|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#11 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 48
|
thanks for the reply, Gene. But I'm wondering why you didn't just remove the tcon 17to take the picture, rather than add the closeup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,111
|
I was Trying to reply to what that link from CKs said about if you use a teleconverter you actually can lose power from say 7 ft to 15 ft ......like at full zoom at 7ft which the FZ will focus, theimage is larger,than say with a tcon17 on at 15 ft which is about as close as you can focus with the teleconverter.
To take the photo at 4 ft with the FZ the most magnification I could use was 135mm and focus, while with the teleconverter and the CU lens I was able to use full zoom ...it made a difference of the woodpecker being less than 1/2 frame to being over full frame. And as CKs page points out if you can use your feet to zoom ,its better than a teleconverter. I got the Idea of the closeup lens from someone that uses similar combinations to take photos of fish in anaquarium I must admit after getting a few hundred photos of the woodpecker I put the combo away and have never tried it again.....Its not a useful tool but can be useful at times and it is touchy ....with the CU I used you could focus with all that power at 4 ft but I needed to change CU lenses to focus at5 ft and yet another to focus at3 ft. But at about 4 ft (I think it was 44 inches) that combo gave me the most magnification I could come up with. I have an Mcon40 which is a good closeup lens but that was the wrong distance for it. I am beginning to think I should have went out and shoveled snow instead of opening my mouth. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 48
|
Thanks for the explanation, Gene.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|