According to Cambridge University, the general terminology is that a "teleconverter" is mounted on the rear of the lens and a "teleconversion" filter is mounted to the front of the lens. In both types, there will be some degrading of the image quality and the degree of the degradation usually varies with the price. The cheap ones from China will have a very definite negative effect on image quality. On the other hand, those made by the camera manufacturers can be quite good with only a small negative effective on image quality. Both types work best on prime lens, since they will magnify the softness typically found in the image quality of zoom lens at the long end, but the sharper the lens, the better the results whether prime or zoom.

An advantage of the filter type is no loss of light, so a 2X teleconverter type will lose 2 stops of light (a 100mm f2.8 becomes a 200mm f5.6), while a 100mm f2.8 lens with a 2X teleconversion filter becomes a 200mm, but will still be f2.8.

A disadvantage is the teleconversion filter is rather heavy on the end of the lens and can stress the autofocus mechanism. They are also quite large in diameter as someone else has mentioned.

I have a Canon 1.4X and a Sony 1.7X that will fit on any lens with a 62mm filter size or can be used with a step down adapter ring. Both are very high quality and I use them on a Minolta 135mm f2.8 for low light use and on a Tokina 400mm f5.6 to get extra reach when needed. There is very little loss of image quality with either. Since they can be relatively quickly screwed on to the end of a lens, they do not potentially introduce dust into the camera as a rear mounted teleconverter might during mounting and they can be carried in a coat pocket. I have tried several other teleconversion filters from China and/or Hongkong and results were very poor. I found both the Canon and Sony on Ebay and nobody was bidding on them, so I bid and got both quite cheap. I think the Canon 1.4X went for $0.99 plus shipping and is probably the best buy I have ever made on Ebay. The ones from China, however, would be a bad buy even at $0.99 in my opinion. The camera manufacturer types are rare on Ebay, but based on the two I have, I would definitely consider them. I think the Canon originally sold for over $200 and is no longer made. Sony still makes one that is smaller than the one I have and it sells new for $100 to $200 as I recall, but it is too small to fit on the end of a 300mm-400mm lens with out vignetting, due to the required step up adapter. The larger 62mm one is no longer made.

You do not say how the drive is connected, but I assume it is SATA or USB. In either case, try using a different (new) cable and/or port on the computer if that is an option.

Item was sold at a swap meet and person to person. I have no idea how to contact the buyer, but if I could, I would give it to him.

I sold the lens a while back and recently discovered I still have the hood, which I had never used on the lens. So if anyone wants it cheap let me know: $5 plus shipping in conus. Hood was never used so it is as new.

OEM Sony ALC-SH102 Lens Hood for a Sony DT 55-200mm f/4-5.6 SAM (Sony SAL-55200)

The original OP suggests he does not understand the difference between RAW and JPEG. All digital cameras, even P & S, take the picture in "RAW". If you actually printed that, all you would see is rows of numbers. The camera can process the RAW file into a JPEG or a picture that you can see. With P & S that is all you can get, since most P & S cameras do not let you export the RAW file. More advanced cameras (DSLR, ICLC Mirrorless, etc.) give you a choice let you export the actual RAW file to a computer if you wish, where you can then use software (Adobe, etc.) to process the RAW into a JPEG which you can print and or see on the monitor as a picture. The advantage for processing the RAW file is that potentially, the picture can be processed in many different ways rather than just the camera's version. The way the OP phrased the challenge: "print the RAW vs the JPEG" would result in a comparison of rows of numbers vs the JPEG picture. There is no such thing as a digital picture straight out of the camera that has not been processed. To see the picture, you either have to let the camera process it or export as RAW and then process it yourself with software, the way you want the picture to look. Asking to print both for comparison makes absolutely no sense other than to suggest that you have no idea how a digital camera functions.

If you just want a cheap cable release for your camera, it is here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/321697817593?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649

I had the Sony 70-400mm version I for several years until it was stolen. Replaced it with the version 2, which I still have. My impression is that the only difference is the version 2 costs more and looks a little better; I can see no difference in image quality or focus speed. Both tend to be a little soft at 400mm unless stepped down at least 2 stops and then light becomes a problem.

I recently acquired the Tamron 150-600mm and it is equal to the 70-400mm at 400mm and cheaper. It has good sharpness up to about 525mm and then starts to soften. Most zooms are softer at the long end; the only exceptions I have found are the old Tokina 60-300mm and Minolta 100-300mm APO D, both of which are sharper at the long end than the wide end.

Of course, since you are usually going to be shooting long any way, your best bet for image quality is a prime in the 300mm to 600mm range; the longer the more expensive, but some of the old MF f4 300 and f5.6 400mm primes can be had for little money and can't be beat for image quality. The Pentax Takumars come to mind, less than $100; all you need is a cheap $10 focus confirm M42 to A-mount adapter from China.

If you can't do without AF, you might also consider the Sony/Minolta 500mm Reflex, the only AF 500mm Reflex ever made and now selling used for $400 to $500. The Tamron 200-500mm which the 150-600mm replaced is also a very good wildlife/birding lens if you can find one; check KEH or Ebay.

Short answer to your OP: new version of 70-400mm is not worth the added cost if you can find a discounted 70-400mm version I (in good working condition, meaning has not been dropped/mistreated; buy used with a week or two return policy)

As you are probably aware, the A6000 uses a combination of contrast detection and on-sensor phase detection, which is implemented only for certain Sony E-mount lenses. The result is very fast AF for those lenses where it is implemented and so-so for other lenses, such as Sigma E-mount or older Sony lenses.

When using A-mount lenses, in this case, the A-mount Tamron, along with either the LEA2 or LEA4 adapter, the A6000 will effectively become an A-mount camera with the translucent mirror (in the adapter) and phase detect AF only, which will be very fast.
The only difference from an A-mount camera will be that the LEA adapters give you center focus points only compared with the more elaborate focus point configurations of the A77 or A99.

So, the short answer is yes, very fast AF, but perhaps not quite as accurate as the contrast detection of the A6000 without the adapter, a minor tradeoff in practical use.

You can use either the LEA2 or LEA4, both will auto focus. The LEA2 can be found significantly cheaper than LEA4, particularly used on Ebay. The only difference between the two adapters is that the LEA2 is designed for APS sized sensors, such as the A6000, while the LEA4 is designed for full frame sensors, such as any of the A7 series.

Avoid the LEA1 or LEA3, since neither will autofocus with the Tamron.

The Tamron is a very large lens, so it will balance better on the larger Sony A-mount SLT cameras such as A77 and A99, but with either of the LEA adapters, the Tamron will work fine on the A6000. I have personally used or witnessed the use of all these combinations and have experienced no problems. For best success, use a monopod or tripod attached to the lens and not the camera.

Get a Sony A7 or A7r or A7s or A7II. All four are full frame cameras and your 17mm will still be a 17mm f4.

Try:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm
and
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm

Don't try to pet it!!!!

Perhaps you are confusing the diameter of the aperture with the diameter of the objective optic. Have you really disassembled the lens to measure the internal aperture (iris)? For a more detailed explanation, visit http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/

Someone else has responded ahead of you and I am awaiting payment from them. If I have not heard back from them, by 5:00 PM Pacific Time, Dec 31, then I will contact you to see if you are still interested. If you don't hear back from me, then it was sold.

Thank you for your interest.

Paul

Actually, the adapter I referenced in my previous post is incorrect. The correct one is this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=10913654&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi