Options
Damsel: Teleconverter & Printing Nikkor
e6filmuser
Registered Users Posts: 3,378 Major grins
There have been many unkind comments, in lens discussions, about the use of teleconverters. As they isolate the image from the central part of a lens, typically of superior resolution to the edge, the result is likely to be at least as good as without the TC, possibly better.
The Printing Nikkor 105mm has a superb performance at 1:1 at it wider apertures and plenty of performance at f11. On my EM-1 and extensions, lit by TTL flash (camera in manual mode), I find the results encouraging.
Harold
The Printing Nikkor 105mm has a superb performance at 1:1 at it wider apertures and plenty of performance at f11. On my EM-1 and extensions, lit by TTL flash (camera in manual mode), I find the results encouraging.
Harold
0
Comments
Brian v.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/
I missed the focus on the thorax of the second one but thought it worth posting for the dorsal head detail. These are much easier to get right with the EM-1 than with the EP-2 because the flash on the hot shoe of the EM-1 does not disable the high definition viewfinder. So my decision to move up is justified. My EM-1 is away for repair and I now find the EP-2 almost unusable.
Harold
Thanks. I seem to remember that this individual was rather more patient with me than most. Generally, damsels are more difficult to get in close to than dragons. Also, they are more likely to face away from the sun, making daylight shots unsatisfactory without some fill flash (not yet in my repertoire).
Harold
Why does adding flash disable viewfinder?
moderator - Holy Macro
Goldenorfe’s Flickr Gallery
Goldenorfe photography on Smugmug
Phils Photographic Adventures Blog
Harold
Harold, do you have any links / info / further reading related to this 'possibly better' comment ?
I'm no optics expert, so I can only consider any system's performance in the same way as people used to when referring to Hi Fi systems ... ie only as good as the weakest link in the chain?
I'm having some difficulty with the idea that adding more glass - even if it is of better quality than the original lens - will somehow improve the (possibly less than perfect) performance of the basic lens.
Whilst accepting that lens centre performance is generally better than edge, surely any comparisons have to be made using equivalent areas of the lens ... otherwise it's a case of 'apples and oranges' ?
1 would get my vote, btw.
pp
Flickr
I was surprised to see that. It was originally in this account for this lens on the original website and was based on measurement. I considered that before buying the lens. It seems to have been edited out.
I have a zoom with 17 elements in something like 12 groups. All of those elements are there to do a job. I don't see why a matched, system TC should not deliver the quality of the prime lens.
There is often confusion because a TC shows the same detail magnified, making the resolution look less.
You use the term "weakest link". I would use this for cheap, third party TCs, not the apo ones I use. You get what you pay for, just as you do if you don't use apo supplementaries or if you use uncoated filters.
Harold
Apart from the first paragraph above, referring to some info that seems to be no longer available, the rest of your response isn't really answering my original query mentioned in my first post.
dealing with the other paras
I have no problem accepting that a matched TC can be of equivalent - or even better - quality than the prime lens it's being used with.
Magnification v resolution / resolving power is another discussion.
My use of the term 'weakest link' was, in no way associated with the particular quality of equipment ... irrespective of the area of technology.
Whilst I also have experimented in the past with TCs + primes for macro, my main use these days is with telephotos.
My own experience, together with everything I've ever read about the use of a TC with an appropriate quality prime lens, points to degraded optical performance with the TC attached, compared with that of the prime lens alone.
Your comment, in the first post, suggesting that it (performance) with a TC attached could be 'possibly better' than with no TC attached, is the first time I've come across this.
eg Whilst I acknowledge that the latest generation of Canon telephoto lenses and mk3 TCs presumably produce better results than my previous generation kit, I have still not seen any reviews of this latest gear that suggest that the performance of such kit is 'possibly better' with the TC attached, compared with the lens alone.
pp
Flickr