Print Page | Close Window

TC Guide II 200/2.8 + 1.4X 1.7X 2X Tests

Printed From: Dyxum.com
Category: Equipment forums
Forum Name: Adapters and converters
Forum Description: Discussions for various adapters and converters
URL: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22154
Printed Date: 13 April 2024 at 04:32


Topic: TC Guide II 200/2.8 + 1.4X 1.7X 2X Tests
Posted By: eccl
Subject: TC Guide II 200/2.8 + 1.4X 1.7X 2X Tests
Date Posted: 25 October 2007 at 07:07
TC Guide Version II (Part 1 200mm & TCs):
================================================

Any user of TC or potential user of TC will always want to know how good or bad is a particular TC when used with a particular lens before making their purchasing decision. In other words, how much quality loss will one get by adding a particular TC to a lens.

The short answer is from 5-10% loss to 20-30% quality lost depending on the following factor:

1) OEM Matched or Dedicated TC (between 5-10%)
Minolta APO, KM APO or Sony APO or Sigma EX

2) Pro series TC (Kenko Pro 300, Pro 300 DG or Tamron SP) (5-15%)
Image quality will always better than generic TC

3) 1.4X or 2X (5-10% vs 10-20%)
1.4X TC will always give better image quality than 2X

4) F stop being used (Wide open vs Stop down)
Shooting stop down will always yield better image quality than shooting wide open. This is especially critical for lens that has better performance at smaller aperture.

5) MC7 (7 Elements) vs MC4 (4 Elements)
7 Elements TC in most cases will give better image quality than 4 Elements version.

6) Prime vs Zoom
Using a prime lens in most cases will yield better image quality than zoom lens.

7) AF vs MF
If the TC and lens combination will not be able to AF < F4.5 for 1.4XTC or < F5.6 for 2X TC. How good/accurate can you MF the lens if the viewfinder is dim?

The above factors or combination of factors will directly affected the image quality.

Bottom Line:

- Use dedicated matched TC whenever possible.
- Use 1.4X if you do not need 2X
- Use Kenko Pro 300 (DG)/Tamron SP if this converter fits your lens
- Use a 7 Elements TC
- Stop down your lens if you have a regular TC and still want sharp results.

Anyone remember GIGO (Garbage in garbage out), this also applies to lens and TC combination. If you start with a fast sharp lens and use a dedicated/matched TC you will always get excellent image quality. If you start with a slow unsharp lens, even if you use the best TC, your results will not be very good.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1 200mm telephoto and teleconverters test results:

Minolta 200mm F2.8 APO is one of the sharpest lens in Minolta lineup, lets see the resulting image of using with different TCs

Minolta 200/2.8 APO G is tested with the following TCs:

1) Minolta APO 1.4X ver II
2) Minolta APO 2X ver II
3) Tamron SP 1.4X
4) Tamron SP 2X
5) Vivitar 1.4X
6) Vivitar 2X (MC7)
7) Promaster 1.7X
8) Kenko 2X (MC7)
9) Phoenix C/D 2X (MC7)

The last 2 sets of tests compare 200/2.8 + 2X TC vs a 400mm prime and a 100-400 Telephoto zoom at 400mm.

Minolta 200/2.8 APO + APO 2X vs
Sigma 400/5.6 APO TELEMACRO
Minolta 100-400 APO Tele Zoom
@ 400mm both wide open and @ F16

I'll let the pictures do the talking.

200mm original @ F2.8



200mm original image zoom to 140% @ F2.8, F8 and F16



1.4X TCs Compare Center @ F4


1.4X TCs Compare Edge @ F4


1.4X TCs Compare Center @ F11


1.4X TCs Compare Edge @ F11



200mm original image zoom to 200% @ F2.8, F8 and F16


2X TCs Compare Center @ F5.6


2X TC Compare Edge @ F5.6


2X TCs Compare Centre @ F16


2X TCs Compare Edge @ F16


1.7X & 2X Compare Center @F2.8 & F5.6


1.7X & 2X Compare Edge @F8 & F16


1.7X & 2X Compare Center @F8 & F16


1.7X & 2X Compare Edge @ F8 & F16


200 APO +2X APO TC vs Sigma 400 APO TELEMACRO vs 100-400 APO Centre Wide Open


200 APO + 2X APO TC vs Sigma 400 APO TELEMACRO vs 100-400 APO Edge Wide Open


200 APO + 2X APO TC vs Sigma 400 APO TELEMACRO vs 100-400 APO Center F16


200 APO + 2X APO TC vs Sigma 400 APO TELEMACRO vs 100-400 APO Edge F16


This guide will be updated with similar tests of prime and zooms. The next one will be 70-210/4 (Beercan). Stay tuned.

