1.4X Teleconverters: I just purchased a used canon 70-200 f4 IS lens on Ebay. The lens is great and is everything I expected. I now plan to sell my Tamron 70-300 and purchase a 1.4X...

danielb59 Loc: The South

I just purchased a used canon 70-200 f4 IS lens on Ebay. The lens is great and is everything I expected. I now plan to sell my Tamron 70-300 and purchase a 1.4X teleconverter for the newly purchased Canon lens. Based on recent eBay sales data the Tamron should auction for around $200 to $250. The proceeds from the sale will be used for the 1.4X teleconverter purchase. I have looked over data on the tamron, kenko and canon converters and am quite confused. Based solely on Amazon pricing, the Canon teleconverter is twice the cost of the Tamron which is in turn about 1.5 times the Kenko. Based on the quality of the 70-200 lens, after I sell the Tamron 70-300 lens, should I hold out and save additional money for the Canon teleconverter or would the Tamron and/or Kenko yield comparable results? The Canon 70-200 lens is a premiere lens and I don't want to spoil its quality with an inferior teleconverter. You Hoggers are a smart and wiley bunch and I respect your opinions. Thanks in advance.
Dan

SBW

danielb59 wrote:

I just purchased a used canon 70-200 f4 IS lens on... (show quote)

I have owned both the Canon and Tamron. I sold the Tamron. The Canon is much higher quality and I believe you would be happier sticking with Canon.

danielb59 Loc: The South

Thanks. I thought as much.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

70-200 f4 + 1.4 teleconverter vs 70-300 lens, I'd skip the teleconverter and keep the 70-300 lens.

SBW

Pepper wrote:

70-200 f4 + 1.4 teleconverter vs 70-300 lens, I'd skip the teleconverter and keep the 70-300 lens.

If you want lower quality images then absolutely keep the Tamron. There is no comparison in the build, quality and glass in the Canon lens when compared to the Tamron. The reasons are too numerous to list here. The Tamron is fine if you cannot afford the Canon. But if you have a choice it is not even arguable that the Canon is superior.

danielb59 Loc: The South

Good point, though I am expecting an increase in IQ with the 70-200 in comparing the two lenses, at least in the shorter ranges. My thinking is that even with the tele the I.Q. of the 70-200 should be no worse than the 70-300 without a tele.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

SBW wrote:

If you want lower quality images then absolutely keep the Tamron. There is no comparison in the build, quality and glass in the Canon lens when compared to the Tamron. The reasons are too numerous to list here. The Tamron is fine if you cannot afford the Canon. But if you have a choice it is not even arguable that the Canon is superior.

He's talking about the f4 version not the f2.8, I'd agree if he were looking at adding a converter to the f2.8 but the f4 version will suffer a bit using a converter.

SBW

Pepper wrote:

He's talking about the f4 version not the f2.8, I'd agree if he were looking at adding a converter to the f2.8 but the f4 version will suffer a bit using a converter.

That is a good point but it also depends on what is his primary use for the lens. That lens seems to have become popular across a wide span of applications from weddings to wildlife.

Also, if I were him I might consider the 2X converter instead of the 1.4. Certain applications it would be much better if he does not mind losing the light. I believe the 1.4 and the 2X are the same price.

SBW

danielb59 wrote:

Good point, though I am expecting an increase in IQ with the 70-200 in comparing the two lenses, at least in the shorter ranges. My thinking is that even with the tele the I.Q. of the 70-200 should be no worse than the 70-300 without a tele.

Making sure you saw the other post. Have you considered the 2X?

That is a good point but it also depends on what is his primary use for the lens. That lens seems to have become popular across a wide span of applications from weddings to wildlife.

Also, if I were him I might consider the 2X converter instead of the 1.4. Certain applications it would be much better if he does not mind losing the light. I believe the 1.4 and the 2X are the same price.

danielb59 Loc: The South

I did consider the 2X converter. However, with a 2 stop loss in light, this lens would only allow manual focus. At least with the 1.4X I think I could use AF as long as I had the lens set at F4. Again, my original question was concerning the cost/benefit of the canon vs tamron vs kenko converters.
Thanks,

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

danielb59 wrote:

Again, my original question was concerning the cost/benefit of the canon vs tamron vs kenko converters.
Thanks,

Canon will offer the best quality. It seems to me you've already established that by opting to sell your Tamron glass in favor of the Canon glass.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Pepper wrote:

Canon will offer the best quality. It seems to me you've already established that by opting to sell your Tamron glass in favor of the Canon glass.

If you go to LensRentals.com, you can rent a copy and give it a whirl before making all these decisions based on reading and opinions. I have the Canon EF Extender 1.4x III and would recommend, but there is an impact. You should see for yourself and make sure you're making the decision you want to make.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

Pepper wrote:

70-200 f4 + 1.4 teleconverter vs 70-300 lens, I'd skip the teleconverter and keep the 70-300 lens.

Get the Canon 1.4X TC. I have had 2 Tamron 70-300mm and I was never pleased with the quality.

I have used both the Kenko 1.4x and 2x (7 element) TCs on the 70-200mm f/4 lens and the Canon 1.4X was by far the best.

danielb59 Loc: The South

haroldross wrote:

Get the Canon 1.4X TC. I have had 2 Tamron 70-300mm and I was never pleased with the quality.

I have used both the Kenko 1.4x and 2x (7 element) TCs on the 70-200mm f/4 lens and the Canon 1.4X was by far the best.

Exactly the information that I requested. Thanks to all.

philz Loc: Rockaway Township NJ

Two relevant comments based upon my experience with the Canon 70-200 mm f/4 L on a Canon 60D. The Kenko Pro 300 1.4 converter works just fine with full information and functionality. Quality, especially versus the 70-300 mm Tamron, will be fine or better and the convenience of carrying just the small TC versus another big lens is a big benefit. It is $300 less than the Canon 1.4x III at B&H at $140

The other comment is that I pixel peeped the 70-200 L versus the Canon 70-300 mm by cropping the L at 200 mm to be the same image size as as that from the 300 mm and the quality was much better. Not even close, so the Tamron experience should be the same.On a cropped 1.6 Canon 60D, so at 480 mm equiv. I have not done that with the Kenko 1.4x at 280 but I will as I am curious. Perhaps someone else has.