A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

10D, canon 400mm F5.6L & tamron teleconvertor



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 20th 04, 06:19 AM
Don
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #2  
Old November 20th 04, 08:44 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
  #3  
Old November 20th 04, 09:00 AM
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.


  #4  
Old November 20th 04, 12:37 PM
Bill Crocker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #6  
Old November 20th 04, 04:08 PM
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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





  #7  
Old November 21st 04, 04:09 AM
JohnR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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







  #8  
Old November 22nd 04, 11:04 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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...
  #9  
Old November 22nd 04, 11:04 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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...
  #10  
Old November 22nd 04, 11:04 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon 3700 or Canon A75 Christopher Muto Digital Photography 18 August 22nd 04 11:56 AM
Canon 10d or Nikon D70. Dmanfish Digital Photography 102 August 18th 04 12:26 PM
Canon EOS D10 vs. Fuji S2: Opinions? David Sleeter Digital Photography 7 July 23rd 04 12:25 AM
Kenko Pro 300 3X TeleConvertor ... problem? w / Canon EOS BPR2 35mm Photo Equipment 0 June 27th 04 03:32 PM
Ultimate Stocked Canon Camera Bag (Lens Selection) - LIMIT 6-7 lenses please! Nick J 35mm Photo Equipment 9 June 26th 04 01:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.