--i use the canon 400mm f5.6 & I have the canon TC. It is very sharp but of course no af without taping the pins. I also have the cheap tamron non-reporting 1.4 & it focusses well in btight light & seems just about as sharp. I have no experience with a 2X This picture was taken with 400mm + Tamron 1.4X
Thanks! Learned something new there. I saw those Kenko tc comparisons and one other one that look pretty decent. When I spring for one, I'll compare the prices with Canon.
I have a long way to go, but when I look at where I once was, I done good for me. And thanks to people here and those little flashes of "aha, that's what they were talking about" you get now and then.
The Kenko Pros were upgraded a few years ago: I don't know what happened with the Tamrons. I have two late-model Kenko Pro 300 1.4xes, and one older Tamron SP; the two Kenkos stacked are much better than the Tamron alone, which has a bit of haloing and exaggerates CA a little.
Quality of what ?
I'd rather stick with Canon, but could change my mind. Your situation is a little different than mine as I mainly need it for my 100-400. I'm going to forget the 2X for now and get the 1.4X but not right away, just got my car window mount, can't find where I was talking about that, so will stick it in here and if I don't get any feedback may start a new thread after I've had a chance to actually use it, been frantically taking photos (in lieu of scanning) and building an addition on a freebie web site, don't know if it is worth the trouble to me or them.
Pretty much rules out anything airborne, can't very well MF on that and would miss too many shots. Add that to the fact that anything beyond 400mm probably requires a tripod and panning/tracking, it is almost too much for my level of expertise.
I just saw this reply. On the assumption that you're not joking, what I was referring to was the order in which you attach the lens, converters, and cameras to each other. I was talking about temporal order. For example, you can first attach one converter to the lens, then the other, then the whole array of lens and two converters to the camera. Or, you can attach one converter to the camera, then the other, then the lens. Or you can attach one converter to the other, then the two converters to the lens, then the lens/converters combination to the camera. Etc.
Good point. What I meant was that the quality of the image that results from using the 70-200 and two converters is significantly worse than the quality of the image that would have resulted had I used the 70-200 with one converter and been close enough to the subject for it to occupy the same amount of the frame. Perhaps I overstated it with "significant". But my experience is that the difference in quality (using the same understanding of difference in quality) between the 70-200 alone and using it with one converter is negligible. I have no qualms about using two converters, and prefer to do that rather than upres the results from one converter.
--Actually if you tape the pins on the 1.4x tc it will af on a xxD body but only in bright light & may hunt focus. A non-reporting tc such as the Tamron will af.
So in your opinion, which one is better, the 1.4x tc taped (I usually do birds in good light but in the trees or shade, maybe it's not good enough), the Tamron (it's probably been discussed and I just can't remember), or the 1.7x mentioned by c. hammett (maybe you're not familiar with that one).
Brian Schneider
--I have both & usually pick up the Tammy (with my 400 5.6L) & the canon with the 70-200 2.8L. I really havnt noticed a big quality diff on the 400. The canon is noticably better on the zoom. I dont know anything about the 1.7.So in your opinion, which one is better, the 1.4x tc taped (I usually
do birds in good light but in the trees or shade, maybe it's not good
enough), the Tamron (it's probably been discussed and I just can't
remember), or the 1.7x mentioned by c. hammett (maybe you're not
familiar with that one).
Sigh. I'll have to look up xxD body, am guessing that's what the 20D
is, but don't know about 30 and on up.
I can learn to tape pins, and can tolerate some hunting and
misfocussing, just not a huge hassle of it.
I googled the 1.7x, as usual, mixed opinions, if you're going to use
one, get the Canon.
Thanks again for your input.
--Brian Schneider
So you're saying you have the Tamron 1.4x you use on your 400 and Canon 1.4x on the 70-200? Most people seem to be putting it on the latter. Your 400 is a prime (better but no zoom). Sounds like you have to tape pins on both, Tamron is cheaper . . .now I'm trying to figure why you'd want to bother with the 70-200 since you have 400 covered, but maybe the former is more versatile in some situations . . .and faster.
I've got a lot more reading to do there (and snow to deal with in the morning). Of course, I haven't looked at it (not being sarcastic), thanks for the link, so much out there. Saw some nice bird pics, can't remember which combo. Hardly anyone is talking about putting it on the 100-400. I figure unless you calculate differently, I'd max it to 560mm, sure would love 600
. Or more. Always want more. Plus I'm not sure you want to go totally wide open.Brian Schneider
--The Tamron is non-reporting, the camera doesnt know its there so no need to tape pins. The 1.4 on 70-200 gives me a 98-280 f4 lens with no noticible IQ loss.So you're saying you have the Tamron 1.4x you use on your 400 and
Canon 1.4x on the 70-200? Most people seem to be putting it on the
latter. Your 400 is a prime (better but no zoom). Sounds like you
have to tape pins on both, Tamron is cheaper . . .now I'm trying to
figure why you'd want to bother with the 70-200 since you have 400
covered, but maybe the former is more versatile in some situations .
. .and faster.
I've got a lot more reading to do there (and snow to deal with in the
morning). Of course, I haven't looked at it (not being sarcastic),
thanks for the link, so much out there. Saw some nice bird pics,
can't remember which combo. Hardly anyone is talking about putting
it on the 100-400. I figure unless you calculate differently, I'd
max it to 560mm, sure would love 600
more. Plus I'm not sure you want to go totally wide open.
I should look at your gallery. Later. Tnx again.
--Brian Schneider
