Canon 1.4TC and Tamron 1.4TC

gluwater

There have been a couple threads lately discussing the Canon and Tamron 1.4 TC's and Auto Focus. So I thought I'd post a couple pics of them and get your input on which you all prefer and why. The Canon 1.4TC has 11 pins and the Tamron has only 8. The 3 extra pins on the Canon TC let the camera body know there is a TC attached and changes the Aperture accordingly. For example if used on a 400mm f/5.6 the aperture becomes f/8 and unless being used on a 1 Series body the ability to Auto Focus is lost. The Tamron TC does not have the extra pins so the body does not know there is a TC attached, therefor allowing auto focus. The amount of light being let into the camera is still the same, equal to f/8. Here are a couple pics of the different TC's.

Canon 1.4TC on the left and Tamron 1.4TC on the right


Canon TC with 11 pins.


Tamron TC with 8 pins.


The 3 pins circled on the Canon are the extra pins that can be taped over to allow for AF.

Hope this makes sense and feel free to add anything I left out.

windoze

im confused, as usual,
if you use the canon 1.4 TC on a prime lens, say 200 w f/2.8 on a 20D - do you lose the AF?

troy

gus

Great post GW I did have questions & you answered them. Thanks.
I really want a canon 1.4 but dont want to loose my AF. It shouldnt worry me as i really only want it mainly for sunrise & sunset so i'll just sit outside the feamarket door & see if one comes past at the right price.

gluwater

Nope, you lose one stop of light with a 1.4TC. So with an f/2.8 lens your aperture becomes f/4.

f/2.8 - f/4
f/4 - f/5.6
f/5.6 - f/8

On bodies besides 1 series you lose autofocus whith a lens of f/8 or higher. So you could use the Canon TC with any lens of f/5.6 or greater. Make more sense?

gus

gluwater wrote:

Nope, you lose one stop of light with a 1.4TC. So with an f/2.8 lens your aperture becomes f/4.

f/2.8 - f/4
f/4 - f/5.6
f/5.6 - f/8

On bodies besides 1 series you lose autofocus whith a lens of f/8 or higher. So you could use the Canon TC with any lens of f/5.6 or greater. Make more sense?

So on my 20D & 400 f/5.6 prime i lose AF as it becomes f/8 ?

gluwater

Humungus wrote:

Great post GW I did have questions & you answered them. Thanks.
I really want a canon 1.4 but dont want to loose my AF. It shouldnt worry me as i really only want it mainly for sunrise & sunset so i'll just sit outside the feamarket door & see if one comes past at the right price.

If you tape the 3 extra pins on the Canon TC you will still have AF. I just don't like taping them so I use the Tamron.

windoze

gluwater wrote:

Nope, you lose one stop of light with a 1.4TC. So with an f/2.8 lens your aperture becomes f/4.

f/2.8 - f/4
f/4 - f/5.6
f/5.6 - f/8

On bodies besides 1 series you lose autofocus whith a lens of f/8 or higher. So you could use the Canon TC with any lens of f/5.6 or greater. Make more sense?

yes because i ordered this canon 1.4 TC II just a few moments ago for my lens and I did it based on reading this on the canon site.....


autofocus is possible on any EOS camera when combined with a lens having an f/4 or faster maximum aperture

so I just wanted to double check....


thanx for a really good post!!!


troy

gluwater

Humungus wrote:

So on my 20D & 400 f/5.6 prime i lose AF as it becomes f/8 ?

Exactly. But you can tape the pins and retain AF, but remember that you are still losing light.

juliejules

I found this review/discussion of the Canon 1.4x extender helpful.

windoze

juliejules wrote:

I found this review/discussion of the Canon 1.4x extender helpful.

that discussion definetly is helpful!!
thanx!

troy

ziggy53

Nick,

Is the same information applicable to both the Tamron 4 element TC and the Tamron 5 element "Pro" TC?

Thanks,

ziggy53

DoctorIt

Nick - a good informative post with photos is always very nice.