Comment or suggestion welcome.
eccl

-------------
16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.7 50/2.8 85/1.4 100/2 100/2.8 180/3.5 200/2.8 300/4 400/5.6 500/7.2 500/8

Zoom, TC and other lenses too numerous to list!



Replies:
Posted By: jrfarrar
Date Posted: 25 October 2007 at 18:03

Fantastic and thanks for your time doing that!

Of course you knew I was going to ask for more though right?

How about adding in the exact same crop but just with the 200/2.8? Show the difference in blowing up vs adding TC?

Clearly the matched converter outperformed but I was surprised how much difference in color between them.


Posted By: gsaronni
Date Posted: 25 October 2007 at 18:15
Great work. Someday I will get the Minolta 2X APO TC, but still not decided because I dont know if my 200G is HS or not(the seller told it was upgraded, but I dont know how to check)

Wich version would be more interesting, the I or II? I have heard the II version is very slow with non HS 200G

Regards

-------------
35/1.8 | 50/1.4 | 50M | 100/2
CZ 16-80 | Tamron 70-300 USD
XZ-2 | A700 | A77 M2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsaronni/


Posted By: ab012
Date Posted: 25 October 2007 at 18:20
very interesting results. damn the 200G is good

with the 200G+2xAPO - is the change in colour of the 'united' when wide open CA or something else?

-------------
Bernard

fun fun fun


Posted By: dd001
Date Posted: 25 October 2007 at 18:29
Wow, nice and interesting comparison, thanks for taking the time to do it!

David

PS: One typo I think:
The last item should not be:
200 APO + 2X APO TC vs Sigma 400 APO TELEMACRO vs 100-400 APO Center F16
But
200 APO + 2X APO TC vs Sigma 400 APO TELEMACRO vs 100-400 APO Edge F16


-------------
David - http://www.defoort.com/photos - My Gallery


Posted By: eccl
Date Posted: 25 October 2007 at 21:05
Originally posted by jrfarrar jrfarrar wrote:


Fantastic and thanks for your time doing that!

Of course you knew I was going to ask for more though right?

How about adding in the exact same crop but just with the 200/2.8? Show the difference in blowing up vs adding TC?

Clearly the matched converter outperformed but I was surprised how much difference in color between them.


Good idea, I'll try to add the same crop of the 200/2.8 blow up 1.4 times and 2 times.

I was surprised too regarding the color as I have not changed anything on my camera (A100 AWB on tripod 2sec mirror locked up with RC-1000S) just using different TC.


-------------
16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.7 50/2.8 85/1.4 100/2 100/2.8 180/3.5 200/2.8 300/4 400/5.6 500/7.2 500/8

Zoom, TC and other lenses too numerous to list!


Posted By: eccl
Date Posted: 25 October 2007 at 21:08
Originally posted by gsaronni gsaronni wrote:

Great work. Someday I will get the Minolta 2X APO TC, but still not decided because I dont know if my 200G is HS or not(the seller told it was upgraded, but I dont know how to check)

Wich version would be more interesting, the I or II? I have heard the II version is very slow with non HS 200G

Regards


If the 200 G is HS it should have a focus hold button. I only use ver II or D or Sony TC with my 200 G. I believe ver I has faster focusing due to the difference in gearing ratio. You cannot go wrong with either ver I or ver II as the optical still remain the same.

-------------
16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.7 50/2.8 85/1.4 100/2 100/2.8 180/3.5 200/2.8 300/4 400/5.6 500/7.2 500/8

Zoom, TC and other lenses too numerous to list!


Posted By: eccl
Date Posted: 25 October 2007 at 21:09
Originally posted by dd001 dd001 wrote:

Wow, nice and interesting comparison, thanks for taking the time to do it!

