I'd like to hear about people's experiences with the current model autofocus 1.4 and 2.0 Tamron teleconverters. It would be nice to have one to use on my Canon 200mm f2.8 every now and then. I've played around with the matched Canon 2.0 converter at Del's, but I can't justify spending $300 for one considering how infrequently I'd use it.

-- sheldon hambrick (shambric@us.ibm.com), September 29, 1998

Answers

Sorry for this late answer, but you should have a look at the new Sigma 1.4x EX and 2.0x EX teleconverters. The New Sigma 1.4 EX should -according to the French Magazine "Chasseur d'Images"- be a fine performer. The 2.0 EX is a step lower in quality. I'm considering myself to buy the 1.4x EX for my Nikon 80-200/2.8 because I also cannot justify the outrageous expensive (and Manual focus, without matrixmeting) Nikon TC 14 B (it costs in my country around 1000 US $ !!!!). It saw the TC 1.4 EX at my local dealer, and I was impressed by the built quality (for Sigma standards). The Sigma TC transmits all the electronic functions, including AF. Ivan

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), October 27, 1998.

Hi Sheldon, I have the 2x Knko in Minolta AF mount.

2x AF 7 element tele converter MC7 Kenko, mainly in use with a Tamron 28-105 f 2.8 lens :

7 Handy, nice made.

7 I use it to extend my focal length for city trips or short trips for the Tamron into the 200 mm range at f 5.6 . A comparison picture taken both at 135 mm with my manual focus equipment at 135 mm did not reveal any differences on 4x6 inch prints. This might be different with larger enlargements or slides, though.

7 With a minimum aperture of 5.6 and the Tamron attached the viewfinder image is darker and coarser than without the TC, but still OK for my taste.

7 It does not slow down AF, or at least not noticeable.

7 When used with a Tokina, AF 80-400 f 4.5-5.6 it was still possible up to 300 mm focal length to autofocus. The viewfinder is bright enough for normal light, but not for dim light. (I used this combination sometimes as a telescope replacement, even with an awful dark viewfinder it was better than my cheap binoculars, because I could use my tripod as support.)

7 Image quality OK for the casual or average user (4x6 in pictures). I will later try a few enlargements beyond that to see how far one can go.

I hope this will be of service.

-- Marcus Erne (mcerne@evansville.net), November 19, 1998.

i've used the tamron 1.4x and 2x on many canon lenses. 100-300 USM, 135 F2, 85 1.8, 50 1.8. they performed well on all of them. i actually like them better then the canon ones, because they don't slow down the AF and allow AF at smaller apertures.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), November 19, 1998.

I have been using the Tamron 1.4x with a cannon 300 f/4 L. I have found the extender to take away some contrast but that is usually ok for what I do. Most of the time I use it for surfing, therefore, contrast isn't much of a problem. It has all of the common problems with all converters, less sharp, less contrast, a little darker in the cornors, but I really don't think the image quality is all that bad when used with good handling. I really like the fact it doesn't slow the AF, that was of a major concern to me, but the best feature was the price. In short; it is good, not as good as a 500 f/4.5 but it sure is a good product for the cost.

-- colin mcvey (cmcvey@thegrid.net), January 15, 1999.

I had a Tamron 1.4x which performed good to excellent with the nikon 80-200 2.8 and fair to good with the 300. You must stop it down one stop from wide open to obtain good sharpness. The construction must not be the sturdiest because it died when between a Nikon D1 and a 300/2.8 when dropped less than one foot.

-- Paul Martinez (notdisclosed@spam.not), January 16, 2002.