Tamron 1.4X SP AF Tele-Converter vs. Canon 1.4X Tele-Converter

[sopanasets]

I have Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L USM IS lens, and looking at Tamron or Canon tele-converter. The questions I have right now are:
1. There is something said about Tamron converter, in its manual that it works differently with 7 and 10 pin Canon Lenses, something like if your lens is 10 pin, then you get + 1 stop on apperture, and if you use 7 pin lens (which is 70-200 2.8L USM), you have + 2 stops. Does anyone have any experience with such combination?
2. Does it preserve Image Stabilization option when being used. It says that Canon 2x does it, but nothing is being said about Tamron 1.4 SP AF Pro (white). Does anyone know anything about it?
3. Is it worth paying for Canon $100 more ($284) vs. Tamron Pro ($179) vs. Tamron Regular black ($79). Is there a real difference in image quality or just a hype.

Thanks

[LightRules]

I have Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L USM IS lens, and looking at Tamron or Canon tele-converter. The questions I have right now are:
1. There is something said about Tamron converter, in its manual that it works differently with 7 and 10 pin Canon Lenses, something like if your lens is 10 pin, then you get + 1 stop on apperture, and if you use 7 pin lens (which is 70-200 2.8L USM), you have + 2 stops. Does anyone have any experience with such combination?
2. Does it preserve Image Stabilization option when being used. It says that Canon 2x does it, but nothing is being said about Tamron 1.4 SP AF Pro (white). Does anyone know anything about it?
3. Is it worth paying for Canon $100 more ($284) vs. Tamron Pro ($179) vs. Tamron Regular black ($79). Is there a real difference in image quality or just a hype.

1) See this http://www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage.
2) IS remains with both; I use the Tamron 2x "SP" and IS and AF remain, although AF is slower (expected).
3) Is it worth it, I don't think so. In fact, I also have the regular black Tamron 1.4x and it's about as good. Anyway, see my site for test shots.

[CyberDyneSystems]

With the f/2.8 lens none of the functionality of your lens will be lost using either T-con. You can use a 1.4X or 2X T-con with that lens and any Canon body and still get full AF. IS is never affected.

The electronics by the way do not change the fact that you will allways lose one stop of light with the 1.4X and 2 stops with the 2X.

[csnudelman]

If I had an expensive, quality lens like the 70-200L IS (I do have the 135L) there is no way I would put a 3rd party TC between my camera and that lens if the only reason was $100. I'd sell the cat or the dog or the child first to come up with the additional $100 before I used a 3rd party TC in your case (or mine). You already have questions in your mind. What's gonna happen if you buy the Tamron TC? I would rather wonder if I spent $100 more than needed than am I getting the quality I could have. If I were a 70-200L IS and someone stuck a Tamron or Sigma or whatever TC on my rear end I would just shut down. :p

[EOSAddict]

Are we in danger of assuming that 'generic' electronics manufacturers like Canon (who make photocopiers, fax machines and calculators) automatically make better lenses than manufacturers like Sigma/Tamron (who make ..... lenses) just because they don't have the Label?

[xuxu1]

If I had an expensive, quality lens like the 70-200L IS (I do have the 135L) there is no way I would put a 3rd party TC between my camera and that lens if the only reason was $100. I'd sell the cat or the dog or the child first to come up with the additional $100 before I used a 3rd party TC in your case (or mine). You already have questions in your mind. What's gonna happen if you buy the Tamron TC? I would rather wonder if I spent $100 more than needed than am I getting the quality I could have. If I were a 70-200L IS and someone stuck a Tamron or Sigma or whatever TC on my rear end I would just shut down. :p
Now... i would´nt sell the child... :shock: but in some way csnudelman (IMO) is right. If i can afford such a $$$ lens, then why should i consider a 3rd party TC? To be sure about compability, i´d go all the way with Canon.

No... i´m not saying that other brands as Canon are no good. There are lot´s of nice and good 3rd party lenses and accessories on the market. But i´m sticking to the "original" stuff and hope that i can use them on future Canon bodys with no fear that err99 will occure!