David

PS: One typo I think:
The last item should not be:
200 APO + 2X APO TC vs Sigma 400 APO TELEMACRO vs 100-400 APO Center F16
But
200 APO + 2X APO TC vs Sigma 400 APO TELEMACRO vs 100-400 APO Edge F16


Thank you for letting me know. I have fixed the typo

-------------
16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.7 50/2.8 85/1.4 100/2 100/2.8 180/3.5 200/2.8 300/4 400/5.6 500/7.2 500/8

Zoom, TC and other lenses too numerous to list!


Posted By: eccl
Date Posted: 25 October 2007 at 21:12
Originally posted by ab012 ab012 wrote:

very interesting results. damn the 200G is good

with the 200G+2xAPO - is the change in colour of the 'united' when wide open CA or something else?


I believe the TC has something to do with the color cast.

-------------
16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.7 50/2.8 85/1.4 100/2 100/2.8 180/3.5 200/2.8 300/4 400/5.6 500/7.2 500/8

Zoom, TC and other lenses too numerous to list!


Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 26 October 2007 at 09:49

As usual Ed you have come up with something informative and useful -- a magnum opus on tcons.

Thanks very much.

-------------
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers


Posted By: revdocjim
Date Posted: 26 October 2007 at 14:25
Originally posted by eccl eccl wrote:



If the 200 G is HS it should have a focus hold button.


Yes, but I believe he was wondering whether his was an upgraded original or not. The original doesn't have the focus hold button but if it has been upgraded I believe the AF speed is similar to the newer version. I don't know an absolute way to verify if it has been upgraded...

Originally posted by eccl eccl wrote:


I only use ver II or D or Sony TC with my 200 G. I believe ver I has faster focusing due to the difference in gearing ratio. You cannot go wrong with either ver I or ver II as the optical still remain the same.


I recently switched from a ver.II to a ver.I on my 1.4X
The ver.II has a gear ratio of 1:2, where as the ver.I is 1:1
I have visually verified this difference. I have experienced no problems at all with either version T/C on the 200G. Ver.I is faster though. Same speed as without any T/C at all.

I haven't found a ver.I 2X yet so I'm still using the ver.II
The gear ration on the ver.II 2X is 1:4 but I'm not sure what the gear ration is for the ver.I 2X My guess would be 1:2

This test was very helpful for me because I never realized what a difference stopping down makes. Without the T/C the 200 is such a sharp lens that I never worry about stopping down. Also, I guess I somehow thought that at f/4 with the 1.4X or f/5.6 with the 2X you are already stopped down but the fact of the matter is that the lens is wide open.

Thanks for the great info.

-------------
http://revdocjim.smugmug.com/ - Gallery A7S, A7Rii, Batis 18/2.8, 25/2 Sony 35/2.8, 55/1.8, 90/2.8M, 24-105/4, Minolta 135STF, 200/2.8 http://goo.gl/vMcLcr - Blog


Posted By: bengeo
Date Posted: 26 October 2007 at 14:57

Very interesting comparison. One thing I did notice was that the "1.4X TCs Compare Center @ F4" 200 + 1.4x image says "F22" on it?

Andy


-------------
http://www.bengeo.com" rel="nofollow - My Photos







Posted By: tankm
Date Posted: 26 October 2007 at 15:26
Thanks for sharing. Great info and useful information for all.

-------------
Visit my photo album at http://tankm.fotki.com - http://tankm.fotki.com


Posted By: eccl
Date Posted: 26 October 2007 at 16:43
Originally posted by bengeo bengeo wrote:


Very interesting comparison. One thing I did notice was that the "1.4X TCs Compare Center @ F4" 200 + 1.4x image says "F22" on it?

Andy


Oops, I picked the wrong picture, I'll update it with the correct one ASAP. Thanks for letting me know.




-------------
16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.7 50/2.8 85/1.4 100/2 100/2.8 180/3.5 200/2.8 300/4 400/5.6 500/7.2 500/8

Zoom, TC and other lenses too numerous to list!


Posted By: eccl
Date Posted: 27 October 2007 at 03:35
I have added a 140% and 200% of original images for comparison.