Now I'll ask you to add to it. Since you have both TC's, pin taping aside, can you comment on the image quality? After all, a TC has glass elements and there must be at least some reason the white Canon TC costs about twice as much as the Tamron.

Bob Bell

I'll add my few pennies to this.

The Canon 1.4x TC is by far optically better than the Tamron. I think this is because Canon designed theirs to work with 1.8 lenses and the diameter is larger. I use the Canon model on a 70-200 and a 300/2.8 IS. I use the tamron model on the 400/5.6. I do this because I swap TC's a lot and don't want to put a taped Canon on the 2.8 lenses.

I don't post many images and usually only post to a nature site because its restricted but here is the performance of the 400/5.6 + Tamron TC giving me 560mm at F8 or higher. I'm not sure of the exif right now.





and



The Black Crowned Night Heron is very dark because it was early morning on a very overcast day. I have been talking to a few about adding 1.00 exp comp in raw but people are going back and forth, so if you think its dark crank up your brightness.

Just my conclusion is the cheapo Tamron TC is a good performer but its not as good as the Canon and I think its because the canon will let in 1 more stop of light or so.

I hope this helps.

These images are copyrighted to me, please don't steal them. I am italian/sicilian and I have people all over this planet to deal with image thiefs.

DoctorIt

Bob Bell wrote:

Just my conclusion is the cheapo Tamron TC is a good performer but its not as good as the Canon and I think its because the canon will let in 1 more stop of light or so.

Thanks for the comments and samples - they look pretty sharp and the color rendition isn't so bad either. So I agree for the half the price, you score a pretty good piece of kit in the Tamron.

Also, Bob, thanks for sharing the images - FYI, we do in fact have real rules on the site about "stealing images". What a sad photo forum we'd have if we weren't posting photos because we were worried about theft.
:cry

Thusie

Bob Bell wrote:

Just my conclusion is the cheapo Tamron TC is a good performer but its not as good as the Canon and I think its because the canon will let in 1 more stop of light or so.
I hope this helps.

Lovely pictures Bob. So you are saying that the canon lets in more light even tho both TC's take the 400 f5.6 to f8? Or have I completely missed the boat here? Reason I'm asking is the 400 will be in the camera bag by this summer and I really wasn't looking forward to also buying another TC. I really don't plan on using the Canon TC on the 70-200 after I get the other lens.

Bob Bell

Thusie wrote:

Lovely pictures Bob. So you are saying that the canon lets in more light even tho both TC's take the 400 f5.6 to f8? Or have I completely missed the boat here? Reason I'm asking is the 400 will be in the camera bag by this summer and I really wasn't looking forward to also buying another TC. I really don't plan on using the Canon TC on the 70-200 after I get the other lens.

Well, The Canon TC was designed to work with a 200/1.8L, 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and other larger aperture lenses, so it would only be able to do that if the optics are large enough to support that large of a diaphram. The Tamron TC has a smaller optic diameter so I am concerned with what it does optically when larger apertures. I don't have any scientific data to back this up, its more assumption. Maybe someone can explain it. So I am pretty comfy with the diamter of the tamron with a 5.6 lens. I think the Tamron TC is $109 at B&H and cheaper used, so its not a big investment to keep both TC's.

Bob Bell

Erik,

I don't mean any offense to you or anyone else here. I really like Dgrin and I considerate my home for general photography. There are a lot of very nice people here and everyone is very helpful.

Image Theft is a huge concern for many including myself. One of the forums I belong to, you cannot see any threads or images without an account. Also, the user id / IP are tracked when they look at an image so when something is stolen, its easy to prove. The other side to that is I only copyright images that are commercial use for print ads, brochures, etc... So that is easy to deal with.

So even though there are rules, there is risk, so I prefer to contribute my knowledge more than my images Thx for the kind words on the birds.

gluwater

ziggy53 wrote:

Nick,

Is the same information applicable to both the Tamron 4 element TC and the Tamron 5 element "Pro" TC?

Thanks,

ziggy53

No Ziggy, the "Pro" TC has the extra 3 pins so it reports to the body. Basically it acts the same way the Canon TC does. Sorry, i should have mentioned this.

gluwater

DoctorIt wrote:

Nick - a good informative post with photos is always very nice.