ED

[sopanasets]

If I had an expensive, quality lens like the 70-200L IS (I do have the 135L) there is no way I would put a 3rd party TC between my camera and that lens if the only reason was $100. I'd sell the cat or the dog or the child first to come up with the additional $100 before I used a 3rd party TC in your case (or mine). You already have questions in your mind. What's gonna happen if you buy the Tamron TC? I would rather wonder if I spent $100 more than needed than am I getting the quality I could have. If I were a 70-200L IS and someone stuck a Tamron or Sigma or whatever TC on my rear end I would just shut down. :p

This is my first post to the forum, but I'm very disappointed with the response. I'm not looking for the emotions, I'm looking for the facts, if it helps you, to concentrate on the issue itself, think of me as a guy who spent all of his money on expensive Canon lens, and now is trying to save a buck or two to feed his family, including kid, that he doesn't want to sell for extra 100 because it is a crime.

I would really appreciate actual answers to the questions, like the first 2 in the the thread. And I would like to thank people for those, the rest of if is irrelevant. Sorry.
Thank you.

[xuxu1]

This is my first post to the forum, but I'm very disappointed with the response. I'm not looking for the emotions, I'm looking for the facts, if it helps you, to concentrate on the issue itself, think of me as a guy who spent all of his money on expensive Canon lens, and now is trying to save a buck or two to feed his family, including kid, that he doesn't want to sell for extra 100 because it is a crime.

I would really appreciate actual answers to the questions, like the first 2 in the the thread. And I would like to thank people for those, the rest of if is irrelevant. Sorry.
Thank you.

No emotions from me at all, my friend. Just wrote my opinion and the way i see it in my case. I mean what i would do.

On the other hand... if you are so disgusted about the feedback why did you ask in the first place.

I love photography a lot. But if i would have to start thinking about 100 bucks savings on a TC, then i know i already committed a crime buying the expensive lens(es) that i could not afford and now my family suffers because of my poor behavior and the missing money for more important things.

Period.

Sorry for my poor english. It´s not my native language.
And now lets go back to photography....

ED

[csnudelman]

This is my first post to the forum, but I'm very disappointed with the response. I'm not looking for the emotions, I'm looking for the facts, if it helps you, to concentrate on the issue itself, think of me as a guy who spent all of his money on expensive Canon lens, and now is trying to save a buck or two to feed his family, including kid, that he doesn't want to sell for extra 100 because it is a crime.

I would really appreciate actual answers to the questions, like the first 2 in the the thread. And I would like to thank people for those, the rest of if is irrelevant. Sorry.
Thank you.

Being your first post to this forum you may not had been reading it during the recent, not -so-recent, and distant past where the tech differences between Canon, Nikon, Pentax and their 3rd party counterparts have been hashed over time and time again. I have seen more tech data than I could ever use, and most of it numerious time. It appears to me that the choice (between Canon and Sigme for instance) often times is not based on tech differences or advantages but emotional issues. Can I afford it? Can I really afford it? Can I not afford it? What will I be giving up if I spend the extra money? Will I be kicking myself in the butt for maybe years to come wondering if the less expensive item is as good? Therefore, along with the tech stuff a reply based on something else is sometimes just as valid.

[condyk]

This is my first post to the forum, but I'm very disappointed with the response. I'm not looking for the emotions, I'm looking for the facts ...

Sure, some reflection helps when offering an 'opinion' ... then it becomes considered advice :D which is probably what you wanted. Stick with it and you will start to sort wheat from chaff as you see it!

As I learnt more here, and through practice with my gear, I began to better separate sound advice, that addressed MY needs, from just 'opinion' that projects onto the questioner one own needs and desires, assuming they're right for everyone.

At the end of the day there are so many variables here that can impact on final output quality that it's hard to say if it's worth spending more or not on a TCon. Fact is, I was VERY happy with the Kenko Pro 300 1.4x I had, bought after reading lots of owner reviews, and I know many others are too.

BTW I used it with my ex 70-200mm f4 L, a lovely lens that I bought based on many 'opinions' expressed here, but it was not a lens that suited my needs :lol: Oh well :confused: I now now it isn't a good wildlife lens, even with a TCon :lol: :lol: I didn't know that then and allowed myself to be unduly influenced.

My Sigma TCon now works beautifully with my 100-300mm f4 Sigma, so maybe csnudelman, et al, have a point in there. MAYBE Canon to Canon, Sigma to Sigma is a better option.

