Pentax 645 rear converter... 1.4X or 2X?

Finn Slough Fishing Net

A
Finn Slough Fishing Net

  • 0
  • 0
  • 1
Dried roses

A
Dried roses

  • 4
  • 0
  • 48
Hot Rod

A
Hot Rod

  • 3
  • 0
  • 67
Relics

A
Relics

  • 1
  • 0
  • 53
The Long Walk

A
The Long Walk

  • 2
  • 0
  • 71

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,452
Messages
2,759,184
Members
99,502
Latest member
N4TTU
Recent bookmarks
0

Fast

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
35
Location
Winnipeg, Canada
Format
Medium Format
HI.
I wondering what the differences are between these two rear lens converters (other than the obvious magnification factor). I'd likely use it most with my 150mm lens (manual focus). Taking a quick look on KEH site, the 1.4X is selling for roughly double the price, (though both are affordable). Any thoughts or personal experience would be welcome.
Thanks,
Doug.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,609
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
I have a P645N but haven't tried a converter. If you don''t get enough responses from users here then the Pentax Forum site is worth a look. No charge to use it. From what I remember from posts there in the past most favoured the 1.4. The drop in max aperture is less of course than a 2x converter and this may account for its extra popularity, hence the price difference. The 1.4 gives you the equivalent of 130mm in 135 format which is an increase from the 135 format equivalent of 90 mm in the 150 which is an extra 40mm which for medium format isn't bad jump with only a little loss in max aperture and certainly acceptable in most situations in my opinion

pentaxuser
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,990
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
A factor 1.4 teleconverter yields a speed loss of one stop, a 2.0 converter of two stops.
 

hsteeves

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
64
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
general consensus is that the loss in IQ using a 2x is much greater that the 1.4x. If you have a 150, have you considered buying a 300 instead? In my case, I prefer the 150-300 zoom.
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,990
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Is that general consensus?
All I know is that in the old days 3x converters were rejected by general consensus due to their bad built. Regarding the 1.4 and 2.0 version image quality was said to generally depend on number of elements. Some manufacturers offered two versions and even in their designation hinted at the number of elements.
If instead of a converter one thinks of employing a lens of greater FL, one should not overlook that quite some long focal distance lenses suffer from chromatic aberration as typical fault themselves. So one should not look only at the converters but at the image quality of the alternative, non-converter solutions too.
 

Pasto

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
864
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
I used the 1.4x with the Pentax 300mm lens and I can report that the sharpness was still excellent as compared to the 300mm alone. In fact, unless you're printing very large I could not tell the difference on anything up to about 16x20. Maybe it's my old eyes :smile: I don't know about the 2x though....
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,609
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
I used the 1.4x with the Pentax 300mm lens and I can report that the sharpness was still excellent as compared to the 300mm alone. In fact, unless you're printing very large I could not tell the difference on anything up to about 16x20. Maybe it's my old eyes :smile: I don't know about the 2x though....
That sounds pretty good to me. Thanks

pentaxuser
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom