180mm Macro lens / 1.4X Extender/Teleconverter Image Quality
I would like some feedback about the image quality obtainable with the Canon 180mm Macro lens and the Canon 1.4X Extender (and maybe the 2X also). I've not seen much mention of this combination after doing several Google searches and I don't know anybody who has the 180 macro and I can't find one to try and even Canon Tech Support Center had no experience with the combination.
I am a recent convert from Nikon to Canon and am now using a 5D MKII. I had been using a Nikon 200 macro lens, which I've seen referred to as one of the sharpest lenses ever made (I've used it with the Nikon 1.4X and 1.7X teleconverters) and I found it to be superbly sharp. When I started using the Canon body, I got an adapter and have continued using it, with fine results. But, the stop-down metering finally got to be too much for me ... too slow and bothersome.
I recently got a Tamron 180mm Macro lens after reading tests and reviews on various websites that seemed to indicate that it was a little bit sharper than the Canon 180, which I have never seen. (They seem to be a bit scarce - could not find one in Nashville, TN or Atlanta, GA)
I tried the Tamron lens out and it is indeed quite sharp, and it has a nifty polarizer control that I will find hard to live without now that I have used it. But my Canon 1.4X II Extender will not mount to the lens.
I managed to get it to mount by using a 12mm extension tube between it and the lens. No distant focus, but that's OK. But the image quality seems to take a serious hit.
I am wondering if the Canon 180 Macro will not degrade as much with the 1.4X? I have seen a few shots online taken with the Canon 180 and the 2X and they looked OK, but it's hard to tell much from an online jpg and it may have been seriously sharpened in software.
I like the Tamron lens, but would sell it and purchase a Canon if the Extenders will work well with it.
I am thinking about trying a Tamron SP 1.4X converter with the Tamron lens, which, in theory should work well, but Tamron says that they "do not guarantee the image quality of the converter with digital cameras". Pretty weird. I guess I will try to find one on ebay and try it, though.
More than likely, I will get the Canon 180 macro, but would appreciate the help of anyone with experience using the extenders with the lens. But if anyone uses the Tamron and knows of a converter that works well, that would be helpful, also.
Wow, Roger, I haven't been thinking about how many microns my pixels are, but maybe I should ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roger Clark
Hi Jim,
First, I'll add to the info that the canon 180 macro is one of their sharpest lenses. I have one and used it with 1.4x and 2x converters.
But remember, the diffraction spot diameter is 5.2 micron at f/4 for green light and 10.3 microns at f/8. The 1D Mark IV has 5.7 micron pixels and the 7D 4.3 micron pixels. So diffraction is affecting resolution on a subject with both cameras.
Crop factor has nothing to do with macro resolution on a subject. It is all about lens resolution, including diffraction effects and pixel sampling. So the 7D has about 32% more sampling than the 1DIV (linear measurement gives 32% more pixels on a subject). If you increase the magnification with a 1DIV to match that of the 7D using the same lens (e.g. if you had a 1.32x TC), the sampling and signal-to-noise ratio would be almost identical (actually the 7D image would be slightly better as the 7D pixels are slightly more efficient, but it would be hard to notice the difference visually).
Either camera will give great images, but both will be limited in resolution by diffraction.
Roger
Thank you Roger, for the detailed reply.
I am just about convinced to go ahead and get the Canon 180mm Macro, just so I can use the Canon 1.4X and perhaps, occasionally the 2X converters. I keep finding that i want the longer focal length for photographing small living creatures at a greater distance and for controlling the background that the lens sees when trying to make artistic images of wildflowers.
My 5D MKII seems to give pretty good image quality for closeups and I am thinking about getting the 7D for greater magnification. If it will also give good image quality - for fairly large prints - then it would be another tool for the same purpose mentioned above - controlling background and greater working distance - giving even more of the same with the Canon extenders.
I also use a Nikon 85mm Macro Tilt/Shift lens, with an adapter, on the 5D MKII. It seems to be a world-class lens in terms of sharpness. I often use a Nikon 1.4x Teleconverter with it and, in portrait orientation, shift three or four exposures horizontally, to create a much larger file, when stitched together. I have some fabulously sharp macro shots made this way that I think will print well quite large. Of course, the subject cannot be moving during the exposures.
