PDA

View Full Version : Canon EF 75-300 + TC-DC58A


Narniaman
2nd of April 2005 (Sat), 23:35
I need someone to tell me why this is a bad idea.

First, some background. About three years ago I got a Sony F707. For telephoto help, I purchased an Olympus B-300 1.7 teleconverter and an adapter. I thought the combination worked quite well.

About a month ago I decided to make my move to the big time, and bought a Canon EOS 20D and a Canon EF 75-300 Imaged Stabilized Ultrasonic focusing telephoto lens. I have extremely pleased with the 20D and reasonably pleased with the 75-300 lens.

Among other things, I use the camera to take pictures at my daughters softball games (talking about major college softball here). When taking pictures beyond the outfield fence, I have felt that I would like just a little bit more focal length than 300 mm -- I can get a reasonably good shot of the batter and catcher, but it could be a little bit better. So I took a look at the L-series 70-280 f 2.8 lens and the 100-400 f 4 lens -- which retails for something like $2000 and $1600.

I took a series of pictures with both lens and compared them with the EF 75-300 lens, and decided that while the more expensive lens gave better pictures, they weren't a $1000 dollars better pictures.

While pondering over what to do, I had a brainstorm. The EF 75-300 lens has a filter mount diameter of 58 mm -- which is exactly what my Sony F707 had. I figured that it would be possible to attach the Olympus B-300 teleconverter to the front of the EF 75-300, and so I tried it.

It works -- and it works almost too good to be true, so I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing.

First, since the teleconverter is attached to the front of the EF lens, it doesn't affect the electronic interaction between the 20 D and the EF lens. Autofocus still works just fine.

Second, the image stabilization on the EF lens works without problems.

Third, while the B-300 increases the focal length by 1.7, I don't take a hit in the speed of the lens. The B-300 has a large lens and a smaller lens, so the light gathering capacity in increased -- and you don't lose f-stops. In other words, the EF 75-300 f4-f5.6 lens becomes a 135-510 mm f4-5.6 lens.

Fourth, I can also use the B-300 on my 50 mm F1.4 lens, which also has a 58 mm filter ring, and wind up with a 85 mm F1.4 lens. I've tried taking some pictures with the 20D's ASA pushed to 3200, and you can virtually can take good pictures in dark rooms without any flash.

How about the sharpness? Well, I went back where I took the pictures with the L-series lens (a photo store) and snapped away. The L-series 100-400 is just a tad sharper -- but certainly not $1000 sharper.

I'm attaching a picture I took this morning from my back deck. The street sign is about 400 meters away, or about one-fourth of a mile. It's far enough away that unless you have 20/20 vision you can't see it. This is the combination working at a focal length of 510 mm. I used an f-stop of f16 and an ASA equivalent of 1600. The resulting shutter speed was 1/350th of a second.

This picture is cropped down from the original, which was about 3600 x 2400, to about 1280 x 900.

The other thing I should mention is that Canon has a teleconverter -- the TC-DC58A, which has a 1.5 power and is designed for the Canon Power G series of digital cameras. Just like the B-300, you can screw it directly onto a 58 mm lens.

Comments anyone?

CRE@TE
3rd of April 2005 (Sun), 00:34
Canon also has a 52mm version, that should work the same way on the 50mm 1.8. Would still be pretty bright even if the f stop did take a slight hit.

porschewrx
3rd of April 2005 (Sun), 08:28
Narniaman can you post some pictures with and with out the tele-converter? Maybe using the 75-300 take a picture of an object that fills the view finder then using the tele-converter zoom out so the same object fills the view finder again so basically you are at the same focal length. This way we have a way to compare any lose or gain of quality in the lens due to the converter.

Thanks for the post.

CRE@TE
3rd of April 2005 (Sun), 11:25
One thing I sense may be a downfall of this setup. The extra weight of the converter may take a toll on the focusing motor.

Just a thought.

Narniaman
3rd of April 2005 (Sun), 12:32
Okay, here's some pictures. As you can see, it's raining here in Oregon (again). The object of attention is the flowering bush in the back of a neighbor's yard, perhaps 50 meters or so away.

All pictures are using the Canon 20D with the ASA set at 1600 and the f-stop set at f6.7. Ultrasonic stabilization was used. However, the autofocus was turned off because of difficulty focusing on the bush -- probalby because of the fir tree in front of the bush. The pictures were taken at the top jpg resolution -- 3504 x 2336, and were resized to 640 x 480 for posting purposes. Both original prints were "sharpened" using Thumbsplus software.

The first picture was taken using the Canon EF 75-300 lens set to a focal length of 170 mm. The shutter speed (set automatically) was 1/350th second.
The second picture was taken with the Canon B-300 attached to the front of the EF 75-300. The EF lens was set to a focal lenght of 100 mm, with the resulting combination being 170 mm. The f-stop was again 6.7, with the resulting shutter speed again being 1/250th of a second. I think the difference in shutter speeds was due to changes in the cloud cover.

Narniaman
3rd of April 2005 (Sun), 12:35
To allow more study of the detail, the next two pictures show cropped images from pics #1 (no TC) and #2 (with TC). I tried to crop to produce a picture of 800 x 600 pixels; however, I had to resize these two crops to 640 x 480 for bandwidth purposes.

The third picture shows the cropped picture without the teleconverter; the fourth is with the teleconverter.

Addendum: After looking at these pictures, I wondered if perhaps I had made a mistake, and so I decided to again take a picture with the teleconverter -- and I have switched the new TC picture for the old one. The only difference is the shutter speed on this new picture is 1/350th of a second.

Narniaman
3rd of April 2005 (Sun), 12:38
To my untrained eye both these pictures look pretty much the same. To try to see if there was some difference, I did a "supercrop" on the originals. Picture #5 is the supercrop without the teleconverter, and picture #6 is with the teleconverter. The cropped images are about 130-140 pixels wide, and are converted to 640 x 480 just for viewing purposes.

At this resolution you can see some loss of resolution with the teleconverter.

These pictures, of course, are with the Olympus B-300 1.7 Teleconverter. I will probably wind up putting down $200 for the Canon TC-DC58A teleconverter, which has a multiplication factor of 1.5. The outer lens appears somewhat larger, so I'm wondering if it doesn't have even more light amplication than the B-300.

ADDENDUM: I've redone the teleconverter picture, and here's the new supercrop, again about 140 pixels wide. It looks to me that the sharpness is pretty much the same with and without the teleconverter.

porschewrx
3rd of April 2005 (Sun), 12:45
Thanks for comparing the two setups for us.