|
|
10D, canon 400mm F5.6L & tamron teleconvertor
Folks
I have been trying to use the Tamron SP AF TeleConvertor 300F-CA 2X with my 400 F5.6 L series lens but the results are dismal. I obviously was aware I would have to manual focus but I haven't been able to get a sharp shot or even a keeper for that matter yet. Any one has any ideas or similar experience or would care to comment and assist me if I am doing something wrong. I have tried from F11 to F14 on tripod etc. regards -- Don From Down Under |
Kibo informs me that "Don" stated that:
Folks I have been trying to use the Tamron SP AF TeleConvertor 300F-CA 2X with my 400 F5.6 L series lens but the results are dismal. I obviously was aware I would have to manual focus but I haven't been able to get a sharp shot or even a keeper for that matter yet. Any one has any ideas or similar experience or would care to comment and assist me if I am doing something wrong. I have tried from F11 to F14 on tripod etc. I also have a 10D, & I've found it impossible to get a good manual focus in general, due to fuzziness of the & lack of focussing aids on the viewfinder. I'm guessing that you're running into the same problem. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
wrote in message ... Kibo informs me that "Don" stated that: Folks I have been trying to use the Tamron SP AF TeleConvertor 300F-CA 2X with my 400 F5.6 L series lens but the results are dismal. I obviously was aware I would have to manual focus but I haven't been able to get a sharp shot or even a keeper for that matter yet. Any one has any ideas or similar experience or would care to comment and assist me if I am doing something wrong. I have tried from F11 to F14 on tripod etc. I also have a 10D, & I've found it impossible to get a good manual focus in general, due to fuzziness of the & lack of focussing aids on the viewfinder. I'm guessing that you're running into the same problem. No. His problem is that he is severely compromising a decent lens by using a 2X extender. This is to be expected. Even with Canon's own L-grade 2X, you are going to lose significant sharpness. The 1.4x Canon is a MUCH better performer than any 2X, and may be a worthy alternative. |
As a rule, extenders do a lot to degrade the image. Added to that, Tamron
leaves a lot to be desired. There is a reason why Canon's cost more. Consider using a Canon 1.4x, if you have to use one at all. A 3x is almost a joke. Bill Crocker "Don" wrote in message ... Folks I have been trying to use the Tamron SP AF TeleConvertor 300F-CA 2X with my 400 F5.6 L series lens but the results are dismal. I obviously was aware I would have to manual focus but I haven't been able to get a sharp shot or even a keeper for that matter yet. Any one has any ideas or similar experience or would care to comment and assist me if I am doing something wrong. I have tried from F11 to F14 on tripod etc. regards -- Don From Down Under |
|
Bill Crocker wrote:
As a rule, extenders do a lot to degrade the image. Added to that, Tamron leaves a lot to be desired. There is a reason why Canon's cost more. Consider using a Canon 1.4x, if you have to use one at all. A 3x is almost a joke. This is incorrect. While an extender magnifies the image of a lens, and therefore any defects in the image, a good sharp lens will do well with a good sharp extender. Here are some lens tests with and without extenders (kenko pro 300 extenders): http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/r...lens-sharpness I use Kenko pro 300 extenders and they are very good. I even stack the 1.4 + 2x on a 500mm f/4 IS L lens and get excellent results and still get autofocus with a Canon 1D Mark II. Check these Alaskan brown bear images, each with technical details to show what was used: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear You can also check my bird gallery for other examples. The 400 f/5.6 L is a sharp lens, and will deliver good images with extenders if you can manual focus. Get the "right angle finder C" as it magnifies the image and will help you manually focus. Also, get a good extender. Roger "Don" wrote in message ... Folks I have been trying to use the Tamron SP AF TeleConvertor 300F-CA 2X with my 400 F5.6 L series lens but the results are dismal. I obviously was aware I would have to manual focus but I haven't been able to get a sharp shot or even a keeper for that matter yet. Any one has any ideas or similar experience or would care to comment and assist me if I am doing something wrong. I have tried from F11 to F14 on tripod etc. regards -- Don From Down Under |
Great tests! The 500/4 looks to be an awesome performer. I'm glad I got the
300/4 L IS over the 100-400 zoom. I've never seen a super tele zoom perform all that well. It is neat, but no surprise, to see a $70 Cheapo 50mm lens perform so well at such a wide aperture. John "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in message ... Bill Crocker wrote: As a rule, extenders do a lot to degrade the image. Added to that, Tamron leaves a lot to be desired. There is a reason why Canon's cost more. Consider using a Canon 1.4x, if you have to use one at all. A 3x is almost a joke. This is incorrect. While an extender magnifies the image of a lens, and therefore any defects in the image, a good sharp lens will do well with a good sharp extender. Here are some lens tests with and without extenders (kenko pro 300 extenders): http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/r...lens-sharpness I use Kenko pro 300 extenders and they are very good. I even stack the 1.4 + 2x on a 500mm f/4 IS L lens and get excellent results and still get