-------------
16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.7 50/2.8 85/1.4 100/2 100/2.8 180/3.5 200/2.8 300/4 400/5.6 500/7.2 500/8

Zoom, TC and other lenses too numerous to list!


Posted By: jrfarrar
Date Posted: 28 October 2007 at 17:49

Interesting. The matched TC shots look better to me than the zoomed in originals.


Posted By: eccl
Date Posted: 30 October 2007 at 05:43
I have added 3 more teleconverters:

Promaster 1.7X
Kenko 2X MC7
Phoenix 2X MC7


-------------
16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.7 50/2.8 85/1.4 100/2 100/2.8 180/3.5 200/2.8 300/4 400/5.6 500/7.2 500/8

Zoom, TC and other lenses too numerous to list!


Posted By: Eclipse
Date Posted: 03 November 2007 at 09:41
Thanks very much for this post, I've just found it- you must have taken a lot of time and care to do this so thoroughly, and it has certainly helped me take a decision or two... it's now bookmarked!


Posted By: eccl
Date Posted: 18 November 2007 at 04:18
Nov 17: updated guide with correct image of 2X TC Edge @ F5.6

-------------
16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.7 50/2.8 85/1.4 100/2 100/2.8 180/3.5 200/2.8 300/4 400/5.6 500/7.2 500/8

Zoom, TC and other lenses too numerous to list!


Posted By: kathyk
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 04:57
Is there a best 1.4x converter to use with the 200 HSG to maintain the fast focus speed?

I tried a 2x original TC and it was very slow to focus and hunting was very bad. It was a used converter and I returned it. Now I'd like to try a 1.4x. Thanks for any tips/suggestions.


Posted By: Dinostrich
Date Posted: 19 April 2008 at 10:11
Check out on this forum -
"Suggest to me the best generic 1.4 TC for Minolta 200" by pieroim dated 09 April 2008

Also there have been other threads touching on this topic - check the list.



-------------
I shot some film yesterday. I was told last night that film was dead so today I shot some more.


Posted By: Eclipse
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 18:04
I have a version II Minolta 2x converter which AFs fast with my HSG 200/2.8, though I find the combination hunts a lot unless I use a monopod (unless I'm in a position to be able to hold it very steady).


Posted By: Dinostrich
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 22:18
Not a fan of hunting and not just on cameras

Anyway, assuming I can get away with hand-holding the 200/2.8 + 2X TC in most circumstances ( can with the 1.4X TC ) the question is what effect does it have on image quality ?

Frankly I am hard pushed to notice any material degradation with the 1.4X. Perhaps it is ARMD which the NHS does not see - or at least recognise !

I am hoping you will say it is most noticeable as I have laboured under the delusion recently that I have no need to add to the current kit.

So or   

-------------
I shot some film yesterday. I was told last night that film was dead so today I shot some more.


Posted By: Earl E. Bird
Date Posted: 24 April 2008 at 23:54
Originally posted by Dinostrich Dinostrich wrote:

Not a fan of hunting and not just on cameras

... the question is what effect does it have on image quality ?

Frankly I am hard pushed to notice any material degradation with the 1.4X. Perhaps it is ARMD which the NHS does not see - or at least recognise !

...

So or   


Hi,

I use the 2,8/200G together with the Minolta TC 2x D version for some years.
I have the impression that the purple fringing gets stronger with back light, compared to the lens without the TC. I mean if you shoot birds with the sky being in the background you can get quite strong purple lines at the contrast edges. Without having done formal testing but with experience of many photos I would say the single lens does a better job in this regard.

Another thing is bokeh. I would say that under critical circumstances the lens alone could produce slightly better bokeh. But this is difficult to judge without having done formal testing. It's my personal impression from practical photography with and without the TC.

Contrast. The lens alone produces high contrast. Visible less than the Zeiss 1,8/135 but more than most other lenses. If you add the 2x TC the contrast goes down a little bit, I would say to a visible degree.But the difference between the Zeiss lens and the single 2,8/200G is much more visible than the difference between the single 2,8/200G and the lens combined with the 2x TC.

