Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Tamron SP 90mm + teleconverter + extension tube: comparisons
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:02 am    Post subject: Tamron SP 90mm + teleconverter + extension tube: comparisons Reply with quote
I've been willing to perform such a comparison since I got these babies. Wanted to see what the differences in quality and magnification are when shooting through the teleconverter (TC) vs the extension tube (ET) or when puting the TC on ET vs the other way around. Christmas day seemed as a perfect occasion for such an obsolete task, so here are the results.

Gear:
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 52BB + Tamron 01F 2x teleconverter + Tamron 18F extension tube + Tamron 98FH lens hood. All of that mounted on Canon 60D sitting on Velbon Sherpa 600R tripod with its original head. No additional support for the lens which, I bet, would be beneficial.

The subject:
1950's Waltham gold plated watch. The bracelet is 17mm in the widest point and comes down to 15mm in the narrowest. The case is about 41mm lug tip to lug tip. Although I haven't tasted it, that watch looks pretty minty Very Happy Inside its original box, with tags and everything.

Of course, lots of air passed around this timepiece during all these years. The friction involved left some scars on its fragile body. This is why I've chosen it for my subject: a PITA reflective surface + many details and blemishes imperceptible to the naked eye.


I've shot in a very scientific environment: on a coffee table using unmodified terrace window as the light source. I wasn't pursuing the most flattering light nor the best framing, just wanted to compare the magnification and detail level at different setups.

I was shooting at MFD (which of course is different for each setup), with 10s delay, without a remote and I was focusing by moving the subject.

As for PP, I've only adjusted the usual exposure sliders in CameraRAW, applied some standard CA reduction (it tends to be a problem with this lens) and some sharpening while resizing.



The following samples were all shot at f/5.6 set at the lens, which translates to God_knows_what final aperture when using TC + ET.

1. Bare lens, exposure: 0.5s


1:1 of the above




2. ET + lens, exposure: 0.8s


1:1 of the above




3. TC + lens, exposure: 2.5s


1:1 of the above




4. ET + TC + lens, exposure: 2.5s


1:1 of the above




5. TC + ET + lens, exposure: 3.2s


1:1 of the above





Then, just for the hell of it, I took out the kit Canon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 lens... and freelensed a bit Smile At the wide end it's the widest lens I have. So, I set it to 18mm f/3.5 and put it reversed in front of the above setup (TC+ET+Tamron without lens hood). It wasn't easy, there was a lot of light leaking (55mm thread on Tamron vs 72mm on Canon), super thin DoF and even the slightest movement would affect both the focus and the framing. Long exposure was not an option, so I remotely triggered the YN-565 flash which I located next to the subject, to compensate for the tremendous light loss. The following photo is the best I came up with before loosing the patience. But I'll definitely be getting a few of those coupling rings Smile


1/160, uncropped





TC + ET + Tamron at different apertures:

f/2.5 at 0.5s


f4 at 1.3s


f/5.6 at 1.6s


f/8 at 3.2s


f/11 at 6s




Aaaand some more samples using same toys, mostly uncropped:













Handheld






1:1 of the above




Handheld


Handheld, TC + Lens (no ET)


Last edited by kido on Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:14 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Particularly interesting since i own the 52B, 01F and 18F
(but can't find the damn hood Evil or Very Mad)

Great stuff !

Thanks for sharing.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A nice set of pictures showing the Tamron lens at its best.

I believe I can see the difference in image sharpness when using the TC as opposed to the lens & tube.

Having said that, if used on a non critical subject you would be hard pressed to see the difference at f5.6. It may be a different story at full aperture.

A good idea for a boring Christmas day!


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:00 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a great lens, so versatile. It's a lens I'll never sell. Cool


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, guys. Indeed, it's a nice piece of glass and the whole combo works together nicely. I bought two 52BB, mostly because of the bundled items. Was planning on selling one, but now I'm not so sure. I mean, where will I get this kind of quality for less than a $100? I can keep one of them with the TC coupled all the time and pretend I have two different lenses Smile


Quote:
Having said that, if used on a non critical subject you would be hard pressed to see the difference at f5.6. It may be a different story at full aperture.


Yes, the difference is hard (if possible) to notice while looking at a complete frame on a computer screen. In a spare minute I'll do the comparison you mention, TC vs ET at f/2.5.