Now I'll ask you to add to it. Since you have both TC's, pin taping aside, can you comment on the image quality? After all, a TC has glass elements and there must be at least some reason the white Canon TC costs about twice as much as the Tamron.

I haven't done any side by side comparisons but I believe the Canon is higher quality. I've been meaning to do some sample shots to compare the two so I guess this is the kick in the butt I needed to get them done.

pathfinder

This is a very worthwhile thread, Nick, and I would love to see comparison images shot with a good Canon L prime and the Tamron versus Canon TC shot from a tripod with mirror lock up and by self timer or remote.

From your photos, the diameter of the optic of the Canon TC is larger in diameter than the Tamron. I measured the two optic images from your shot and made a few calculations. The absolute dimensions are unkonwn to me as I just measured the images, but the ratios should be accurate.

The Canon optic on my screen measured 1 5/8 inches or 4.1275 cm
The Tamron optic measured 1 3/16 inces or 3.01625 cm -

Doesn't really sound like that big a difference, but when I calculate the area of the optics using the above values, the Canon optic measures 13.379 sq cm, and the Tamron measures 7.1451 Sq cm. Tha Tamron optic is about only 53% of cross sectional area of the Canon optic, or about 1 fstop smaller in aperature.

Sounds like what Bob Bell was describing in the difference between his Canons and Tamrons light gahhering ability, doesn't it??

Now, we just need to see how they compare in quality.

Bob Bell

pathfinder wrote:

This is a very worthwhile thread, Nick, and I would love to see comparison images shot with a good Canon L prime and the Tamron versus Canon TC shot from a tripod with mirror lock up and by self timer or remote.

From your photos, the diameter of the optic of the Canon TC is larger in diameter than the Tamron. I measured the two optic images from your shot and made a few calculations. The absolute dimensions are unkonwn to me as I just measured the images, but the ratios should be accurate.

The Canon optic on my screen measured 1 5/8 inches or 4.1275 cm
The Tamron optic measured 1 3/16 inces or 3.01625 cm -

Doesn't really sound like that big a difference, but when I calculate the area of the optics using the above values, the Canon optic measures 13.379 sq cm, and the Tamron measures 7.1451 Sq cm. Tha Tamron optic is about only 53% of cross sectional area of the Canon optic, or about 1 fstop smaller in aperature.

Sounds like what Bob Bell was describing in the difference between his Canons and Tamrons light gahhering ability, doesn't it??

Now, we just need to see how they compare in quality.

Ive got my canon TC's at work but have a tamron here. front optic is 22mm, rear is 27mm. thats the glass only not the bits holding the glass.

I mean light gathering but more critical is what the TC does to the light path. Looking through the tamron the pincushion distortion is more evident than on the Canon.

gluwater

pathfinder wrote:

This is a very worthwhile thread, Nick, and I would love to see comparison images shot with a good Canon L prime and the Tamron versus Canon TC shot from a tripod with mirror lock up and by self timer or remote.

Great suggestion Jim. I will try to take some samples on Friday because the weekend and begining of next week are looking pretty dreary. Now when you say a "good Canon L prime" do you mean my good quality or your good quality . I was planning on using three lenses. 70-200 f/2.8 IS - good, 400 f/5.6 - better, 300 f/4 - best. These are the only white lenses I own but if your willing to lend me your 300 I swear I wouldn't let any of my drool fall on it . I am interested to see the difference on a Prime vs a high quality zoom, there has been a bit of debate on this and also with the Canon 2xTC. I think I may be biting off more than I can chew.

Since none of my birdy friends will stay still long enough to change lenses and get a repeatable image with I was thinking of using a stone building as my target. There is a nice stone nature center at my favorite spot, DavidS85 knows the one I am talking about he gets his corn meal nearby. Any advice, besides the great stuff you already said, on taking the shots? I think when this is all done I may even write up a review.