Sharpness. I found out that with using a tripod, the 2,8/200G + 2x TC's sharpness is still at a high level that I can not get when using the lens + TC without a tripod. 400mm is just too long. I use the lens with A100 and 7D, SSS and AS is just not good enough to utilize the full potential regarding sharpness that the 2,8/200G + 2x TC could deliver.
So I would say, the missing tripod collar is the critical factor if you shouldn't want use a workaround for tripod shooting, not an optical caused loss of sharpness due to the 2x TC.

And yes, the AF of the combo gets terrible slow and has a tendency to hunting that is stronger than with the single lens.

But what the heck, if you already have the 200mm lens and want a cheap 400mm reach, the 2x TC is the best solution.


Posted By: Eclipse
Date Posted: 25 April 2008 at 08:42
I don't recall finding the MkII/HS combination at all slow when I've used it for racing. Will try it this weekend and check.


Posted By: Dinostrich
Date Posted: 29 April 2008 at 12:24
So how did the weekend at the gee-gees go ?

Did you get a chance to check out the 200+TC2X ?

200/2xTC = 1 Kilo & 178mm

Tokina 400/5.6 = 990gms & 202mm

Can hand-hold the Tokina in most circumstances and based on the above figures should be able to with the 200/2.8 ( sometimes use a monopod but only ever use a tripod in extremis especially for birding ).

Purple fringeing ( CA ) does happen with "birds-in-flight" type shots especially against a bright blue sky but I have only experienced it on very few occasions ( worst offender has been the Beercan ! ) on the 7 ( film ) so I do not feel it is a major concern in this instance.

Now comes the dilemma - with the 400/5.6 I can use a 1.5X TC ( effective 600/8 ) and get away with it in reasonable conditions particularly with a fast film and manual focus is not a problem having "cut my teeth" on a SRT101. Not sure that I would want to put a third-party 3X TC on the 200/2.8.

Maybe the answer is to keep the Tokina and keep a 1.5X TC on it all the time and get the Minolta 2X TC for the 200. Thus with 2 lenses & 3 TCs I get 200-600 from 2.8-8.

Decisions, decisions nothing but decisions


-------------
I shot some film yesterday. I was told last night that film was dead so today I shot some more.


Posted By: Eclipse
Date Posted: 30 April 2008 at 10:43
Missed the gee-gees -weather and me being not 100%. I hope to get to the races in the next few weeks, I've missed so many meetings this year. Unfortunately I'll be out of action completely for a while in a few weeks as I have to have a bit of surgery in June- hopefully this will mean I'll not keep missing things through being off-colour once it is done and I've resurfaced...


Posted By: Dinostrich
Date Posted: 01 May 2008 at 19:37
Sorry to hear you are ugonjwa but glad to hear it will be sorted out soon.

One day some day I will probably have to have two hips and one knee sorted out. Have an agreement with the quack - he will put up with me whingeing as long as I can put up with the cause - I think he gets the better of the deal.

-------------
I shot some film yesterday. I was told last night that film was dead so today I shot some more.


Posted By: Eclipse
Date Posted: 07 May 2008 at 14:51
ugonjwa? That's a new one on me....

I have found that quacks generally do get the best of deals like that....or the people who sell painkillers anyway

On the more cheerful side, if you do ever get round to getting them done, a mate of mine has had two hips and a knee replaced, and she's swimming and horse riding and everything... I can't keep up with her!


Posted By: Dinostrich
Date Posted: 07 May 2008 at 15:28
ugonjwa = swahili for unwell etc. - great language for multipurpose words. A result of living in Kenya for a decade and many business trips for another decade.

The received thinking is that they have got hips off to a fine art but more probelmatical for knees so waiting for them to get better at them

"On the more cheerful side, if you do ever get round to getting them done, a mate of mine has had two hips and a knee replaced, and she's swimming and horse riding and everything... I can't keep up with her!"

Reminds me of a joke but perhaps left unrecorded.

Enjoy the fine shooting weather - while it lasts !

-------------
I shot some film yesterday. I was told last night that film was dead so today I shot some more.


Posted By: Eclipse
Date Posted: 08 May 2008 at 13:20
Must ask the mate about her knee.
As she is very small, she has to have special joints. They were thinking of putting a child's joint in her shoulder when she had that done, but I think they used an adult one in the end. Shoulders would seem to be more complicated even than knees.
A friend of a friend was passing the factory that made a joint that she'd had fitted, and decided to drop in. They showed her round, and were very interested in how it was working, though a bit shocked to hear she did long-distance hill-walking on it, as they said it wasn't designed to cope with that sort of thing. It's still going strong, though!


