Teleconverter and tubes

[hoshisato]

<p>For me Pentax 67II I picked up a cheap teleconverter and some tubes. I have used tubes before on my Pentax 645NII but never in combination with a teleconverter and I would like to explore how to use tubes in combination with a teleconverter.<br>

My gut feeling is that the teleconverter goes on the camera, then the tubes and finally the lens instead of the tubes directly on the camera, then the teleconverter and then the lens. Is this right?</p>

[hoshisato]

<p>I just found this article, I think it explains it: <a href="http://photonaturalist.net/how-to-focus-closer-when-using-teleconverters/">http://photonaturalist.net/how-to-focus-closer-when-using-teleconverters/</a></p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>You're lucky, Hans, since one can find all kinds of <strong>Q</strong> adapters, converters and tubes for the Pentax 645 system.<br /> Not so for Pentax 35mm cameras, dg in particular. I and others have been clamoring for such for an <em>eternity</em>... <br />To no avail. A <em>half-baked</em> system, so to speak.</p>

[stemked]

<p>Also look for a cheapie reverser for the the 6X7 (67mm size which is common for 6Xt lensesand a few other sizes available). It does making focusing without rails a challenge. I think I also have a reverser for lenses with a 49mm fliter which is attached directly to the body (boy, I haven't done that is a LONG time)</p>

<p> </p>

[hoshisato]

<p>Good point Douglas, I notice them going for around £25-£35 and it might be a good idea to pick up one of those. I guess the 90mm (and maybe 165mm) focal length lenses would be the obvious choices to be used reversed? I'm asking as some of my Pentax 67 lenses have different filter sizes.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If the reversing ring is really 67mm or so, there are simple reversing rings available for a <strong><em>lot</em></strong> less than £25. Now these don't have any sort of electronic or mechanical connections or such, of course.</p>

 

[steve_fay]

<p>I think I would string them together camera+tubes+teleconverter+lens, not to say that sticking the tubes in the middle might not be worth experimenting with. If it's an off-brand teleconverter, though, and more likely to be less-well crafted at the edges, putting the teleconverter out past the tubes would mean less of the product of its edges would reach the image plane of the camera. Tubes of course by themselves can't introduce any imperfections not in the lens or lens combination ahead of them (unless they leak light or something like that).<br>

I think it is an interesting combination to experiment with: both increase magnification, but differently--with especially different effects on focusing distance (converter alone would still permit infinity focusing, while tubes do not). With a set of various-sized extension tubes + the teleconverter you could play with getting different distance ranges at which the combo could focus, if using the tubes alone didn't give you the working range you wanted. The slimmest tube+converter+lens would probably have the greatest versatility and the least sacrifice of light; on the other hand you might want more magnification.</p>

[stemked]

<p>The Pentax 6X7 ones also include the bayonet mount for quick mount dismount rather than having to screw in the lens. </p>

<p>Just an FYI on E**Y right now there is one with a 135mm macro + reverser (67mm) in the UK even! The price for the reverser and the lens right now is so low priced it is pretty pathetic. </p>

<p>Bon Chance!</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>On a related note; when using outer bay tubes(P67) with the Pentax 1.4X converter, one cannot put the converter in front of the tubes. Pentax made the converter so that it has to be behind the tubes. </p>