Who has the most MMs

Discussion in 'Cameras and Photography' started by cratz2, Jul 6, 2018.

  1. cratz2

    cratz2 Addicted Member

    Messages:
    5,461
    Location:
    Indy, IN
    Millimeters, that is. Not counting telescopes or spoting scopes.

    Just between the crop factor of the camera, teleconverter(s) and the lens?

    Most I can do is a crop body, 70-300 lens and an old MF 2x converter which puts me at 900mm and effectively f11. Never tried getting a decent pic but the converter does work on the lens. I'll try it in the next few days.

    Image quality aside, I've never tried stacking converters or if that's even possible and the longest actual lens I've ever used is the Canon 100-400 L and then not with a converter.

    Watcha got?
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2018

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  2. Bob

    Bob AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,041
    Location:
    West coast
    I use Panasonic/Olympus 43 cameras and at one time, in a crazy mood, bought a 1000mm
    mirror, with a 2x extender. that's the equivalent of a 4000mm on a full frame.

    lucky for me the oly's have in body stabilization and you could hand hold and still take a picture.
    taking a shot with a normal lens then with this monster, you could not see the tele photo portion
    in the normal lens shot.

    since mirrors are fixed f-stops and reasonable sharp but not as good as a glass lens, the
    results with just the mirror were OK, and with the converter got fuzzy to the point I sold
    the lens combo.

    I also went the other way with a reverse converter that took a 50/f1.4 and instead of a
    2x tele, did a .75x wide angle, and I had a 35mm f1 lens. hoped it would be OK wide
    open but nope, fuzzier than the tele mirror.

    still have this and have stopped all craziness.
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  3. cratz2

    cratz2 Addicted Member

    Messages:
    5,461
    Location:
    Indy, IN
    I've been reading of a few folks stacking converters with good results, but with faster 2.8 lenses.

    One user showed an elephant pic taken with a Nikon 70-200 with one 1.4x and one 2x that looked great.

    Might have to try that.
     
  4. cratz2

    cratz2 Addicted Member

    Messages:
    5,461
    Location:
    Indy, IN
    No cropping or sharpening, in very bright light with a D7100.

    Looks pretty decent to me.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. cratz2

    cratz2 Addicted Member

    Messages:
    5,461
    Location:
    Indy, IN
    I went out moon shooting one night with a woman that had a Nikon branded (I think) 500mm mirror lens.

    I told her I was pretty sure I could do better with my 80-200 f2.8 (without converter) and just crop in vs her mirror lens. Both on good heavy, weighted tripods.

    Her images were better than I would have guessed, but mine were better.

    I wouldn't doubt that on some subjects her setup might win, but bot that night.

    I think I will buy another converter. I've never paid them much attention, mostly because my 80-200 isn't supposed to autofocus with any converters but I've been reading that one of the recent Kenkos does autofocus with my generation lens.

    My converter is a post-AI/AIs model but still manual focus.
     
  6. 4-2-7

    4-2-7 Smart Ass Sponsor Subscriber

    Messages:
    27,429
    Location:
    San Francisco Peninsula
    Well considering I have really big lenses and can mount them to quite a few cameras I guess it depends on a digital body.

    This here is a Pentax 600mm for the 6x7, 67 medium format.
    I have a Pentax 2x converter for this system and adaptors for Canon mount digital cameras.

    The two digital bodies I have are a Canon D50 and 5D Mk II

    IMG_0585.JPG IMG_0592.JPG IMG_0586.JPG IMG_0591.JPG IMG_0587.JPG IMG_0588.JPG
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  7. 4-2-7

    4-2-7 Smart Ass Sponsor Subscriber

    Messages:
    27,429
    Location:
    San Francisco Peninsula
    Yes this is best with the moon otherwise it's to close and doesn't show the whole thing.
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  8. 4-2-7

    4-2-7 Smart Ass Sponsor Subscriber

    Messages:
    27,429
    Location:
    San Francisco Peninsula
    Then there is my Pentax 135-600mm zoom lens for 35mm, and the same converter applies.

