Tamron SP AF 1.4X with Canon 70-200 F4L

[lordjim]

I just received my extender yesterday. Here are two pics with and without the extender for those who may be interested:

With extender:

http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lordjimpics/detail?.dir=/3f18&.dnm=5964.jpg&.src=ph

Without extender:

http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lordjimpics/detail?.dir=/3f18&.dnm=4293.jpg&.src=ph

Both pictures were taken at 1/640s F5.6 Iso 200.

AF was very fast and smooth. The camera detected the presence of the extender, properly blocked the fastest FStop at 5.6 and provided correct EXIF including the focal length.

I know that this is not a scientific comparison. In particular, there is nothing to compare the quality on the edges of the pics but, still, I am impressed by the sharpness of the image with extender. Please note that there was no effort to make a good image, the buildings are not even straight, I just wanted to compare both options from the window of my appartment.

Preliminary conclusion: if you need more reach at an affordable cost, the Tamron SP AF 1.4X appears to be a solution. Does anyone here use the Tamron SP 2X? Any sample pics?

[DavidEB]

I'm very interested.

can't really tell much from the shots you posted, maybe not enough detail or contrast in the subject.

Are you happy with the image quality? Did you compare the tamron to any other 1.4x TCs like the canon or sigma? and have you tried the Tamron 2x?

thanks

[lordjim]

David -

So far I am happy with the extender. However, I have not had time to take more pics with it yet. I will do so this week-end and post the results in this thread.

Not tested the Tamron SP AF 2X yet but if anyone in this forum has, I would be very interested to see the results.

Not tested the Canon 1.4X but found it very expensive for a TC.

[Andrew Pratt]

I'm very interested in what you find out...esp if you can get a 2X to try as well

[lordjim]

Here we are with some additional samples (all taken with extender):

Iso 200, 1/25 sec., F5.6 at 102mm with tripod

http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lordjimpics/detail?.dir=3f18&.dnm=f253.jpg&.src=ph (http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lordjimpics/detail?.dir=3f18&.dnm=f253.jpg&.src=ph)

Iso 100, 1/320sec, F5.6 at 280mm with tripod

http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lordjimpics/detail?.dir=3f18&.dnm=cddd.jpg&.src=ph (http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lordjimpics/detail?.dir=3f18&.dnm=cddd.jpg&.src=ph)


Iso 100, 1/320sec, F5.6 at 280mm with tripod

http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lordjimpics/detail?.dir=3f18&.dnm=a495.jpg&.src=ph (http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lordjimpics/detail?.dir=3f18&.dnm=a495.jpg&.src=ph)

Iso 100, 1/500 sec., F8 at 280 mm, handheld

http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lordjimpics/detail?.dir=3f18&.dnm=fcb5.jpg&.src=ph (http://cf.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/lordjimpics/detail?.dir=3f18&.dnm=fcb5.jpg&.src=ph)

I find the results ok but we are definitely loosing quality compared to the lens alone. In particular, I find the sharpness not as good as on other pics without extender. As expected, the extender is helpful but does not replace the 100-400 L. I could have stopped down a little but then it would have impacted DOFs. Your comments are welcome. Hope that helps.

[DavidEB]

thanks

[grego]

Not tested the Canon 1.4X but found it very expensive for a TC.

It is, but it's produced for me. I have the 2x Canon Extender, and I'd rather not stick a third part glass between my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens. Its worth it, but yes, it's pricey.

[lordjim]

Grego -

Do you have some sample pics with your Canon extender? I would be very interested in seeing the results as I may buy a used one soon. Thank you.