I haven't shared my thoughts because I wanted the images to speak for themselves and was curious if more experienced eyes would notice same things I did. But here we go:

1. It's a great lens, I find it cheap for what it delivers.

2. Tamron 01F TC is another piece of quality glass, I was surprised by how little quality deterioration it induces while doubling the focal range.

3. The blue spot, everyone grumbles about, is a negligible problem. It just doesn't show up in most situations.

4. The CA can get quite heavy, obviously: the wider the heavier. It's not always there but in extreme cases it may need some PP effort to get rid of.

This is the unprocessed 1:1 crop of one of the above photos shot at f/2.5. It doesn't get worse than that, usually it gets better Smile




5. Just as Philslizzy pointed out, the difference in sharpness is minimal when comparing TC vs ET, but it's there. In real life use (product photography for example) it wouldn't probably matter in most cases. However, when shooting at close distance, you'll probably prefer using the ET over adding more glass elements with the TC.

6. The light loss is much more perceptible than the sharpness loss, when comparing the TC vs ET.

7. You get more magnification if, counting from the camera, you put the TC+ET+Lens vs ET+TC+Lens. Using such a combo can still deliver astonishing results.

8. Reversing lenses for macro may actually work, but needs further developement in my case Smile

Just as a curiosity, here is the result of same kit zoom-lens reversed at 18mm and handheld in front of the Sears 200mm f/3.5. What you see are two letters: "E" & "X", printed on a beercan. These letters are about 2mm high and the photo has not been cropped.





9. I need to clean the sensor in my camera (I cloned out quite a number of dots)


Summing it all up: you get roughly the same magnification with either the ET or TC, although I guess the image geometry must be somewhat different (that's beyond my perception Wink ). However, the use of ET vs TC is always a tradeoff, one way or another.

With the ET you get slightly better quality picture and you loose noticeably less light but you can only focus in a limited range at close distance.

With the TC it's the other way around: you trade some light and quality for the full focusing range as you turn the 90mm f/2.5 into a 180mm f/5.0.

ET - good for macro, product photography etc. TC - good for everything else. TC + ET - gives you the greatest magnification this combo can deliver and still provides fantastic quality images.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had a quick look on ebay for this lens and thought I have a Rokkor AF 100mm f2.8 macro. How would that compare I wonder?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
I had a quick look on ebay for this lens


I did just the same and either the prices went up or all the reasonably priced ones sold for Christmas. I mean, $105 for the extension tube? OK, it's boxed and as minty as it gets but this is the price I paid about 6 months ago for the lens + ET + original hood altogether. And it was an auction.


philslizzy wrote:
and thought I have a Rokkor AF 100mm f2.8 macro. How would that compare I wonder?


All it takes to find out is a coffee table and a boring Christmas day Smile


PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kido wrote:
philslizzy wrote:
I had a quick look on ebay for this lens


I did just the same and either the prices went up or all the reasonably priced ones sold for Christmas. I mean, $105 for the extension tube? OK, it's boxed and as minty as it gets but this is the price I paid about 6 months ago for the lens + ET + original hood altogether. And it was an auction.


philslizzy wrote:
and thought I have a Rokkor AF 100mm f2.8 macro. How would that compare I wonder?


All it takes to find out is a coffee table and a boring Christmas day Smile


or maybe tomorrow afternoon after work...


PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
kido wrote:


philslizzy wrote:
and thought I have a Rokkor AF 100mm f2.8 macro. How would that compare I wonder?


All it takes to find out is a coffee table and a boring Christmas day Smile


or maybe tomorrow afternoon after work...


Even better. Good luck with your tests Smile



kido wrote:
In a spare minute I'll do the comparison you mention, TC vs ET at f/2.5.


I promised, I deliver.

Same subject, same window, same gear. The only difference is the aperture (f/2.5) and the PP. This time I abstained myself from post processing the 1:1 crops. I only did some work on the full-scene photos (levels, CA reduction, sharpening while resizing). This way you get to see the 1:1 result straight from the camera, and what can be achieved with the minimal PP.

Please take into account that the MFD with the ET is about a half of what it is with the TC. Although I tried to achieve similar framing, the angles are different.

Oh, and I didn't play with the WB nor color adjustments. TC seems to induce some color shift. So here you go, one more conclusion I missed earlier Smile


ET+Lens, 1/5s



1:1 of the above




TC+Lens, 0.4s



1:1 of the above




ET+Lens, 1/8s



1:1 of the above




TC+Lens, 0.4s



1:1 of the above
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1