Teleconverters
Oct 11, 2021 01:17:43 #
VietVet wrote:
Yes. Infantry pathfinder attached to 222nd Air Force battalion in Ben Cat. Was there at a much calmer time than you in 1971. In my time we had the lottery instead of the draft and to this day it’s the only lottery I’ve ever won lol. Thanks for your service Robert.
Yes, it was much quieter in 71'. I was with the 1/3 Marines up near Da Nang. They were already pulling Marines out but one of our bases got hit with 26 casualties so a bunch of us that were headed for an assignment in Okinawa were sent to Nam instead. This was January of 71' and the beginning of the Tet season. After 4 months without another Tet offensive like in 68', they pulled us back out. Except for those 4 months in Nam, my whole active duty was spent in Southern California.
Oct 11, 2021 01:25:41 #
Bridges wrote:
Yes, it was much quieter in 71'. I was with the 1/3 Marines up near Da Nang. They were already pulling Marines out but one of our bases got hit with 26 casualties so a bunch of us that were headed for an assignment in Okinawa were sent to Nam instead. This was January of 71' and the beginning of the Tet season. After 4 months without another Tet offensive like in 68', they pulled us back out. Except for those 4 months in Nam, my whole active duty was spent in Southern California.
Thank you for your service Bridges.
Oct 11, 2021 01:31:53 #
Charles 46277 wrote:
I have read some of the replies, and am surprised. I have tried teleconverters a number of times over the years and the result was always quite bad. I will have to reconsider. Many books and articles say they introduce aberrations, so I figured they were just for snapshots. But respectable people here seem happy with them...
Look here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-714257-1.html
Canon 100-400L mk2 + 1.4x III @ 560 mm for all three.
Oct 11, 2021 12:45:48 #
Oct 11, 2021 18:07:15 #
VietVet wrote:
Thank you for your service Bridges.
Same back to you Charles.
Oct 11, 2021 21:42:31 #
I experienced the same thing. I have a Canon 90D and a Canon 100-400 ii. I get great images. Wonderfully crisp fo us. Last spring I bought a Canon 1.4 teleconverter iii. No matter what I tried I couldn't get a single useable image. I tried micro adjustment and almost got it set at a whopping ÷ 19. I gave up and returned it to the store. After conti using to read how great this teleconverter is I bought one from B&H. And I am sooo pleased with the results. Everything in focus (with some user error, of course). I think the first teleconverter as simply a bad copy. Try again :-)
Oct 12, 2021 03:04:16 #
tkeller2242 wrote:
I experienced the same thing. I have a Canon 90D a... (show quote)
Thanks, will do some testing first than maybe to B&H.
Oct 13, 2021 07:56:10 #
petrochemist
Loc: UK
VietVet wrote:
Don’t think it’s motion blur as I’m using a high shutter speed and the birds are stationary. I’d hate to think how bad it would be with bif
One test that will simply confirm that it's not down to motion blur is to compare a shot without the TC with one using the TC. Use the same subject & shutter speed & adjust the zoom so the combined TC/lens is at the same focal length as the shot without the TC (such as 200mm & 280mm settings) any difference hare will be simply down to the TC.
Some slight softening is to be expected but if the difference is significant I think it must be a bad copy of the TC.
Oct 13, 2021 12:40:50 #
I had the same setup and it worked the same with or without the converter.- excellent results. I used it with the Canon 90D and with the R6 with the same results. If it were me I would exchange what you got for a new one.
Oct 13, 2021 20:12:33 #
suntouched wrote:
I had the same setup and it worked the same with or without the converter.- excellent results. I used it with the Canon 90D and with the R6 with the same results. If it were me I would exchange what you got for a new one.
Thanks for your input on my situation.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.