Overview of the TAMRON-F AF TELE-CONVERTER 2X BBAR MC7. Review from the reader Radozhiva

Teleconverter TAMRON-F AF TELE-CONVERTER 2X BBAR MC7 review specially for Radozhiva, prepared Alexey Ovoshchnikov.



Today I decided to write my review on a two-time teleconverter.

Tele-converter is used to increase the focal length of the lens. This is an additional and not an independent element. On a camera with interchangeable optics, a teleconverter is installed first, and a lens is already installed on it. It is possible to install two teleconverters in series to obtain an even greater increase in focal length. Using teleconverter reduces aperture the lens is directly proportional to the multiplicity of the first.



I purchased it can be said by chance at a sale. In the photo equipment store, I saw him in a corner and with a sticker of 5 euros. I had a camera with me in my backpack Canon 6D and a lens of 50 f 1,4. I clarified that the device, although BU, but is fully operational and took several test shots. I was ready for very mediocre quality, but the teleconverter pleasantly surprised me. Then I checked the picture with 200 f2.8 and everything turned out quite well.

Separately, I will say about autofocus. This is very important if you want to engage in photohunting and twist by hand, it will be unacceptable to you. At full frame (5D, 5D mark 2, 6D), autofocus was a bit insecure, but always clung to the subject. I do not remember thoroughly what and how it was on each of the listed cameras. I remember that on the first nickle it was a little worse than on the other cameras.

With sprinkled Canon 100D and the TAMRON tele-converter there were very serious problems with autofocus even with lenses having f2.8. Even the central one didn’t work more precisely, but only tried to focus. And it was on the beach! There is a lot of light, but there is no autofocus! With the Canon EF 85 mm F1,8 portrait, everything worked well, almost as fast as without a converter.



In the photographs you can see how the teleconverter somewhat enhances the optical defects of the lens. This is a normal phenomenon all the more if you shoot a camera with a large number of megapixels.

To demonstrate the resolution I bring a portrait of a wasp. Here everything that is possible is squeezed out of optics, I made several such frames, but in the end I reduced the scale. Here you can see how he lathers even at the most well-chosen aperture value and the settings for the stacking program. Large-scale macro is an interesting, but also very time-consuming process.

I must say right away that before that I had not used the tele-converter at all, and it seemed to me that since it’s so good with this, with the latest model’s tele-converter, everything will be just awesome. Later I got the second one and compared this converter and the expensive Canon EF Extender 1.4X III (330 euros for a new one versus 5 euros for a Tamron control unit). Optically, the Canon EF teleconverter is only slightly better than this ancient Tamronchik.

Based on this, I conclude that the teleconverter from Tamron is quite successful! Just does not transmit to the camera an amendment about changing the aperture value. When we use the 2X tele-converter, the aperture value doubles. The electronics of the original Canon EF Extender converter are very friendly with the camera and lens and in the information for the photo you will see the real value of the aperture ratio.

We have not yet learned to make such perfect extenders that do not distort and do not lather the picture. Using a teleconverter is far from always justified. Such is the conclusion.

Review prepared Alexey Ovoshchnikov.

You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.

Add a comment:



Comments: 16, on the topic: Overview of TAMRON-F AF TELE-CONVERTER 2X BBAR MC7. Review from the reader Radozhiva

  • lech

    I once had something similar from Kenko. Six months later, presented to someone. All these teleconverters, and even the city, are natural masochism. Even a budget telephoto buoys the best option.

  • Michael

    "Using a tele-converter will reduce the aperture of the lens"
    Well and generally inaccuracy. Still, a two-time teleconverter reduces the aperture by 2 stops, i.e. 4 times.

    • Serhiy Todoriuk

      The man wrote everything correctly. With a 2x converter, the focal and aperture numbers need to be multiplied by 2, 200 2.8 will turn into 400 5.6. It is also worth noting that the logic of the teleconverter itself is based on the stretching of the output image, optical cropping itself, and even with a completely perfect converter quality, the picture quality will fall evenly for this simple reason. Well, one more note, if we have a multi-pixel camera, say at 60 megapixels and at the same time the lens can resolve something in the region of 40 megapixels, then when pulling the extender the lens can already resolve 40 / (2 * 2) 10mp, which is completely equivalent if if you would sprinkle the same 10MP image center without a converter, to enlarge the image with and without the converter, but the cropped one will have the same viewing angle. Everything in the world is connected.

  • Noa

    indulge in either from despair
    Threat commas would place

    • Novel

      Hopelessness, for that matter.

  • anonym

    There are many mistakes.

  • Kirill

    Arkady, good evening! Let me express my deep gratitude for your efforts! I wanted to ask a question, I have Tamron 24-70 2.8 usd di on a d7100 carcass. There was an idea to change it to Sigma 18-35 1.8 DC. In the tamron, I do not like a large amount of soap, I have to cover the diaphragm. I shoot mostly reports, portraits and interior. Just for reporting and I think to take. What do you think?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      18-35 is pleasant, but often short. If the focal fits, then it makes sense to change.

  • anonym

    joyfully died for weeks there is nothing

    • Alexey de Paris

      At least you would understand the meaning of this site! Write nonsense. Send Arcadia a new lens for review and you will have a review!

    • B. R. P.

      Tip your tongue, a crack on the smartphone.

  • Alexander

    It seems to me that the main complaints about Canon EF Extender 1.4X III are due to cost :) It is clear that it is not 66 times better than Tamron. I have version II, and on it with the native 300 / 4L the drop in quality is very insignificant. Probably, it also depends on the lens - Canon most likely optimizes converters for specific lenses, and Tamron is universal. But it does not have a protruding lens and you can use more lenses. And if you put up with the "soap" then the Soviet TK-2 is not bad.

    • Alexey de Paris

      As for the protruding lens in the converter from Canon, you very correctly noticed. I don’t get onto most of the lenses because of this design feature. With Tamron, everything is simple, he is omnivorous. On which camera do you use your bundle with a teleconverter?

  • lech

    All Canon and Nikon converters are made for glass in which the back is recessed (that is, expensive).

    • Alexey de Paris

      And it happens that the back (lens) is recessed but the teleconverter still does not fit. You need to look at compatibility in advance before buying or try on the spot.

  • Sergei

    The topic that I read is a lot of empty and incomprehensible ... relatively many words ... I would like to know for those who do not understand ... how the teleconverter somewhat enhances the optical defects of the lens ... and what defects are they not shown and comparison with what? You need to answer and write carefully what … It is promised… if it is promised for whom guesses? For comparison it is difficult to determine where which one… I would be grateful if there are explanations for those who cannot understand the quality….

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2019/01/tamron-f-af-tele-2x-bbar-mc7/

Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2019/01/tamron-f-af-tele-2x-bbar-mc7/