Posted By: pegelli
Date Posted: 21 January 2009 at 21:05
Has anyone done a head-head comparison between a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x and a genuine Minolta or Sony APO 1.4x ?

I have the 200/2.8 and the Kenko and am wondering if the upgrade is worth it. The Kenko is not chipped so SSS is not as effective and exif is wrong, but I'm more thinking about an IQ comparison.

-------------
You can see the April Foolishness 2023 exhibition https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/april-foolishness-2023-the-exhibition_topic142439.html - here Another great show of the talent we have on Dyxum


Posted By: eccles
Date Posted: 08 March 2009 at 21:45
@Pegelli, I don't have the Minolta/Sony TC but I do have a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x that I thought was pretty good until I tried a borrowed Sigma EX APO 1.4x. The Sigma TC gave noticeably sharper results when used with my Sigma 100-300 F4 EX lens, so much so that I immediately went out and bought one. Therefore, I would expect a Minolta or Sony TC to give better results than the Kenko on your 200mm/2.8.
The obvious advantage with the Kenko is that it'll work with many more lenses than the Sony/Minolta TC, but I wouldn't hesitate to get the real thing for the 200/2.8, even if it's the only lens that you have that it'll work with.


Posted By: accady
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 17:23

Great TC comparison, as valuable as the main guide. Thanks for doing this, eccl.
Maybe it's just me but looking at the 2x comparison, I think that the Vivitar is excellent (if not as good as the APO). Does anybody know the relationship between different brands of the MC7 converters (Kenko, Tamron, Vivitar, Phoenix, etc)?
As far as I know, the Kenko and Tamron are the same thing but how about Vivitar, Phoenix and others. Also, is there any 2x APO vs Tamron MC7 test available?


-------------
http://www.spreadthenet.org/c_learn_whatis_en.aspx -


Posted By: eccl
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 17:42
I believe Kenko and/or Tamron make the majority of 1.4/2X teleconverters. They all look the same (size/dimension) and the only difference in the lettering.
Assuming all the MC7 2X came from the factory then the difference in image quality is probably due to sample variation.
Sorry I do not have a Tamron MC7 only Tamron SP 2X which is the same as Kenko Pro 300 2X


-------------
16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 28/2.8 35/2 50/1.4 50/1.7 50/2.8 85/1.4 100/2 100/2.8 180/3.5 200/2.8 300/4 400/5.6 500/7.2 500/8

Zoom, TC and other lenses too numerous to list!


Posted By: accady
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 18:09
Originally posted by eccl eccl wrote:

Assuming all the MC7 2X came from the factory then the difference in image quality is probably due to sample variation.


I totally agree on sample variation. At one moment I had 2 Tamron MC7 and even on 6MP(7D) there were significant differences in sharpness and colors (probably due to different coatings). I had several chances to get a 2x Vivitar but always thought I could get similar results by uprezing. Seeing your sample crops, I think is well worth trying one.


-------------
http://www.spreadthenet.org/c_learn_whatis_en.aspx -


Posted By: Remko
Date Posted: 18 June 2010 at 12:28
I thought the Minolta TC's are matched to only certain specific (expensive) Minolta lenses.

I wonder how TC's perform on the less expensive Minolta lenses.
I only have experience with an Soligor MC7 2x and Beercan wide open. That was stunning. Pic is somewhere posted on dyxum.

-------------
Minolta / Dynax / Sony Alpha / NEX
A creative mind.


Posted By: cruiser
Date Posted: 26 June 2010 at 09:05
It would be interesting to see a comparison of the 100-400mm Minolta APO and the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 with Sigma 2x teleconverter.