Unfortunately, we don't REALLY know the FACT of the matter. Very few have tried all TCons in all conditions with all lenses. There is a dynamic goes on there that's hard to quantify. It's opinion and you have to sift it and decide for yourself in a context of what you prefer to spend.

Also, a real expert may get better results with a 300D, Tamron TCon and a Tokina zoom than someone else with the very best gear available. It's all part of the bigger picture around taking a photograph. The shooter is a sometimes a forgotten part of the system. You're probably more important than the TCon.

I would shop around for the very best price on the Kenko Pro or Tamron SP (I believe they are the same, both made by Hoya but you might want to check!) and then try it. If you like it keep it, if you don't then sell it on and buy the Canon. No harm done: not much cash lost. I think I made about £3.00 when I sold my 1.4X & 2.X! Or, get a SH one. Lowest risk financially. It's your own choice.

I think the 1.4x Canon is outstanding, maybe the best you can get, but I also subjectively, based on my own assessment of value, which is right for me and no on else, don't think it is worth the extra over a Kenko Pro or Tamron SP or Sigma. Other will disagree ... and you know what? They're right too :lol:

[DavidEB]

I have the cheaper Tamron converter and am pleased with it. I did not have the opportunity to do direct comparisons, but relied on the excellent work by fStopJojo (didn't get a chance to thank you for your good work yet, so thanks, if you read this....). There are other comparison tests available as well.

Here are some other points to consider....
canon 1.4 has weird protruding element, can only be used with some lenses (physically won't fit)
same for sigma
if I ever buy an f5.6 lens like the 100-400, the cheap tamron will retain auto-focus (canon wont)


works for me.

[sopanasets]

Sure, some reflection helps when offering an 'opinion' ... then it becomes considered advice :D which is probably what you wanted. Stick with it and you will start to sort wheat from chaff as you see it!

As I learnt more here, and through practice with my gear, I began to better separate sound advice, that addressed MY needs, from just 'opinion' that projects onto the questioner one own needs and desires, assuming they're right for everyone.

At the end of the day there are so many variables here that can impact on final output quality that it's hard to say if it's worth spending more or not on a TCon. Fact is, I was VERY happy with the Kenko Pro 300 1.4x I had, bought after reading lots of owner reviews, and I know many others are too.

BTW I used it with my ex 70-200mm f4 L, a lovely lens that I bought based on many 'opinions' expressed here, but it was not a lens that suited my needs :lol: Oh well :confused: I now now it isn't a good wildlife lens, even with a TCon :lol: :lol: I didn't know that then and allowed myself to be unduly influenced.

My Sigma TCon now works beautifully with my 100-300mm f4 Sigma, so maybe csnudelman, et al, have a point in there. MAYBE Canon to Canon, Sigma to Sigma is a better option.

Unfortunately, we don't REALLY know the FACT of the matter. Very few have tried all TCons in all conditions with all lenses. There is a dynamic goes on there that's hard to quantify. It's opinion and you have to sift it and decide for yourself in a context of what you prefer to spend.

Also, a real expert may get better results with a 300D, Tamron TCon and a Tokina zoom than someone else with the very best gear available. It's all part of the bigger picture around taking a photograph. The shooter is a sometimes a forgotten part of the system. You're probably more important than the TCon.

I would shop around for the very best price on the Kenko Pro or Tamron SP (I believe they are the same, both made by Hoya but you might want to check!) and then try it. If you like it keep it, if you don't then sell it on and buy the Canon. No harm done: not much cash lost. I think I made about £3.00 when I sold my 1.4X & 2.X! Or, get a SH one. Lowest risk financially. It's your own choice.

I think the 1.4x Canon is outstanding, maybe the best you can get, but I also subjectively, based on my own assessment of value, which is right for me and no on else, don't think it is worth the extra over a Kenko Pro or Tamron SP or Sigma. Other will disagree ... and you know what? They're right too :lol:

Thank you.

[csnudelman]

canon 1.4 has weird protruding element, can only be used with some lenses (physically won't fit)

Ever wonder if there is a good reason for this to be the case?

[blue_max]

You won't even get 100% agreement on lenses here. Some hate lenses as much as others love them. If you believe what you hear, there are some lenses that should never have left the factory and others that should wear the monka L, but don't.

Who is going to have both at the same time and are they 'good' copies or bad.

You want a definitive answer. There isn't one.

