Sorry, Craig, can't see the links.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Canon EF 70-300 ISKenko Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF Teleconverter (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Craig S
- Start date
Sorry, Craig, can't see the links.
Link to review comparing the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 Di VC USD to the Canon 70-300 L
http://frontallobbings.blogspot.com/2011/01/review-tamron-sp-70-300mm-f4-56-vs.html
http://frontallobbings.blogspot.com/2011/01/review-tamron-sp-70-300mm-f4-56-vs.html
Interesting, Craig, considering the price, there's nothing to blame. The writer has stressed that if that difference worth the money.
Today, I went out and give another try on the Kenko DGX MC7 2X TC,
I mounted it on my 7D with my 300 f4. The EXIF give the correct focal length and aperture, but no mention of a converter added, (Unlike Canon EF II extender.) For small objects, it jumps a bit, and the image is not sharp. But for larger objects, it did focus with the centre point, and the image quality is fair to good. This young swallow is taken at a distance of about 15 foot, full frame, resized and slightly sharpened. But then at this distance, I think 300 f4with a 1.4X can handle it well, with a slight crop. After all, it turned out not as bad as I initially thought. If I can grab a 2X DGX pro, I will certainly try it out too, but to spend another 300+buck for an unknown is too much for me right now.
Today, I went out and give another try on the Kenko DGX MC7 2X TC,
I mounted it on my 7D with my 300 f4. The EXIF give the correct focal length and aperture, but no mention of a converter added, (Unlike Canon EF II extender.) For small objects, it jumps a bit, and the image is not sharp. But for larger objects, it did focus with the centre point, and the image quality is fair to good. This young swallow is taken at a distance of about 15 foot, full frame, resized and slightly sharpened. But then at this distance, I think 300 f4with a 1.4X can handle it well, with a slight crop. After all, it turned out not as bad as I initially thought. If I can grab a 2X DGX pro, I will certainly try it out too, but to spend another 300+buck for an unknown is too much for me right now.
Attachments
That's a really nice picture. The 2x TC did very well for you.
My local camera store, it's actually 60 miles away, are ordering the Tamron 70-300 VC for me to try out. It might take 2 weeks to arrive, then I have to make time to go try it out.
Read the reviews on the Tamron lens and it sounds like it might be good, only one said the Canon 70-300 IS was better and a few said the image quality was as good as the Canon 200 F4. Saw lots of sample images and a few that compared it to the Canono 70-300 L. The photo's looked pretty good. The 70-300 L photos were quite a bit better, but, it also costs 3 times as much.
Still looking at the Kenko 1.4x pro.
My local camera store, it's actually 60 miles away, are ordering the Tamron 70-300 VC for me to try out. It might take 2 weeks to arrive, then I have to make time to go try it out.
Read the reviews on the Tamron lens and it sounds like it might be good, only one said the Canon 70-300 IS was better and a few said the image quality was as good as the Canon 200 F4. Saw lots of sample images and a few that compared it to the Canono 70-300 L. The photo's looked pretty good. The 70-300 L photos were quite a bit better, but, it also costs 3 times as much.
Still looking at the Kenko 1.4x pro.
I would like to try out the Kenko Pro but B&H hasn't got any in stock just now. I actually spoke with someone from B&H and they said that the image quality for the Pro version would be a little better than the non pro version. They also said that the non pro version has less pins than the pro version and that is likely what caused the IS to run constantly with the non pro version.
I am not looking for pristine photos, just want a bit more reach. I am pretty satisfied with the mirror lens but once the leaves come out I find it is very difficult to use.
I see my choices as a 70-300 with a TC or spending around $2,000.00 for an L series lens.
If I order the Pro version from B&H and am not happy with it I can return it, although I have to pay the return shipping. I think this would be a small price to pay to determine if a TC and 70-300 lens would meet my needs. I would then have a bit more information to decide if I wanted to put out the money for an L series lens.
One of the reviews compared the Tamron VC with the 70-300 L. They did some pretty big crops and the 70-300 L won quite easily but I am not going to be making such big crops and think that the Tamron lens may be all I really need.
I had an Olympus 70-300 lens which was wonderful and I could make some very big crops with little or no effect on image quality. I find with the Canon 70-300 IS I cannot crop much before image quality suffers.
I am not looking for pristine photos, just want a bit more reach. I am pretty satisfied with the mirror lens but once the leaves come out I find it is very difficult to use.
I see my choices as a 70-300 with a TC or spending around $2,000.00 for an L series lens.
If I order the Pro version from B&H and am not happy with it I can return it, although I have to pay the return shipping. I think this would be a small price to pay to determine if a TC and 70-300 lens would meet my needs. I would then have a bit more information to decide if I wanted to put out the money for an L series lens.
One of the reviews compared the Tamron VC with the 70-300 L. They did some pretty big crops and the 70-300 L won quite easily but I am not going to be making such big crops and think that the Tamron lens may be all I really need.
I had an Olympus 70-300 lens which was wonderful and I could make some very big crops with little or no effect on image quality. I find with the Canon 70-300 IS I cannot crop much before image quality suffers.
