with the 200mm wide open, I stop it (up?) to (at most?) 3.5 usually. I use a KM 7D so I also have to check on this torque issue. The Tammy suggestion also looks appealing now..

Regards,
Gilroy

[David Kilpatrick]

The 200mm f/2.8 has better resolution to start with, than any zoom, and therefore when the converter is added it is magnifying a better image. Simple as that.

David

[harvey]

Frank, this is very useful information. I am leaning towards a 2X at the moment, just so that I can get as far of a reach as I can with a single investment. However, your point about the CA with it makes me think a bit. I almost never shoot with the 200mm wide open, I stop it (up?) to (at most?) 3.5 usually. I use a KM 7D so I also have to check on this torque issue. The Tammy suggestion also looks appealing now..

Regards,
Gilroy

Bear in mind that you loose 1 or 2 stops with the teleconverters.

I have used a Kenko MC7 with the 200mm and I'm thinking about getting a Minolta or Sony 1.4x.

Harvey

[gilroy]

Thanks again David.

Harvey, point noted about the 1 or 2 stop loss on the TCs. Now I am debating between a "matched" TC for my 200 or a generic TC to share with my 100mm macro. Decisions, decisions..

I also read through a portion of the info on dyxums website. I did not notice it earlier for some reason (and of course I would have not been asking silly questions here then

In summary, I think I shall take my time in picking one up after really learning to use the 200mm lens better and doing some more reading, research, and rumination on my shooting preferences.

Thanks again.

Regards,
Gilroy

[InTheSky]

Thanks again David.

Harvey, point noted about the 1 or 2 stop loss on the TCs. Now I am debating between a "matched" TC for my 200 or a generic TC to share with my 100mm macro. Decisions, decisions..

Gilroy

Be careful with the 100mm , the back lens element can go very close to the mirror, meaning that some TCs can touch the glass.

The only Macro lens I have that is really design for TC is the Minolta 200mm F/4.0 Macro, with this lens I just done some quick test last weekend and the 1.4x Minolta is perfect just one half stop down and the 2x Minolta is close to perfect at F/16.

Regards,

Frank

[Andy B]

Be careful with the 100mm , the back lens element can go very close to the mirror, meaning that some TCs can touch the glass.

The only Macro lens I have that is really design for TC is the Minolta 200mm F/4.0 Macro, with this lens I just done some quick test last weekend and the 1.4x Minolta is perfect just one half stop down and the 2x Minolta is close to perfect at F/16.

Regards,

Frank

That's an interesting observation, Frank, as some books on macro recommend using TCs with macro lenses as a way of increasing magnification and/or working distance between subject and lens. Just tried my Kenko Pro 300 1.4x (which works pretty well on my 200/2.8 HS) on my Tamron 90/2.8 macro lens and the fit is tight enough that I would worry about possible glass damage. Don't have a Kenko Pro 300 2x to try to determine if it has any more lens clearance or how much image quality would suffer. I don't do enough macro to justify the cost of a 180mm or 200mm macro lens.

Just noticed that in Close-Up & Macro Robert Thompson uses both 1.4x and 2x TCs, but he appears to use them mainly with his medium-format gear.

Andy

[gilroy]

Frank/Andy,

Please feel free to correct me or point out bogus info. After doing some reading on dyxum it appears that the matched TCs for the 200 might have their element distances as close to the rear of the 200mm lens as possible, while the generic TCs seem to have a bit of room for any lens (any = some specified lenses as listed by Kenko).

This makes me believe that if I want to have a TC for both the 200mm and and the 100mm macro, I am better off with a generic lens (the catch being a drop in quality from the matched TC on the 200mm).

Well, to be honest, I still have to learn to take some decent macro shots and use the 200mm to its potential. However, the 200mm is just a pleasure to shoot with as I can just aim in a general direction of interest and it will produce something amazing ( at least to my newbie eyes

Regards,
Gilroy

[InTheSky]

OK ... I just make some quick test this morning with the 200mm HS 2.8 and the 200mm 4.0 Minolta Macro with the Minolta TC II 2X and the Tamron SP 2X 300F-Xi and there not big difference, and I will say that in some picture I'm not even able to tell you if the picture has been take with one of the other. It's looks like the Minolta has less CA ... but really only at full open aperture.

Where the 2X Tamron win ... is that is making me possible to auto focus on the 200mm 4.0 Macro instead of the Minolta version. Some Minolta G zoom lens are deactivating the autofocus system when the 2x TC is present (because of the less light to make the autofocus system working). But in the new Sony A700 and A900 ... low light it not a problem for them to focus ...

Also the Tamron win this morning because it can work perfectly on the 100mm 2.8 D Macro, on the 50mm 2.8 RS Macro, and also on the Old Sigma 90mm 2.8 Macro (first version I received yesterday for a friend, 150 $ a bargain and it is very good even on full frame).

I think David told us previously that the Tamron 300F -Xi is probably the same design and optic than the kenko ... so probably it is the same story for it.

And please don't do that : ... This was to gain more detail ... but at the end you loosing detail (rookie error in my learning of macro)
100mm 2.8 Macro +[ Kenko: 36mm + 20mm + 12mm ] + 2X Tamron SP:





Regards,

Farnk