autofocus with a Canon 1D Mark II. Check these Alaskan brown bear images, each with technical details to show what was used: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear You can also check my bird gallery for other examples. The 400 f/5.6 L is a sharp lens, and will deliver good images with extenders if you can manual focus. Get the "right angle finder C" as it magnifies the image and will help you manually focus. Also, get a good extender. Roger "Don" wrote in message ... Folks I have been trying to use the Tamron SP AF TeleConvertor 300F-CA 2X with my 400 F5.6 L series lens but the results are dismal. I obviously was aware I would have to manual focus but I haven't been able to get a sharp shot or even a keeper for that matter yet. Any one has any ideas or similar experience or would care to comment and assist me if I am doing something wrong. I have tried from F11 to F14 on tripod etc. regards -- Don From Down Under |
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote: Bill Crocker wrote: As a rule, extenders do a lot to degrade the image. Added to that, Tamron leaves a lot to be desired. There is a reason why Canon's cost more. Consider using a Canon 1.4x, if you have to use one at all. A 3x is almost a joke. This is incorrect. While an extender magnifies the image of a lens, and therefore any defects in the image, a good sharp lens will do well with a good sharp extender. Here are some lens tests with and without extenders (kenko pro 300 extenders): http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/r...lens-sharpness I use Kenko pro 300 extenders and they are very good. I even stack the 1.4 + 2x on a 500mm f/4 IS L lens and get excellent results and still get autofocus with a Canon 1D Mark II. Yeah. The main problem when I stack the 1.4 and 2.0 Canon converters isn't the image quality (focus is a problem though with my gumby 10D), but camera support. One needs telescope-class stuff, or draw a large sample of images. Get the "right angle finder C" as it magnifies the image and will help you manually focus. I was less than impressed with this implement. It does magnify, and it is somewhat useful for focusing with the 2.0 alone or 2.0+1.4 stacked, the optical quality is pretty awful. (Quality in the sense of viewing quality -- of course it doesn't affect captured image quality). It would also have been nice if the magnification "switch" was parfocal. These are fairly obvious, irking misfeatures for the high price one pays... |
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote: Bill Crocker wrote: As a rule, extenders do a lot to degrade the image. Added to that, Tamron leaves a lot to be desired. There is a reason why Canon's cost more. Consider using a Canon 1.4x, if you have to use one at all. A 3x is almost a joke. This is incorrect. While an extender magnifies the image of a lens, and therefore any defects in the image, a good sharp lens will do well with a good sharp extender. Here are some lens tests with and without extenders (kenko pro 300 extenders): http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/r...lens-sharpness I use Kenko pro 300 extenders and they are very good. I even stack the 1.4 + 2x on a 500mm f/4 IS L lens and get excellent results and still get autofocus with a Canon 1D Mark II. Yeah. The main problem when I stack the 1.4 and 2.0 Canon converters isn't the image quality (focus is a problem though with my gumby 10D), but camera support. One needs telescope-class stuff, or draw a large sample of images. Get the "right angle finder C" as it magnifies the image and will help you manually focus. I was less than impressed with this implement. It does magnify, and it is somewhat useful for focusing with the 2.0 alone or 2.0+1.4 stacked, the optical quality is pretty awful. (Quality in the sense of viewing quality -- of course it doesn't affect captured image quality). It would also have been nice if the magnification "switch" was parfocal. These are fairly obvious, irking misfeatures for the high price one pays... |
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote: Bill Crocker wrote: As a rule, extenders do a lot to degrade the image. Added to that, Tamron leaves a lot to be desired. There is a reason why Canon's cost more. Consider using a Canon 1.4x, if you have to use one at all. A 3x is almost a joke. This is incorrect. While an extender magnifies the image of a lens, and therefore any defects in the image, a good sharp lens will do well with a good sharp extender. Here are some lens tests with and without extenders (kenko pro 300 extenders): http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/r...lens-sharpness I use Kenko pro 300 extenders and they are very good. I even stack the 1.4 + 2x on a 500mm f/4 IS L lens and get excellent results and still get autofocus with a Canon 1D Mark II. Yeah. The main problem when I stack the 1.4 and 2.0 Canon converters isn't the image quality (focus is a problem though with my gumby 10D), but camera support. One needs telescope-class stuff, or draw a large sample of images. Get the "right angle finder C" as it magnifies the image and will help you manually focus. I was less than impressed with this implement. It does magnify, and it is somewhat useful for focusing with the 2.0 alone or 2.0+1.4 stacked, the optical quality is pretty awful. (Quality in the sense of viewing quality -- of course it doesn't affect captured image quality). It would also have been nice if the magnification "switch" was parfocal. These are fairly obvious, irking misfeatures for the high price one pays... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com