David_S85

As a sidenote, I will add that the Tam 1.4 will also work with the wildly popular Tamron 28-75 walk around lens -- but only at 75mm. Below 72mm, it goes all b0rky on you in a hurry.

75mm x 1.6 x 1.4 = 168mm

I've had my Tam 1.4 on my 20D and with Glu's 400 5.6 up front, and I will say that the Tam is a great combo with that lens. Now... if I could only afford that 400 somehow.

pathfinder

gluwater wrote:

Great suggestion Jim. I will try to take some samples on Friday because the weekend and begining of next week are looking pretty dreary. Now when you say a "good Canon L prime" do you mean my good quality or your good quality . I was planning on using three lenses. 70-200 f/2.8 IS - good, 400 f/5.6 - better, 300 f/4 - best. These are the only white lenses I own but if your willing to lend me your 300 I swear I wouldn't let any of my drool fall on it . I am interested to see the difference on a Prime vs a high quality zoom, there has been a bit of debate on this and also with the Canon 2xTC. I think I may be biting off more than I can chew......

. Any advice, besides the great stuff you already said, on taking the shots? I think when this is all done I may even write up a review.

Your 400 f5.6 and your 300 F4 are both L's, aren't they?? No fault with them at all!! Both are great glass!!

But, I am MUCH more interested in the primes than the zooms, altho folks do use the 1.4 TC with the 70-200 F2.8 IS L. I would limit the 2xTC to F4 or faster lenses though.

I would suggest shooting in manual mode also - so there is no variation in exposure if you can do that. A Brick wall, or even a double fold sheet of news print on a wall, can be a pretty fair target. Might try to have the camera/lens in the shade also to limit flare if that is possible also. That's all I can think of right now:D

pathfinder

Bob Bell wrote:

Ive got my canon TC's at work but have a tamron here. front optic is 22mm, rear is 27mm. thats the glass only not the bits holding the glass.

I mean light gathering but more critical is what the TC does to the light path. Looking through the tamron the pincushion distortion is more evident than on the Canon.

I measured the Tamron as ~30mm from Nick's image.

I am sure the images on my monitor are larger than real life, so my actual numbers will not be accurate, but the ratios should still be reasonably accurate, at least to 2 figures. The ratios do not have any units of course, they are ratios.

The light path through a TC may not relate to light gathering ability as much as a front objective lens does, because the light may be already constrained by the prime in front of the TC. But Canon fabricates the optics in its TCs larger for some reason.

gluwater

pathfinder wrote:

Your 400 f5.6 and your 300 F4 are both L's, aren't they?? No fault with them at all!! Both are great glass!!

But, I am MUCH more interested in the primes than the zooms, altho folks do use the 1.4 TC with the 70-200 F2.8 IS L. I would limit the 2xTC to F4 or faster lenses though.

I would suggest shooting in manual mode also - so there is no variation in exposure if you can do that. A Brick wall, or even a double fold sheet of news print on a wall, can be a pretty fair target. Might try to have the camera/lens in the shade also to limit flare if that is possible also. That's all I can think of right now:D

I agree with you completely on the primes vs the zooms but there have been discussons on the usability of a TC on zooms in the past so I figure if I have one I may as well compare it to the primes. I think I'll try out the newspaper on the wall when I get home, thanks.

Bob Bell

gluwater wrote:

I agree with you completely on the primes vs the zooms but there have been discussons on the usability of a TC on zooms in the past so I figure if I have one I may as well compare it to the primes. I think I'll try out the newspaper on the wall when I get home, thanks.

I know you are doing the work so Im not going to complain to much. Newspaper shots usually just show DOF and optical alignment since there isnt much detail and the print is rough.

If you could shoot out a window at the bark of the tree or something with 3d texture, you could also show resolution and the impact on resolution that TC's make. 1 lens is better than another because of resolution, contrast and color reproduction.

ziggy53

gluwater wrote:

I agree with you completely on the primes vs the zooms but there have been discussons on the usability of a TC on zooms in the past so I figure if I have one I may as well compare it to the primes. I think I'll try out the newspaper on the wall when I get home, thanks.

