FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Page  123 4>
Author
TomV View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 29 September 2015
Country: United States
Location: Annapolis MD
Status: Offline
Posts: 63
Post Options Post Options   Quote TomV Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: TC Guide II 200/2.8 + 1.4X 1.7X 2X Tests
    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.
 



Back to Top
Kaishi View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 December 2007
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 322
Post Options Post Options   Quote Kaishi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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;Gallery
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 4073
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 ...
Back to Top
bull drinkwater View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 23 November 2013
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 93
Post Options Post Options   Quote bull drinkwater Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
bull drinkwater View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 23 November 2013
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 93
Post Options Post Options   Quote bull drinkwater Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
bull drinkwater View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 23 November 2013
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 93
Post Options Post Options   Quote bull drinkwater Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 



Back to Top
tbroadley View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 31 January 2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 272
Post Options Post Options   Quote tbroadley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
cruiser View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 15 February 2009
Status: Offline
Posts: 214
Post Options Post Options   Quote cruiser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Remko View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 June 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: ZH
Status: Offline
Posts: 797
Post Options Post Options   Quote Remko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
accady View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 April 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 569
Post Options Post Options   Quote accady Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by accady - 17 March 2009 at 02:12
Back to Top
eccl View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group

Joined: 07 December 2005
Country: Canada
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 757
Post Options Post Options   Quote eccl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!
Back to Top
accady View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 April 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Posts: 569
Post Options Post Options   Quote accady Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
eccles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 August 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 998
Post Options Post Options   Quote eccles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 37296
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 here Another great show of the talent we have on Dyxum
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > Adapters and converters Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.