FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Which 1.4x teleconverter for Minolta 80-200 2.8

Author
AKImages View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 28 July 2009
Country: United States
Location: Alaska
Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Post Options Post Options   Quote AKImages Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Which 1.4x teleconverter for Minolta 80-200 2.8
    Posted: 02 July 2012 at 16:17
Looking to get a 1.4x teleconverter for my Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 (black). The teleconverter guide doesn't show a match for this lens. At least that I could discern. Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Doug
 



Back to Top
Conny1 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 December 2006
Country: Germany
Status: Offline
Posts: 1591
Post Options Post Options   Quote Conny1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 July 2012 at 16:24
The originals from Minolta/Sony donīt fit on the 80-200. This one is highly recommended, there is a (rare) white one available also:

http://www.amazon.com/Kenko-1-4X-Teleplus-Extender-Minolta/dp/B003EK5WHO
Back to Top
Lens-Zero View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 15 May 2012
Country: Canada
Location: GTA
Status: Offline
Posts: 100
Post Options Post Options   Quote Lens-Zero Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 July 2012 at 18:27
May I refer you to eccl's reply to mine?

eccl wrote:

For Minolta 80-200 APO you can use the following:

1) 1.4X generic TC (5pin) with chip
2) 1.4X Kenko TC DGX with chip

A 1.4X TC will reduce the aperture by 1 stop so a 80-200/2.8 will become 80-200/4 so some hunting is expected in dim light



Back to Top
AKImages View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 28 July 2009
Country: United States
Location: Alaska
Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Post Options Post Options   Quote AKImages Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 July 2012 at 20:10
Thanks for the suggestions. Has anyone used this particular TC and if so how was the IQ and CA?

Thanks again,
Doug
Back to Top
Bob Maddison View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 April 2011
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Dorset
Status: Offline
Posts: 1102
Post Options Post Options   Quote Bob Maddison Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 July 2012 at 21:53
Check before you buy. The reason why some TCs are incompatible is that certain lenses have a rearward projection that simply won't fit inside the TC. When Sony/Minolta say that a TC can't be used with a lens, they mean it!
Back to Top
Lens-Zero View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 15 May 2012
Country: Canada
Location: GTA
Status: Offline
Posts: 100
Post Options Post Options   Quote Lens-Zero Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 July 2012 at 21:55
http://www.steveoakley.net/template_permalink.asp?id=263

You may have found above review as I did. Interesting, and I buy what's saying there, at least at a price I likely can afford. Some postings suggested that it is the same tc as the Tamron with different colour and markings, but who cares. Reading the Kenko and TKH (Tokina Kenko Hoya)websites, they say this tc is made of Hoya glasses. What left behind to verify is whether this tc would work with the 8-contact SSM lenses.
 



Back to Top
AKImages View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 28 July 2009
Country: United States
Location: Alaska
Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Post Options Post Options   Quote AKImages Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 July 2012 at 00:13
Thanks for the info again. However I still can't be sure that either the Kenko DGX 1.4 or the Teleplus 300 will work on my older Minolta 80-200 2.8 APO (black not SSM).

The kenko site doesn't give a list of compatibility.

Doug
Back to Top
VictorV View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 March 2009
Country: Russian Federation
Location: Sakhalin Island
Status: Offline
Posts: 1142
Post Options Post Options   Quote VictorV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 July 2012 at 02:32
Doug, I have Kenko DGX 1.4. It working with both versions of Minolta 80-200/2,8 without any problems
Back to Top
AKImages View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 28 July 2009
Country: United States
Location: Alaska
Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Post Options Post Options   Quote AKImages Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 July 2012 at 02:50
Victor,

Great thanks for making it clear. It was getting frustrating not having a definitive idea of compatibility.