People have expressed an opinion and that is the best you are ever likely to get. If that doesn't suit your needs, buy both and tell us all which we should buy. This site is a forum with real people giving actual experience and opinions, not a review site.

Graham

(Bet you know already which you are going to choose)

[LightRules]

You're very welcome, David. I just posted this quick test (using a few of my TCs) and I think it's fairly representative of what you can expect. IMO, my Tamron "SP Pro" (not used in this test) will give near results to the Tamron 1.4xTC (used in this test). The MAIN points are these:

1) Only use TCs with excellent (tele) zooms and primes
2) Stop down, don't shoot wide open, it makes a BIG difference

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/45390033/original

[sopanasets]

You won't even get 100% agreement on lenses here. Some hate lenses as much as others love them. If you believe what you hear, there are some lenses that should never have left the factory and others that should wear the monka L, but don't.

Who is going to have both at the same time and are they 'good' copies or bad.

You want a definitive answer. There isn't one.

People have expressed an opinion and that is the best you are ever likely to get. If that doesn't suit your needs, buy both and tell us all which we should buy. This site is a forum with real people giving actual experience and opinions, not a review site.

Graham

(Bet you know already which you are going to choose)

Thank you.
Honestly I'm not looking for agreement here. I'm not a professional photographer, I'm not making money taking pictures. So being a kid as in "BIG KID" I like toys, and being BIG as in "BIG KID" I want to make a quilified decision, based on experience, unfortunately I don't have time/resourcres to do all testing myself so I have to rely on the judjement of people who have experience. And that's what I'm looking for. I appreciate your feedback, and completely agree with it.
What I don't appreciate, is someone who is giving advice not based on experience, but rather on "sales-like pitching bs". "Canon is better then Tamron" - May be, I want to know Why? Am I paying my extra buck for the executive private jet of some big corporation or for R&D of some smaller company?
Thank you once again.

[lordjim]

The Tamron SP AF 1.4X will do the job for 1/2 the price of the Canon. I do not think you will see any difference in the results between the two.

I use the Tamron with the 70-200 F4 L and it works great. I also use it with the 100-400 without any problems (except loosing AF as it goes beyond F5.6).

Some third party glasses, such as the Tamron SP AF extender, are good and (relatively) cheap. I do not see why we should not take advantage of this.

The above being said, I am not sure whether there is any difference in quality between the Tamron SP AF 1.4X and the prior version of the Tamron TC (which is even cheaper). You may be able to find some comparisons between the two on Fred Miranda's website.

To specifcally answer your questions:

1/ The SP AF has 10 pins as does the Canon which means it detects the FStops of your lens with the TC. You can not AF after F.5.6. So no problem with your 70-200 F2.8. I understand that the older Tamron has 7 pins and can not detect the corrected FStops which means that the camera can still AF beyond F5.6.

2/ The IS seems to work great with the 100-400. I assume it would work with the 70-200 F2.8 IS although it is not the same IS generation.

3/ no unless you have stocks in Canon and want to increase their bottom line.

Hope that helps.

[sopanasets]

The Tamron SP AF 1.4X will do the job for 1/2 the price of the Canon. I do not think you will see any difference in the results between the two.

I use the Tamron with the 70-200 F4 L and it works great. I also use it with the 100-400 without any problems (except loosing AF as it goes beyond F5.6).

Some third party glasses, such as the Tamron SP AF extender, are good and (relatively) cheap. I do not see why we should not take advantage of this.

The above being said, I am not sure whether there is any difference in quality between the Tamron SP AF 1.4X and the prior version of the Tamron TC (which is even cheaper). You may be able to find some comparisons between the two on Fred Miranda's website.

To specifcally answer your questions:

1/ The SP AF has 10 pins as does the Canon which means it detects the FStops of your lens with the TC. You can not AF after F.5.6. So no problem with your 70-200 F2.8. I understand that the older Tamron has 7 pins and can not detect the corrected FStops which means that the camera can still AF beyond F5.6.

2/ The IS seems to work great with the 100-400. I assume it would work with the 70-200 F2.8 IS although it is not the same IS generation.

3/ no unless you have stocks in Canon and want to increase their bottom line.

Hope that helps.
Thank you, Tamron SP AF that is :) .
I'll try to post some pictures, once I have them.
For now this thread can be closed.