WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > Photography Equipment > Lenses


Lenses Discussion of Lenses

TC Musings

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 20-03-07, 16:00
nirofo's Avatar
nirofo nirofo is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Scotland
Posts: 798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leif View Post
Teleconverters tend to work better with some focal lengths and some lenses than others. I suspect the Canon ones are optimised for use with long lenses, and that the 200mm lens is ill matched. That is consistent with the fantastic results Andy (and others) get with a TC and a 600mm lens. Nikon even had two teleconverters, one for long lenses, and the other for not so long lenses.

I regularly work with a TC14E on my Nikon 500 f4 AFS and can honestly say I can't tell the difference. I'm sure Leif is right, some converters only work well with specific lenses, on the other hand I have a Tamron 1.4 that seems to work well on my Tokina 150-500 f5.6 ATX, my Tokina 80-400 ATX and on my Tamron 90mm Macro. I think if you push the boat out and use a 2X converter on any lens, then you are going to have to except lower quality results. Having said that, if it's the only way you can obtain the shot, then the result is as good as it gets!

nirofo.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 20-03-07, 16:01
Leif Leif is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Smith View Post
Thank you for that Leif. I will next test it with my 100-400 lens.

Dave
They also work best on primes, not zooms ... sorry to rain on your parade.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 20-03-07, 18:19
Dave Smith's Avatar
Dave Smith Dave Smith is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Maldon, Essex
Age: 83
Posts: 576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leif View Post
They also work best on primes, not zooms ... sorry to rain on your parade.
That's why I tried it on my 200mm lens first.
I've now tried it out with my 100-400 set on 400 and similarly to before the left picture is 400mm alone but enlarged by a factor of 1.4 and resaved. The right picture is 400mm + 1.4x TC, both 100% crops and other than cropping or enlarging unprocessed.

I am now much happier

I've enjoyed doing the tests and have learnt much. I look forward to seeing anyone elses tests.

Dave
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_2631 test.jpg (88.8 KB, 15 views)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 20-03-07, 19:03
greypoint's Avatar
greypoint greypoint is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northants, England
Posts: 2,545
Default

Results using a 1.4x Zuiko with the Olympus [Zuiko] 50-200mm f2.8/3.5 are quite impressive - I'm thinking this might be the one bit of kit I add this year - mind you, they should be good at around £300 new!
__________________
so many swans...so little time

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greypoint/sets/
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 20-03-07, 20:18
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

As converters will multiply the effect of lack of resolution ( lens softness ) I had intended to do a comparison between 105mm AIS, the 105mm end of 28-105 Nikon zoom, and the 105mm setting on Stevies 28-200 Sigma, as my starter. Weather conditions here have not permitted that.

However I did spot a Hare in the field so did some comparisons using it.

The converter in use is Nikon TC201 2x and this is recommended for lenses of 200mm and below. Prime lenses used are Nikon 200mm f4 AIS and Nikon 400mm f5.6 AIS. These are all designs from the 1980's so are not a reflection of the current range in terms of performance.

I think this shows that although the TC201 is recommended for shorter focal lengths it gives a better performance on the 400.

Images attatched.

1) Full frame at 200mm to put the exercise in perspective.
2) Composite of crops using 200mm, 400mm and 2x converter.
3) Composite of 400mm crops showing the effect of adding sharpening.

Don
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1 Full-frame-at-200mm.jpg (119.3 KB, 9 views)
File Type: jpg 2 Composite of all.jpg (160.2 KB, 16 views)
File Type: jpg 3 USM composite.jpg (131.0 KB, 13 views)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 22-03-07, 00:38
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

I managed an old style test today. No newspaper so I set up an old product leaflet and took the attached pics at a distance of 20 feet.

Lenses used : Nikon 105mm f2.5 AIS, and Sigma 28-200 f3.5-4.5 Ashperical IF zoom. Nikon TC201 2x converter

Lens aperture was f8 for all shots to give the zoom a realistic chance for image quality. Ideally this lens should be at f11 for best performance. Light levels did not allow f11.

Pics attached

1) A crop of the field of view showing the whole target.
2) Composites of 100% crops at 105mm
3) Composites of 100% crops with converter
4) Composites of the Linhof logo at 105mm and with the converter.

Don
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Target-at-20-feet.jpg (124.8 KB, 10 views)
File Type: jpg Composite at 105mm.jpg (126.9 KB, 12 views)
File Type: jpg Composite with 2x converter.jpg (68.8 KB, 13 views)
File Type: jpg Linhof Logo composite.jpg (112.7 KB, 12 views)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 22-03-07, 01:53
nirofo's Avatar
nirofo nirofo is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Scotland
Posts: 798
Default

One thing this test does prove is that the old Nikon 105 is still a terrific lens, far better than the new 105 AF. The Sigma doesn't even come close in this test.

The thing I could never understand was, why do you need autofocus on a macro lens?

nirofo.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 22-03-07, 08:29
Adey Baker's Avatar
Adey Baker Adey Baker is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hinckley, Leics., UK
Posts: 965
Default

It certainly shows the value of matching the converter to the lens - the 105 + 2x is very good at F8, though,obviously this makes it F16 in real life. Does the quality hold up at wider apertures, Don?

Now, anybody got a TC301 for Don to see what that 400mm can really do!
__________________
Adey

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...00/ppuser/1805

'Write when there is something you know: and not before: and not too damned much after' Ernest Hemingway
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 22-03-07, 22:03
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

Adey,

I thought I would give your mission a go today. Two fresh thought into the melting pot.

1) When deciding a suitable distance last time, I initially tried 14 feet. Without a TC on, my Nikon 28-105 outperformed the fixed 105. Moving to a distance of 20 feet soon sorted that one out. The 105 is therefore happier at 20ft to infinity as at those ranges it outperforms the zoom.

2) I have used the TC for close ups with tubes and 55 micro very successfuly.

In view of the above I therefore decided that for your various aperture test to move the subject out from 20 feet to 35 feet. Composites attatched that show that at that distance the TC performance fell apart. Shed loads of CA at f4 so no point in going wider.

I did the 400 with and without, at 40 feet and the attatched are processed crops. In view of the 105 and distance experience, and as the sun is due to return next week, I will then try the 400 and TC at longer distances.

Pics attatched
1) Todays test target
2) Comparison at 20 feet and 35 feet using 105 plus converter
3) Aperture comparisons at 35 feet using 105mm and converter
4) 400mm at f5.6 at 40 feet - processed crop
5) 400mm and converter at f5.6 and 40 feet - processed crop

Don
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Adey Test Target.jpg (143.6 KB, 7 views)
File Type: jpg Adey sample 1.jpg (118.6 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg Adey sample 2.jpg (120.7 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg 400-crop at 40ft.jpg (133.4 KB, 9 views)
File Type: jpg 400-Convert-f5_6 at 40ft.jpg (132.2 KB, 9 views)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 22-03-07, 22:25
Leif Leif is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nirofo View Post
One thing this test does prove is that the old Nikon 105 is still a terrific lens, far better than the new 105 AF. The Sigma doesn't even come close in this test.

The thing I could never understand was, why do you need autofocus on a macro lens?

nirofo.
So that users can try auto-focus, find out that it is useless for macro work, and hence not spend ages complaining they wish they'd bought an AF lens? Seriously though, probably because these lenses also make good portrait lenses, and perhaps AF is useful then. (Timid subject runs away but is caught in sharp focus by modern technology.)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:57.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.