answers: 16

  1. lech
    27.01.2019

    I once had something similar from Kenko. Six months later, presented to someone. All these teleconverters, and even the city, are natural masochism. Even a budget telephoto buoys the best option.

    Reply

  2. Michael
    27.01.2019

    Typo:
    "Using a tele-converter will reduce the aperture of the lens"
    Well and generally inaccuracy. Still, a two-time teleconverter reduces the aperture by 2 stops, i.e. 4 times.

    Reply

    • Serhiy Todoriuk
      28.01.2019

      The man wrote everything correctly. With a 2x converter, the focal and aperture numbers need to be multiplied by 2, 200 2.8 will turn into 400 5.6. It is also worth noting that the logic of the teleconverter itself is based on the stretching of the output image, optical cropping itself, and even with a completely perfect converter quality, the picture quality will fall evenly for this simple reason. Well, one more note, if we have a multi-pixel camera, say at 60 megapixels and at the same time the lens can resolve something in the region of 40 megapixels, then when pulling the extender the lens can already resolve 40 / (2 * 2) 10mp, which is completely equivalent if if you would sprinkle the same 10MP image center without a converter, to enlarge the image with and without the converter, but the cropped one will have the same viewing angle. Everything in the world is connected.

      Reply

  3. Noa
    27.01.2019

    indulge in either from despair
    Threat commas would place

    Reply

    • Novel
      27.01.2019

      Hopelessness, for that matter.

      Reply

  4. anonym
    29.01.2019

    There are many mistakes.

    Reply

  5. Kirill
    01.02.2019

    Arkady, good evening! Let me express my deep gratitude for your efforts! I wanted to ask a question, I have Tamron 24-70 2.8 usd di on a d7100 carcass. There was an idea to change it to Sigma 18-35 1.8 DC. In the tamron, I do not like a large amount of soap, I have to cover the diaphragm. I shoot mostly reports, portraits and interior. Just for reporting and I think to take. What do you think?

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      01.02.2019

      18-35 is pleasant, but often short. If the focal fits, then it makes sense to change.

      Reply

  6. anonym
    03.02.2019

    joyfully died for weeks there is nothing

    Reply

    • Alexey de Paris
      04.02.2019

      At least you would understand the meaning of this site! Write nonsense. Send Arcadia a new lens for review and you will have a review!

      Reply

    • B. R. P.
      04.02.2019

      Tip your tongue, a crack on the smartphone.

      Reply

  7. Alexander
    10.02.2019

    It seems to me that the main complaints about Canon EF Extender 1.4X III are due to cost :) It is clear that it is not 66 times better than Tamron. I have version II, and on it with the native 300 / 4L the drop in quality is very insignificant. Probably, it also depends on the lens - Canon most likely optimizes converters for specific lenses, and Tamron is universal. But it does not have a protruding lens and you can use more lenses. And if you put up with the "soap" then the Soviet TK-2 is not bad.

    Reply

    • Alexey de Paris
      11.02.2019

      As for the protruding lens in the converter from Canon, you very correctly noticed. I don’t get onto most of the lenses because of this design feature. With Tamron, everything is simple, he is omnivorous. On which camera do you use your bundle with a teleconverter?

      Reply

  8. lech
    11.02.2019

    All Canon and Nikon converters are made for glass in which the back is recessed (that is, expensive).

    Reply

    • Alexey de Paris
      12.02.2019

      And it happens that the back (lens) is recessed but the teleconverter still does not fit. You need to look at compatibility in advance before buying or try on the spot.

      Reply

  9. Sergei
    08.07.2020

    The topic that I read is a lot of empty and incomprehensible ... relatively many words ... I would like to know for those who do not understand ... how the teleconverter somewhat enhances the optical defects of the lens ... and what defects are they not shown and comparison with what? You need to answer and write carefully what … It is promised… if it is promised for whom guesses? For comparison it is difficult to determine where which one… I would be grateful if there are explanations for those who cannot understand the quality….

    Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer