2x TC for tamron 70-200mm VC USD.

Phil Young

Phil Young

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,584
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
I have no idea about the quality of TC's since I've never used one, but I'm looking for a decent quality one that will mount on the above lens.

Anyone know of any??

Only interested in 2x.

Cheers :)
 
Interested to see how you get on with this as I'm thinking of getting a 1.4x for mine. As for which one everywhere seems to mention the kenko dgx pro series
 
Phil Young said:
I don't know anything Gazza! Never used a TC before lol.

Which ones would achieve AF - just Tamron?
Click to expand...
Ah, hang on Phil, im thinking you want to use it with the new superzoom Tamron, i see now its the 70-200mm you want to use it with

Your OK for AF with this lens provided you can get a TC to physically fit and the Kenkos will, would still advice against a 2x though

Sigma TC's seem to have a life of their own and i couldn't tell you if it would even fit your 70-200mm

Sorry over my initial confusion as to which lens you wanted to use a TC with
 
I would tend to agree with Gary, I tried a Kenko 2x and it was poor. I'm still using my Kenko 1.4 as it's every bit as good as a Canon one at half the price.
 
Depends wher you are thers one in manchester center cash generater. 40 quid.
 
The siggmas are matched to there leneses, so bit pot luck as to how good they are with other lenses
 
Image quality depends 90% on the mother lens, rather than the telecon - all they do is enlarge what's already there. Which is why 1.4x is always better than 1.7x or 2x.

I tested nine telecons side by side with three 70-200/2.8s (flippin thousands of images) and the main findings were there's very little difference in sharpness between different brands of the same magnification on the same lens, and no noticeable difference in AF speed either. Only IQ difference worth noting was edge sharpness, comparing say Canon Mk3 with Kenko, but even that's not massive, and given the kind of subjects you're likely to shoot at 300-400mm, edges will quite probably be out of focus anyway.

If it makes a difference, Kenkos have a plastic barrel, Canon, Nikon and Sigma telecons are metal. The other point worth making is it's possible some telecon/lens combos will work better than others with certain lens designs, depending on how the image is presented to the telecom from the rear of the lens, but as a general rule, the longer the better.
 
Thanks Rich. Appreciate the input.

A question then: why is the nikon mk3 2x allegedly so much better than the mk2???

Won't the TC's use different quality glass in order to improve the IQ (in theory)?

So you reckon there's not a noticable difference in the kenko 2x compared to the nikon mk3?
 
Phil Young said:
Thanks Rich. Appreciate the input.

A question then: why is the nikon mk3 2x allegedly so much better than the mk2???

Won't the TC's use different quality glass in order to improve the IQ (in theory)?

So you reckon there's not a noticable difference in the kenko 2x compared to the nikon mk3?
Click to expand...

The problem with most telecon comparisons is very few people actually do accurate side by side tests, and they're comparing different combos with different lenses in different situations. So of course they get different results that they attribute to the telecon, but that's simply not the case. I spent two weeks doing nothing but side by side comparisons, dozens of combinations - nine telecons, three lenses, and a Nikon/Canon adapter so that both brands could be compared for sharpness on the same camera (Canon 5D3). Conclusion: it's the mother lens that makes by far the biggest difference. And that's pretty obvious when you think about it. Telecons are just magnifying lenses, not too complex optically.

Have a look at these comparisons on TheDigitalPicture, Canon 70-200/2.8 Mk2 with Canon Mk2 and Mk3 extenders. Toggle the arrow top-middle of the screen http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=1 Then load up different options, comparing the two extenders at different focal lengths and apertures. The biggest difference there, TBH the only significant difference, is the Mk3 has better edge sharpness with shorter focal lengths at max aperture.