Thanks again,
Doug
Back to Top
Pirate View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 16 May 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Liverpool
Status: Offline
Posts: 5763
Post Options Post Options   Quote Pirate Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 July 2012 at 03:40
Back to Top
Pirate View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 16 May 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Liverpool
Status: Offline
Posts: 5763
Post Options Post Options   Quote Pirate Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 July 2012 at 03:47
Originally posted by Lens-Zero Lens-Zero wrote:

May I refer you to eccl's reply to mine?

eccl wrote:

For Minolta 80-200 APO you can use the following:

1) 1.4X generic TC (5pin) with chip
2) 1.4X Kenko TC DGX with chip

A 1.4X TC will reduce the aperture by 1 stop so a 80-200/2.8 will become 80-200/4 so some hunting is expected in dim light

You haven't added the 1.4x multiplier in your calculations. The lens goes from 80-200mm x 1.4x (TC) = 112-280mm F4. I've had the same lens and with a TC attached, it's not the greatest tool in the box. Works best without the TC.
Back to Top
standfest View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 03 February 2019
Country: Latvia
Location: Riga
Status: Offline
Posts: 7
Post Options Post Options   Quote standfest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 August 2019 at 10:10
I've Minolta 80-200 2.8 HS and the following two TCs:

1) Kenko Mx-AF 2X Teleplus MC7
2) Kenko M-AF 1.4X

I can certainly say that 2x is not usable at all. IQ decreases drastically. Tested in a sunny daylight.

1.4x is totally usable. It gives me 280mm and details are very high. IQ is very good. The only difference in IQ to 200mm without TC, is that 1.4x gives you a bit of color fringing (chromatic aberrations), which in most cases you can fix in post production. Otherwise I'm happy with 1.4x.


I also had Sony 70-200 F2.8 (SAL70200G) and had similar observations, however IQ with 2x was better, but still I can not say it was usable.


AF is working with 1.4x and 2x TCs. With 1.4x is working as amazingly fast as without TC.


When combining 2x + 1.4x the IQ is total crap (and AF doesn't work properly)

Edited by standfest - 02 September 2019 at 21:23
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3458
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 August 2019 at 08:52
Without wanting to re-start the whole 'do teleconverters add anything' debate again, the value of a TC depends on the camera, the lens, and subject.
There are a number of reasons why you would want to use a TC:
- to get a larger image in the OVF with small subjects (like the moon) and make MF or (sometimes!) AF work better;
- to make the lens behave like a longer (and slower ...) lens
- to get increased resolution.

Many people stick a TC on a 300+ mm zoom in the hope of getting more resolution but they rarely succeed, because most of those lenses don't have enough resolution at the far end to beat the sensor on a 20/24Mp camera even without the TC. You get more FL but no more detail (it's the front element size that makes the biggest difference, and adding a TC doesn't change that).
You should get some benefit with a good f2.8 200mm lens, though, but you may need a matched Sony/Minolta TC to get the best.

When you say 'The IQ is total crap', in what way do you mean? With an extra 7 glass elements (and lots of air-to-glass surfaces) on the MC7 the contrast will inevitably be lower and you'll need to do a lot of PP to get the sharpness up without ruining the image. That may be worthwhile. The MC7 is pretty good for CA, and the corners ar ebetter than the MC4.

FWIW I regularly use the MC7 on macro lenses to get more reach and this works very well. But I rarely get much benefit from longer slower lenses unless I'm photographing the moon or something which is exceptionally small. I've never found a 300+mm lens + 2xTC combination that makes bird's feathers look any better, though the 1.4x TCs can sometimes help. But if I had the Minolta 200mm f2.8 prime I'd definitely be using a TC with it ...   
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Online
Posts: 28605
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 August 2019 at 12:01
Look here for some info and a resolution test of the Kenko pro 300 1.4x on a Minolta 80-200/2.8 HS G

Conclusion:
1) this combo helps resolution vs straight "uprezzing"
2) you get a slight rubmark on the plastic baffle behind the rear element (for me no big deal, but it's good to be aware)
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > Adapters and converters

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.