Fat Albert and the TCs

[shots worth sharing]

<p>You may be expecting concert shots of a doo-wop group but, in fact, this is a report on some tests with my newly acquired A* 400mm f/2.8 ("Fat Albert") with my teleconverters. After a gloomy week of rain, it was a clear morning and a new-to-me hawk (a Merlin, I think) obligingly stopped by to pose in the dead oak out back so it was a great opportunity for some testing. Here are samples of the better shots, one from each of the TCs. All were cropped to 7.71MP portrait orientation and resized to 520 x 650 jpegs--no other pp. Like the song says, "If you think I'm happy, you're right"! I'm particularly pleased with the performance of the 2x-L: at 800mm, the results are at least competitive with, and maybe better, than what I get with the 1000mm "Black Dragon"--and without the fringing!</p>

 

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Tamron-F 1.4x Pz-AF MC4</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>SMC Pentax-F 1.7x AF</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Pentax Rear Converter-A 2x-L</p><div></div>

[dugger]

<p>I've got to agree with you Dave. All three are keepers but the 2x-L looks amazing at that ISO!</p>

[stemked]

<p>I have heard of users making a manual Tamron (or Tokina, not sure) 400mm f4 autofocus with the Pentax 1.7X AF TC. I realize your lens has the recessed rear elements, but any chance to test and see if that combo would turn this into an autofocus lens?</p>

<p> </p>

[jgredline]

<p>Dave, That third image is impressive!<br>

<img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/fantastico-1-1.jpg"></p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>The AF on that 1.7x works just fine with this lens, Douglas ;~<strong>)</strong> For my next trick, I may try stacking (and I've got to take a whack at the 2x & 1000mm--right?) </p>

[hal_b]

<p>At first I thought Fat Albert was what you nicknamed the bird...</p>

[debashish]

<p>What a fine lens: very faithful to the colour of this Merlin of the North American race which I saw frequently during my stay there. This bird must have been taken a considerable distance, seeing that teleconverters have been used. Congratulations. That said, I must observe from your previous photographs, that the 1000mm Big Bertha is a formidable beast and, in this kind of light, may match the 400/2.8. I used to see the 1000mm in the Kowloon shops in Hongkong in the early 1980s. What a sight. It cost a little more alone than what I bought then: an MX body, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8, 400/5.6 (all SMCP-M), 3 focussing screens, magnifier-M, pistol grip for 400mm by Stitz.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>I gotta agree Dave, The 400 and 2L look like a winning combo. I think your long lens hunt has ended. Now for your next photography expense and kit addition, buy some hiking boots and get a little closer to the subjects! Lets see this setup get some serious action!!</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Maybe it's the difference in focus (good vs bang-on) but I think the pic with the 2x TC looks better than the one with the 1.7x. But all look great! And yes, that's quite a chubby looking hawk; is it a youngster?</p>

<p>Doug, did you notice the 2nd image was taken with the FA 1.7x TC?</p>

<p>Dave, go all out and stack those MFs! Here, I even did the math for you. Stack the 1.7x and the 1.4x to get a 952mm f/6.7. Stack the 1.7x and the 2x to get a 1360mm f/9.4. Let us know if they AF!</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Thanks, Doug and Javier. Of course <em>buying</em> the lens a was a bit <em>fantastico</em> but maybe good gear will compensate somewhat for my short-comings as a photographer. </p>

<p>Thanks for confirming the ID, DC, and you're right: the 1000mm <em>is</em> formidable--and a stern mentor. </p>

<p>Ok, you're right, Peter--I've got to get off my butt and take it out to play and I do have plans for that (Clara thinks the weight-training I prescribed for her is all about basketball ;~)</p>

<p>I agree about the 1.7x vs the 2x, Mis. Consistency isn't my strong suit but these were picked as (at least among) the best of pretty wide samples so I think the difference may indeed be real.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_marz]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>"What Peter said"</p>

<p>Your already great shots would be truly awesome from the outdoors. Then again, believe it or not, it is sometimes harder to see wildlife in the great outdoors than in the city such as Baltimore. Go figure. Unless you travel to Yellowstone.</p>

[brad_n]

<p>Dave,<br>

As a birder I am totally blown away. Maybe I should be looking for this instead of the FA 600. I don't suppose its any cheaper?</p>

[brad_n]

<p>Dave,<br>

I just did a price check here <a href="http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/deercreek/733/big1/">http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/deercreek/733/big1/</a> and found these comments on the 400/2.8. It seems like they have it wrong wrt the 1.7x.<br>