Posted By: tbroadley
Date Posted: 19 May 2013 at 16:14
In anticipation of an upcoming trip and having some weight considerations, I bought the Kanko 1.4x DGX and 2.0 duo. I have just finished some test shots wih the 1.4x on the 70-400mm and the only drawback I find is that it vignettes at the longer zoom ranges i.e 200-400mm. Center sharpness is better than what I expected and AF is pretty reasonable all things being considered. The edges tend to drop off but within my expectations. Obviously light has alot to do with the vignetting, I was shooting a lot at sunset so I was stressing it. it also worked well on my 28-135 and it surprised by keeping AF and pretty resonable at that. In general for $150, it is worth it for thise times whenyou need some extended range. Next up will be the 70-300g. Haven't got to the 2.0x yet but my expectations are that will suffer in comparison. I will at some point try both on the 200mm/2.8.

Tim


Posted By: bull drinkwater
Date Posted: 23 January 2014 at 10:48
I have both the 1.4 and 2.0convertwers and pair them with the 200mm and 70-200mm apo G hs.with either one the results are great. with the 70-200mm I don't get auto focus, but the apo coinverters won't stack.i have stacked the 2xapo and a 1.4 vivitar and still gotten good results . auto focus with the 200 and manual with the 70-200.however I do get auto focus with the 70-200 and the vivitar 1.4.


Posted By: bull drinkwater
Date Posted: 23 January 2014 at 10:49
Originally posted by bull drinkwater bull drinkwater wrote:

I have both the 1.4 and 2.0 apo convertwers and pair them with the 200mm and 70-200mm apo G hs.with either one the results are great. with the 70-200mm I don't get auto focus, but the apo coinverters won't stack.i have stacked the 2xapo and a 1.4 vivitar and still gotten good results . auto focus with the 200 and manual with the 70-200.however I do get auto focus with the 70-200 and the vivitar 1.4.


Posted By: bull drinkwater
Date Posted: 23 January 2014 at 10:54
this is one of those cases where you have to get out there and shoot about 100 photos at different settings and set back at the end of the day and examine the closely.


Posted By: Miranda F
Date Posted: 26 January 2014 at 21:04
Originally posted by jrfarrar jrfarrar wrote:


Clearly the matched converter outperformed but I was surprised how much difference in color between them.


Yes, it's not just about resolution, is it?

I've tried quite a few TCs over the years and mostly found them a great disappointment for slide or colour print film - especially with zoom lenses - not merely for the reduction in resolution which could be more or less obvious, but for the loss in contrast which on a dull day would kill the picture entirely. So I basically stopped using TCs and wouldn't consider mating one with a zoom.

But I did some tests the other day to see how well my old 400mm Soligor compared to (A) the Tamron 80-210 (at 200mm) plus TC and (B) the cheap Sony 55-200mm zoom plus clearview zoom, chiefly to see which gave the best resolution & contrast. Sure, none of the lenses are top-grade.

But the TC was the tamron 2x SP 6-element converter (though in adaptall mount) and I was very surprised how good the results were on the tamron zoom lens. I guess part of the reason is the quality of the TC, but I'm wondering if the fact that they were both Tamron and well-matched helped. In the tests I did the IQ appeared to be hardly degraded at all compared with the 80-210 on its own, even at full aperture.



-------------
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A7Rii, A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras ...


Posted By: Kaishi
Date Posted: 29 December 2014 at 23:00
Could someone with a Sony or Minolta G/APO teleconverter measure the width clearance on the lens-mating side?

I ask because I have the suspicion that the Tamron SP 150-600mm USM will work with it, at least dimensionally. Electronically is a whole different question.

Thanks in advance :)

-------------
α900/VG, α77ii/VG, A7rII/VG, AF 28-70 F2.8 G, 16-50 F2.8 SSM, Σ 105 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM MACRO, SP 150-600 F5-6.3 Di USD; http://gigas-vii.deviantart.com/ - Gallery


Posted By: TomV
Date Posted: 29 September 2015 at 04:23
The lens surface on the Minolta 1.4X APO (I have versions I and II)is nearly flush to the housing flange. I would not use it on the Tamron unless the Tamron converter for the lens is of the same measurement. I just got myself a Kenko MC4 DGX 1.4X and its lens is much deeper than the Minolta.

The pictures about the teleconverters on this website are accurate. The Kenko is a Generic since the depth from lens to housing flange is about 8 mm. That should work for you. I also bought the Kenko because I read that it can autofocus with the Sony SAL70-400G. This I verified today. I cannot speak about the image quality yet but have not heard any negatives about it.



Print Page | Close Window