Nick,

Most of the time you would use a TC at long range or close to infinity. It's doubtfull that a newspaper at close proximity will give the same effect.

I suggest a large brick wall, shot at a good distance, or some other structure with repeating shapes, like the side of a building with windows. If you can get hold of a stuffed animal or bird, to stick in the crook of a tree, it makes a good target for testing fine detail, without having to worry about the critter moving.

I am "extremely" interested in the test with the 70-200mm zoom, as I can't find anyone else with a published test of those two TCs with that lens.

Thanks,

ziggy53

gluwater

Well I just got home from takeing some test shots and have to go to work now but tonight I'll try to get them labeled and posted.

gluwater

I went out today and took some sample pics using a 20D with the 400 f/5.6, 300 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, Canon 1.4x TC, and Tamron 1.4x TC. The setup of the shots was as follows.
Gitzo 1228
RRS BH-40
mirror lockup
remote shutter release
White balance set to cloudy
Shots were taken in manual mode

It was cloudy out and pretty dim so the shutter speeds are quite low. I'm hopeing to be able to re-shoot on a brighter day.

The shots I took were with and without the TC's attached. I took a shot with the Tamron TC attached, then the Canon TC, then from the same location without a TC. Then I moved the tripod to have approximately the same area in the viewfinder and took another series of shots without a TC attached. With each lens and TC I took shots at max aperture up to f/8. I repeated this sequence for all three lenses and with the 70-200 I set it to 200mm and 95mm (meant to be at 100mm but was a little off.
What I found was that the lens without a TC was the sharpest (no surprise there), then the Canon and finally the Tamron. The 300 was sharpest overall followed by the 400 and finally the 70-200. I'm refering the 400mm f/5.6 in the following example. Since the Tamron TC does not report itself to the body I set the Aperture to f/5.6 and the shutter speed to 1/20th. With the Canon TC attached I set the aperture to f/8 and the shutter speed to 1/20th also. The exposure was basically identical so I can assume that both TC's let in approximately the same amount of light. I had a thought at this point though. If the lens is still set to an aperture of f/5.6 with the tamron then shouldn't it have a smaller DOF than with the Canon set to f/8? I could not tell from my shots, what do you all think? Finally I tried to keep the focus the same with both TC's but they are different lengths and I think I may have messed up with the 300mm and Canon TC, I think the shots are OOF. So that's enough of my rambling for now I'll post a couple shot in this thread, if you'd like to see the rest they are in these galleries. All shots are full frame RAW and have been converted to jpg through ACR with no processing including no sharpening.

400 @ f/8, no TC


400 @ f/5.6 with Tamron TC


400 @ f/8 with Canon TC



Please let me know what you think and what if anything I should do differently if I re-shoot.

pathfinder

Nick - you deserve a wealth of thanks for your efforts. This post involved a lot of thought and effort and hours of work. Hopefully, you have not worn out the lens mount on your camera yet:D

The first few thoughts I take away from these images and your galleries, is, that although there may be minor differences in image quality, to my eye, none of these images are unacceptable from a resolution, color, or contrast failure. The ability to see the original files from your gallery may ping your galleries download limiter this month

The Tammy seems to do a fine job, better than I had expected on the 70-200 even.

I did see some small variations in exposure ( maybe 1/3 stop or less ) between the Tamron and the Canon TCs, but they were not consistent and I wonder, maybe, if they were due to changes in lighting rather than the TCs themselves, as sometimes the Canon image was brighter, and yet at other times, the Tamron seems brighter. Maybe the Tamron seemed slightly cooler in color in some images, but again I am not sure this was consistent in every frame.

The message I take away, is that both TCs can be very useful devices, better with primes than zooms as you said, but not bad there either.

Also, that testing lenses without a good tripod and mirror L/U, like you used, is probably a fool's errand. Many complaints about poor images are about poor camera technique, rather than poor optics, I suspect.

I am sure you learned something about your camera and how to set up mirror L/U quickly.

You have set a new standard for lens testing and reporting. Very well done, Nick. We all owe you one.