Your Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC is pretty sharp in the centre at the long end, so you're off to a good start :)
 
I've got a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x and a Canon MkIII 2x and IQ seems to be about the same on both. I'm looking to get a Canon MkIII 1.4x to go on my 300 f4L IS and so free up the Kenko to go with my other lenses as it's compatible with most of them. I did get a Kenko Pro300 DGX 2x a while back but it had a problem when the lens was on AF (the image in the viewfinder would jump about) but I tried it on manual focus and the IQ was more than useable. I was using the Kenko 2x on a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkI which doesn't take any converters really well anyway but at f8 the IQ was good enough. If the AF had worked properly I would have kept it without a problem.
 
modchild said:
I've got a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x and a Canon MkIII 2x and IQ seems to be about the same on both. I'm looking to get a Canon MkIII 1.4x to go on my 300 f4L IS and so free up the Kenko to go with my other lenses as it's compatible with most of them. I did get a Kenko Pro300 DGX 2x a while back but it had a problem when the lens was on AF (the image in the viewfinder would jump about) but I tried it on manual focus and the IQ was more than useable. I was using the Kenko 2x on a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkI which doesn't take any converters really well anyway but at f8 the IQ was good enough. If the AF had worked properly I would have kept it without a problem.
Click to expand...
Cheers Stu.

Do you have any examples of the 2x and the 70-200mm??
 
Not with the Kenko 2x as I didn't keep it because of the faulty AF. I have got a shot with the Canon 2x on my 70-200 II to give you some idea of IQ.

This was taken with my 70D at f8, 1/400sec, ISO100 and at 400mm. It's a jpeg and SOOC with no other PP apart from a crop.


Yorkshire Bird by modchild, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I've tended to use my kenko 2x with a canon 100L macro, and find it very useful. I haven't made much use of it with the Tamron 70-200VC other than a few tests and a couple of moon photo's a while back, bit I'm happy with it and intend on getting a kenko 1.4x as well.
 
Edited - not what Phil was looking for.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately nothing much that you haven't seen before. As I said, I haven't made much use of the 2x with the 70-200 as I mainly used it with my macro lens.
I'll probably get some more use from the 70-200 when the decent weather comes in but for now it's just pretty much what I'm sure was posted a few months back, taken in jpeg and straight from camera.
 
Phil
I was in the same boat in that I wondered how good 2x TC's were. I thought the same as you too, buy one cheap enough and if its not up to much sell it on.
I bought a Kenko 2X DG version (not sure how that compares with the newer DGX). I also knew that I would be losing AF on my 70-300mm VR lens but if results were promising I thought about treating myself to a faster lens so that I could benefit from not having to carry as many lenses with me to cover the same ranges etc.
Any way I took photos with my D7000 mounted on a tripod at the 300mm end and at f11 and ISO 200 firstly without the TC then with it, so at 600mm. I used live view in AF and used the magnifying option on the screen to make sure that the focus was as sharp as it could possibly be.
Then for comparison cropped the 300mm images to match, as closely as possible, the 600m to see which gave the best results, 600mm at full res with the TC or 300mm cropped at a lower res but no TC.
I found that the the TC gave far softer images and that the 300mm crop was still sharper. Only my findings and the DGX may be better. Upshot was that the TC is now sold.
Images below for you to view, not interesting subjects I know but it was just a test.
View attachment 6929
300mm


View attachment 6930
300mm with 2x TC

View attachment 6931
300mm crop


View attachment 6933

300mm TC attached

View attachment 6934

300mm crop
 
The ones with the 300mm cropped look better but they are just that, cropped the ones with the 300mm and 2x arent cropped so offer higher resolution files which will equate to bigger prints if needed and the ability to crop even further if needed, the 2x is always a compromise, i would buy cheap and test yourself
 
You know what guys.

I've come to a conclusion...

I always make sure I have sharp lenses, anything that looks remotely soft has always been sold or taken back.

I think I'll just wait until I get the new tamron 150-600mm and forget the idea of something that I'll probably end up now using anyway.

Thanks for the help in decision making to all those that gave their input.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top