    IMG_0786.JPG IMG_0782.JPG

    A bit more conventional, I can grab some L lenses
    200mm, 300mm, 400mm and 80-200mm zoom

    IMG_3488.JPG IMG_3489.JPG IMG_3497.JPG
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  9. danj

    danj modern primitive

    Messages:
    5,055
    Location:
    Somewhere in Oregon
    315mm equivalent with my NEX-6 and Sony 55-210 and 1200mm equivalent with my Sony HX-300.
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  10. No Money

    No Money AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    I wsish sometimes that I still had access to the Pentax 6x7 and lenses I had years ago. That and a Mamiya Press were what i cut my medium format teeth on.
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  11. mhedges

    mhedges Super Member

    Messages:
    2,425
    Location:
    Greensboro NC
    I have heard of people using 2000mm lenses on FF cameras. Not sure what lens it was exactly - it was on a Canon body.
     
    cratz2 likes this.

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  12. Bob

    Bob AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,041
    Location:
    West coast
    mirror lenses come in 500/1000mm (and of course, less like 250mm), and a 2x converter
    makes this 1000mm into 2000mm on a full frame, and about 3000mm on an APS-C,
    and 4000mm on 43 camera.

    if you're going to play with one of these. make sure you use a camera body with IBIS
    (image stabilization in the body) otherwise you wont be able to handhold - its tripod time.
    the 43 cameras have a setting that allows you to preset the focal length to assist the
    internal computers.

    next up is dial in the highest ISO you can find/tolerate, the rule was the speed is the
    reciprocal of the focal length, and to allow room to adjust speeds up to counter the
    lack of f-stops. and of course to use shutter preferred automation.

    lastly do not expect razor sharp pictures between the haze you're cutting through, minor
    shakes (like your heartbeat and normal hand tremors), and the inherent design limitatations
    (mirror lens bounce off internal surfaces plus thermals), the pictures will be different
    than those from shorter and sharper glass lenses.
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  13. mhardy6647

    mhardy6647 AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    52,320
    cratz2 likes this.
  14. Bob

    Bob AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,041
    Location:
    West coast
    cratz2 likes this.
  15. Tedrick

    Tedrick Infinity-phile Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,949
    Location:
    Gainesville, FL
    I've got a Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD mounted on a Nikon D7100. Would love to get my hands on a 500 or 600 mm Nikon prime lense some day.
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  16. cratz2

    cratz2 Addicted Member

    Messages:
    5,461
    Location:
    Indy, IN
    That's exactly the lens I looking at. Jet Camera has the newer G2 version for $985.
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  17. Old Ears too

    Old Ears too Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    617
    I think I once tried my Nikkor 300 with a 2x converter on my Nex-7 which would have been 900mm total with the crop factor figured in. It let me reach out and touch the signs at the end of the block pretty nicely.
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  18. cratz2

    cratz2 Addicted Member

    Messages:
    5,461
    Location:
    Indy, IN
    So I'm going to get one of my teleconverters back this Tuesday and I might order a Kenko.

    Anybody ever try stacking converters?

    I'm going to give it a go to see how it compares to just using one and cropping.
     
  19. gtv2000

    gtv2000 AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,187
    Location:
    Western NY
    I have both a Nikon and a Kenko 2x teleconvertor. The Nikon is AI-S (no auto focus and limited metering automation) and the Kenko is full auto coupled. The quality difference, however, is noticeable. The Kenko has bad chromatic aberration compared to the Nikon. I rarely use either, though.
     
    cratz2 likes this.
  20. cratz2

    cratz2 Addicted Member

    Messages:
    5,461
    Location:
    Indy, IN
    I have an older 1.4x AF Nikon and a 2x manual focus Nikon.

    I've thought about getting the 300 Pro Kenko 1.4x just to have something better autofocus. Most reports are that the 300 Pro is great with the 80-200 2.8 and the 300 f4 which would he the main lenses I'd expect to use it with.

    I did try stacking the 2x manual and the 1.4 AF converters with the 300 f4. I tried switching the order of the converters as well.

    There's a noticeable degradation of image quality but it's still not bad. I definitely wouldn't do any prints with both converters but it's better than taking the shot using the 70-300 VR and cropping in.
     

Share This Page