DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Tamron 2.0x TC with Canon 70-200f2.8L
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/04/2005 12:26:34 PM · #1
Does anyone have experience using this combo with the non IS 70-200 f2.8L lens? I want it b/c at 200mm it will be a 640mm lens with the crop factor on my camera. I intend to use it occassionally, maybe for wildlife and candid portraits from a far. I know the corners will not be sharp, but with a 1.6x crop factor, I don't think it will matter much.
Thanks.
 05/04/2005 12:36:31 PM · #2
2x teleconverters are almost always a bad idea. They just dont provide good image quality when compared to a 1.4x converter. Still, coverters are always a compromise, its all a matter of how important it is for you to have the extra reach.
 05/04/2005 12:44:19 PM · #3
useful article
 05/04/2005 12:56:04 PM · #4
I'd go with the Canon 2x II TC instead of the Tamron. Even with the Canon the quality degrades considerably. TC's work best with fast primes. It is always a compromise using TC's, especially with zooms. The combination is usable but the quality suffers.

Message edited by author 2005-05-04 12:56:36.
 05/04/2005 01:47:05 PM · #5
Hopper,
Thanks for the link.
I've no doubt that the 100-400 L lens would outperform a 70-200 with a 2x TC at 400mm. I'm just trying to occassionally get a 500mm+ focal lenght for fun. So I'm not interested in a hugh investment. A $200 investment for a focal lenght upto 640mm is worth it to me, knowing that it will be a bit soft. I think a TC will be sharper than cropping and enlarging on a computer according to reviews by Bob Atkins.
What I'm surprised is that it came close to the 100-400 lens at f11 (this was in the corners too).
I wonder how the Tamron's SP compares to the Canon's. I also heard that Kenko's TC's are made by Tamron. Is that true?
 05/04/2005 02:10:33 PM · #6
Kenko Converters (must be the Teleplus Pro 300 Series) using the same hoya glass as the Tamrons are very sharp.

70-200mm 4L + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DG

This was all the way across the staduim @ ISO 800 so I did some N/R then sharpened.



70-200mm 4L + Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DG No sharpening on this one...



ED: Don't know what the tamron goes for but I got the Kenko 1.4x new for 150.00 on ebay.

Message edited by author 2005-05-04 14:13:33.
 05/04/2005 02:22:36 PM · #7
That's a great comparison link....but it fails to show another angle...

He should also do a comparison of the 70-200mm vs the 100-400mm with both units at 200mm and both units at 100mm.

This would be truly helpful. Because...sure the 100-400mm is better than a extension lens doubled 200mm. But how does the 100mm & 200mm shots compare? Because if you're getting much better clarity in those ranges. That needs to be leveraged in a $1,500-$2,000 purchase decision.
 05/04/2005 02:30:11 PM · #8
agreed ... I'm actually on the verge of buying the 200mm 2.8L and 2x converter, but I can't find where anyone has compared this combo to say the 75-300mm IS

I know the images will be softer when a TC is added, but how soft is soft. Softer than a consumer level zoom? Not alot of "inexpensive" choices when wanting to get to 400mm

Originally posted by theSaj:
That's a great comparison link....but it fails to show another angle...

He should also do a comparison of the 70-200mm vs the 100-400mm with both units at 200mm and both units at 100mm.

This would be truly helpful. Because...sure the 100-400mm is better than a extension lens doubled 200mm. But how does the 100mm & 200mm shots compare? Because if you're getting much better clarity in those ranges. That needs to be leveraged in a $1,500-$2,000 purchase decision.
05/04/2005 04:59:43 PM · #9
Hopper,
This review here has it
//bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/tc3.html
with consumer lens, it's better to crop and blow it up in photoshop rather than use TCs.
 05/04/2005 05:13:21 PM · #10
Originally posted by hopper:
agreed ... I'm actually on the verge of buying the 200mm 2.8L and 2x converter, but I can't find where anyone has compared this combo to say the 75-300mm IS

I know the images will be softer when a TC is added, but how soft is soft. Softer than a consumer level zoom? Not alot of "inexpensive" choices when wanting to get to 400mm

Originally posted by theSaj:
That's a great comparison link....but it fails to show another angle...

He should also do a comparison of the 70-200mm vs the 100-400mm with both units at 200mm and both units at 100mm.

This would be truly helpful. Because...sure the 100-400mm is better than a extension lens doubled 200mm. But how does the 100mm & 200mm shots compare? Because if you're getting much better clarity in those ranges. That needs to be leveraged in a $1,500-$2,000 purchase decision.


The 75-300 Is is a DOG, I don't recommend it.

I use a 2x Canon on a 70-200 2.8 l all the time. It's fine for most applications, notas sharp as a prime, or prime and 2x TC, but still acceptable. Just don't enlarge the photo much.
 05/04/2005 05:14:18 PM · #11
actually, i meant an L prime with 2x extender vs. a consumer lens WITHOUT an extender.

thank you, though

Originally posted by yido:
with consumer lens, it's better to crop and blow it up in photoshop rather than use TCs.
05/04/2005 05:56:11 PM · #12
If it hasn't been said, I'll say it now: the IS is pretty important when you get to those lengths esp. hand held. I have the 70-200 F2.8L and sorta kinda maybe wish I'd coughed up the $1k extra to get the IS. At less than 1/90, even with lots of light, I've gotten some slightly blurry shots handheld. :-(

And as for the 75-300 IS (which I also use)..it's hard to say. That lens really needs a lot of light to be clear. My cousin shot a U2 concert last week with it on a 20D and using ISO 1600 everything was slightly blurry even with decent light. Not noisy, but all slightly blurry (and she knows what she's doing). You'd get much better results using a 70-200L IS on the same body.