<strong>Pros:</strong> Perfect focal length for some sports <a id="KonaLink1" onclick="adlinkMouseClick(event,this,1);" onmouseover="adlinkMouseOver(event,this,1);" onmouseout="adlinkMouseOut(event,this,1);" href="http://greenfield.fortunecity.com/deercreek/733/big1/#" target="_top">applications</a>. Some prefer the focal lengths offered (400/560/800) with teleconvertors to those available with other lens/TC combinations. Works well with Pentax 1.4XL and 2.0 XL Teleconverters. <br>

<strong>Cons:</strong> As with all Big Glass, this baby is large, heavy, and expensive, and generally requires a heavy-duty tripod head and tripod. Manual focus. Essentially the same size and cost as the FA* 600/4, but only 2/3 the focal length. Unable to use Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter, but this is not a big detraction because the XL teleconvertors are excellent.</p>

[bob-c]

<p>WOW! Really nice, Dave. Congrats. I agree, that last one is outstanding. Can wait to see more. The weather is suppose to be nice for the next few days so you have no excuse. </p>

[daniel_tong1]

<p>Dave<br>

I did not know that you are into heavy gear as well. At least they are in good hands and you will be able to get the best of the equipment. No way that I can handle the weight of the combo. <br>

You need to be a real wildlife shooter to invest in such array of heavy gear. You are off to a great start and I look forward to seeing more of your posting.</p>

<p>Daniel </p>

[marclangille]

<p>Dave, the last seems to be the best of them - shows that the 2X-L is quite a good TC in the right conditions! BTW, those X-L series teleconverters are by far the best option for the A* and most FA* longer glass for a reason: minimal image degradation. I tried the 1.7x AF TC on the FA* 300/2.8 and it is excellent in most conditions.<br>

My next statements are not a criticism: I am thinking about those EV values. As you know the shutter speeds have dropped to close to or below the actual FL so it becomes tougher for the sharpest image possible. Is there a specific reason for bumping the EV value to 0.7 to 1.0? You've lost some shutter speed as a result, hence my question. Just curious...</p>

<p>As a side note, I am not sure if I'll use a TC much with the new FA* 250-600/5.6 though - mainly because I rarely wanted more than 500mm and as you know it's not just for birding. That's because I relied more on technique than simply using the longest FL possible. Of course, having a variety of TCs will help the flexibility factor.<br>

<br /> Regards,<br /> Marc</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Yeah I saw that site, Brad, but they were wrong about the 1.7x and "same cost" (although they got it about right in the chart.) Of course, I'd have gone for an FA 600mm but that was just too much of a splurge.</p>

<p>Thanks, Robert. Maybe <em>that</em> excuse won't work but I've got a dozen others ;~)</p>

<p>Daniel, I don't think I'm a true heavy gear guy but I do enjoy these birds. I've learned a lot from your postings though and still have a lot of catching up to do (like BIF, for example.)</p>

<p> </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Thanks for chiming in Marc. I almost missed your comment--you must have posted while I was composing my response. </p>

<p>The 1.7x disappointed a bit with the 1000mm but I've found it matches up very nicely with the DA*300mm. The 2x-L was a pleasant surprise here and I notice the 1000mm is identified as one of its compatible lenses so I'll have to give that combo a try.</p>

<p>Your commentary on exposure are welcome guidance. Yeah, I was trying to cheat a bit on shutter speed to keep ISO down--wrong priorities, I gather.</p>

<p>Further thoughts:<br>

1. So, in addition to fine quality at 400mm and f2.8, with the TCs, this lens delivers quite respectable IQ at 560, 680, and 800mm.<br>

<br /> 2. Thinking about Peter's advice to "get closer" (and recalling Andrew Gilchrist's question with respect to the 1000mm birds I posted), the point I guess is that pixels matter. One of the reasons the 2x sample looks good is simply that more of the pixels are devoted to describing the bird than in the other, less magnified, shots. Pixel density was a serious factor in my upgrade to the K20D precisely because I knew I'd be cropping--but there are limits. The more I pay attention to my PP with bird shots, the more I appreciate the contribution of pixel count to resolution and noise mitigation. <br /> <br /> 3. There's not much I can do to get much closer to the oak but--now that I have some good options within the 30m MFD of the 1000mm--I have some cards (including a blind set-up) up my sleeve with regard to the smaller birds in the closer trees. For the most part, this will be tripod work. While I haven't decided what to do about the 1000mm, my guess is that it'll have a home here as long as the oak attracts birds--and I do want to check it out with the 1.4 and 2x TC's.<br /> <br /> 4. My next lens will be a sturdy monopod with QR as the primary means for getting closer in the wider world. In that regard, I'm really not bothered so much by the weight of the lens (I'm not about to lug it for miles either) as concerned for its safety. Getting out and about will also give me a chance to start working on BIF.</p>