Same with my Canon 70-300 IS. I bought it when it came out not for long, and what's worse, it felt into the faulty batch with improper IS. A recall had been made in the States, but not in Canada. Luckily I bought it local, I sent it back to Canon Canada (in Calgary then, and Canon had closed this shop about 2 years ago) and they had it changed for me free.
You were very fortunate to find out that your lens was defective.
I am not as pleased with my Canon 70-300IS as I was with my Olympus 70-300 and the Olympus was almost half the price of the Canon. When I purchased my Canon equipment it was probably the best option for a Canon camera other than an L series lens. At the time the camera shop tried to convince me to buy the 70-200mm L series lens that was about the same price. I didn't think that the 200mm lens would be sufficient for birding, but, now I think it would have allowed for better crops and likely would have been a better option than the 70-300mm IS lens.
If I had waited a few more months the Tamron VC would have been available and another option that would have been cheaper and from the sounds of it better.
I'm really looking forward to trying out the new Tamron lens, it is a pretty good price and sounds like it could be a very good lens for the price.
I am not as pleased with my Canon 70-300IS as I was with my Olympus 70-300 and the Olympus was almost half the price of the Canon. When I purchased my Canon equipment it was probably the best option for a Canon camera other than an L series lens. At the time the camera shop tried to convince me to buy the 70-200mm L series lens that was about the same price. I didn't think that the 200mm lens would be sufficient for birding, but, now I think it would have allowed for better crops and likely would have been a better option than the 70-300mm IS lens.
If I had waited a few more months the Tamron VC would have been available and another option that would have been cheaper and from the sounds of it better.
I'm really looking forward to trying out the new Tamron lens, it is a pretty good price and sounds like it could be a very good lens for the price.
Made it to the camera shop on the 13th, tried out the Tamron lens and was quite impressed.
Here is a photo taken at about 40 feet of a tag that measures about 8"x6".
Have also attached a dragon fly photo taken at about 5 feet.
Both photos were taken hand held.
I plan on going out today and getting some more photos and I will do some test shots with both the Canon and Tamron lenses.
I haven't edited either photo other than resizing for posting.
Here is a photo taken at about 40 feet of a tag that measures about 8"x6".
Have also attached a dragon fly photo taken at about 5 feet.
Both photos were taken hand held.
I plan on going out today and getting some more photos and I will do some test shots with both the Canon and Tamron lenses.
I haven't edited either photo other than resizing for posting.
Attachments
Last edited:
A few more shots.
Canon 70-300 IS pictures will be to the left of the Tamron 70-400 VC
The Tamron caught the truer color of the hummingbird feeder. I think the Tamron lens is a little sharper and the image stabilization does seem to be better than the Canon.
I've only had the Tamron for a day, but, so far I find it better than the Canon 70-300 IS.
You can hear the VC/IS working on both lenses but the Tamron is a little louder, but, it doesn't bother me.
When the Tamron VC kicks in you can see the picture snap to a standstill, which you don't with the Canon. This doesn't bother me either.
I have no UV filter on the Tamron as yet.
The Tamron is 62mm while the Canon is 58mm.
Noticed there seems to be a little bokeh happening on the right side of the hummingbird picture. There is a scratch in that spot. I do recall one review where the reviewer mentioned there seemed to be more noticeable bokeh with the Tamron lens.
Canon 70-300 IS pictures will be to the left of the Tamron 70-400 VC
The Tamron caught the truer color of the hummingbird feeder. I think the Tamron lens is a little sharper and the image stabilization does seem to be better than the Canon.
I've only had the Tamron for a day, but, so far I find it better than the Canon 70-300 IS.
You can hear the VC/IS working on both lenses but the Tamron is a little louder, but, it doesn't bother me.
When the Tamron VC kicks in you can see the picture snap to a standstill, which you don't with the Canon. This doesn't bother me either.
I have no UV filter on the Tamron as yet.
The Tamron is 62mm while the Canon is 58mm.
Noticed there seems to be a little bokeh happening on the right side of the hummingbird picture. There is a scratch in that spot. I do recall one review where the reviewer mentioned there seemed to be more noticeable bokeh with the Tamron lens.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks again for the test information, Craig.
I have not used any Tamron 70-300 (old and new).
But I have the non PZD version of the 17-270 VC.
The following 2 shots were taken side by side. Left one Tamron on my 50D, and the Right one Canon 300f4 +1.4 on my 7D. The difference is the image size. The 270 mm off course need a bigger crop, but the image is not bad. (I got this lens is because of its wide angle side for scenic shots too, so that I don't have to carry the Canon 17-85 kit lens.
I have not used any Tamron 70-300 (old and new).
But I have the non PZD version of the 17-270 VC.
The following 2 shots were taken side by side. Left one Tamron on my 50D, and the Right one Canon 300f4 +1.4 on my 7D. The difference is the image size. The 270 mm off course need a bigger crop, but the image is not bad. (I got this lens is because of its wide angle side for scenic shots too, so that I don't have to carry the Canon 17-85 kit lens.