Message edited by author 2005-05-04 18:03:10.
 05/04/2005 06:14:53 PM · #13
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
If it hasn't been said, I'll say it now: the IS is pretty important when you get to those lengths esp. hand held. I have the 70-200 F2.8L and sorta kinda maybe wish I'd coughed up the $1k extra to get the IS. At less than 1/90, even with lots of light, I've gotten some slightly blurry shots handheld. :-(

And as for the 75-300 IS (which I also use)..it's hard to say. That lens really needs a lot of light to be clear. My cousin shot a U2 concert last week with it on a 20D and using ISO 1600 everything was slightly blurry even with decent light. Not noisy, but all slightly blurry (and she knows what she's doing). You'd get much better results using a 70-200L IS on the same body.


Lori, shooting 200mm at 1/90 sec hand-held would require a hell of a steady hand, which I doubt you and I have. You would need a tripod or hand-hold with a shutter speed slightly above that of the max. focal length (for a stationary subject, anyway) for the image to be consistently sharp.
05/04/2005 07:29:00 PM · #14
Canon has some things to say about TC use and their lenses/cameras:

//www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf page 4

"EF Extender Issues
All single focal length L-series lenses from 135mm to 1200mm plus several L-series
telephoto zooms are compatible with CanonĂ¢€™s 1.4x and 2x EF Extenders. These
accessories are understandably popular among professional and advanced amateur
photographers because of the extra value they offer in terms of increased focal length
without forcing the photographer to invest in longer prime lenses.
Of course, there are trade-offs for this convenience. The 1.4x and 2x Extenders cost 1 or 2
f/stops respectively. This means, for example, that a 300mm f/2.8 lens when used with a
2x extender becomes a 600mm f/5.6. Additionally, EF Extenders reduce lens drive speed.
As noted in the instruction sheets supplied with the Extenders, the EF 1.4x or 1.4x II
reduces lens drive speed by approximately 50~67% depending on the lens in use. The EF
2x or 2x II reduces lens drive speed by up to approximately 75%. This speed reduction
gives the AF system more time to detect focus. This is helpful since the depth of focus is
reduced with the longer effective focal length and the chance of defocus increases.
However, the reduced tracking speed and smaller maximum apertures (that sometimes
result in the loss of cross-type sensor focus detection as mentioned in the description of
the 45-point Area AF Sensor at the beginning of this document) caused by the use of
Extenders can be a disadvantage with fast moving subjects, particularly in low light."


05/04/2005 08:11:46 PM · #15


This was taken with a Sigma 2x EX TC and 70-200 f4L.
Just for some reference.
 05/04/2005 10:01:12 PM · #16
After some research, I've decided that it's probably not worth it. The better TC's are over $200 and has limits that I don't like so I'd rather save the money and buy a longer telephoto if I really want that long reach. I'd get the Bigma in DG if I really want a sharp 500mm range telephoto zoom.
Thanks to everyone for their input.
 05/04/2005 11:24:13 PM · #17
generally I try to only buy canon, but recently I needed a solution to get me a little closer with my canon 70-200mm/2.8L and furthermore I was short on time for my editor's requirements. On a whim, I thought I'd try out the Quantaray 2x extender for $80 from Ritz, they told me I'd have 30 days to bring it back if I didn't like it. I figured, "what the hell?" I may as well try it as I couldn't get the $280+ canon 2x extender in time. So far, I've determined that over all the pictures aren't perfect but the autofocus works flawlessly and although I have to really try and either use really fast speeds, a tripod, or both and some USM to boot, I am getting some decent quality images. Not the best, but for newspaper work they're great, and believe it or not, the pictures are even on par with some outdoor photography magazine shots I've seen. If you need an inexpensive solution and just want to "try" the extender, check it out for yourself.
a few samples with full crops:


05/05/2005 12:29:47 AM · #18
Originally posted by yido:
I think a TC will be sharper than cropping and enlarging on a computer according to reviews by Bob Atkins.


In my experience this hasn't been the case - you're introducing more glass, so even if it's canon's L teleconverters you still lose some sharpness. If you're shooting in conditions where your images won't be sharp to the pixel anyway, you lose nothing by enlarging. Of course here's where a higher megapixel sensor comes in handy either way. But overall I just tend to find you lose more by introducing a teleconverter than you do by cropping and enlarging.
 05/05/2005 12:34:16 AM · #19
Originally posted by hopper:
...I know the images will be softer when a TC is added, but how soft is soft. Softer than a consumer level zoom? Not alot of "inexpensive" choices when wanting to get to 400mm.


There's the Canon 400mm f/5.6L at US$1,059.95
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/16/2025 07:43:59 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/16/2025 07:43:59 PM EDT.