Being able to tilt the lens and use a more moderate aperture (less diffraction) seems to improve sharpness. With my Tamron 180mm Macro, I have tried making several exposures at different focal points and combining in Helicon Focus to achieve a similar result. I find, though, that I have a hard time determining how far to advance the focus each time to make sure that there is some overlap of sharp focus in each frame. I've been trying to photograph some Passion Flowers which can require over an inch of depth of field, which requires a lot of frames at a very close focus, if I'm not stopping down to F22, but rather trying to shoot at F8 or F11.
It seems that something inevitably moves slightly during that many exposures. Even the slightest breeze (usually near the end of the shooting sequence) can move a flower part and cause improper language from even the most proper gentleman.
Any ideas or suggestions from your vast experience are appreciated.
Jim
Thanks, Chris, for telling me about the article by Roger
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chris Ober
Interesting article, but a bit technical for me. My brain just doesn't seem to work like that. I like to make artistic photographs of flowers ...
Now, I do want them to be sharp and to be technically able to be enlarged to make fairly large prints, like 20 X 30. Roger must enjoy physics. I like condensed explanations of the amazing concepts of physics (from those who enjoy it), but I don't like to do the math.
It seems to me that if, hypothetically, I had two cameras with two different sized sensors and each sensor had the same number of pixels, but the smaller one gave the cropped effect with the same lens, then I would be putting the same number of pixels on a smaller part of the picture, therefore giving the effect of a longer focal length telephoto lens. Of course it would not be exactly the same effect, but similar.
So, if I want my telephoto macro lens to "see" less of the background, so I can control the background better and get a smoother background look to my picture of a flower, similar to what putting a teleconverter on the lens would do, then I would think that the effect of a crop-factor camera would be very similar and accomplish the look that I was after.
A teleconverter seems to be a crop-factor type of tool, narrowing the field of view also, which is why I am looking into getting a teleconverter to work well with a long macro lens.
I keep thinking that using a 7D camera on the same lens or lens/teleconverter combination, and moving physically back from the subject would be accomplishing more of the same kind of look that comes from adding a teleconverter. I would think it would be similar in the look of the picture to just using a longer focal length lens.
I have never even looked through a 7D or any other crop-factor camera, but I am wondering how the pictures would compare, if I took the first one with my 5D MK II and the 180mm lens with the flower a certain size in the frame, then backed up and, keeping the same flower size in the frame, using a 7D, then using the 5D MK II again, from that same distance, using a longer focal length lens that would give me the same subject size in the frame. Another variation, hypothetically, would be to use a 1.6X teleconverter from that same backed up distance.
The idea is to narrow the field of view to see less of the background. With the flower the same size in the frame, would any of the backed up distance pictures look different or would they all look the same? I would be narrowing the field of view approximately the same in each case, using different tools to achieve the same look.
Am I thinking right on this, or am I missing something? I am most interested in the final look of the picture. Of course, I want to keep the sharpness and image quality, but, using high quality equipment, these should be similar in all the pictures.
I've only used a digital camera for about a year now and I still feel like a beginner in digital things, even though I've been shooting pictures for a long time. So any help from you digital gurus is appreciated. It's taking me a little while to catch on to some of the concepts.
Thanks, Roger, I am certainly considering the 300mm f4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roger Clark
Jim,
Perhaps consider the 300 f/4 L IS. It gives the focal length, has great close focus distance, and works as a great telephoto when you want to travel light. Works well with TCs too. Check out Greg Lasley's web sie, especially dragonflies:
http://www.greglasley.net/dragonix.html
He uses the canon 180 mm macro and 300 mm f/4.
If you want more than 1:1 magnification, then the 65mm 1 to 5x macro (manual focus) is the way to go.
Roger
Thanks, Roger, I am considering that lens. It is next on my wish list after the 180 macro! I'm sure there will be some overlap in usage, some shots that I can make with either the 180 with teleconverter or the 300 with extension tube. Nice to have options.
Tamron said on the phone their teleconverter won't work well with a digital camera!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob Decker
If you're satisified with the sharpness of the Tamron lens why would you suspect that the Tamron TC would be any less satisfactory? I really don't understand the reasoning there.
FWIW I don't own that lens but I do have a Tamron 1.4x TC that I use with a Canon 100mm macro lens quite a bit. IQ suits me fine.
Bob, the reason I am doubting the image quality of the Tamron converter is that, when I called Tamron on the telephone to ask about which of their converters would work best with their 180mm macro lens, they told me that neither one of them would work well on a digital camera. They said they could not "guarantee" how well it would work, so they suggested not using one on the lens.
I have called around near where I live in Tennessee and found a camera store in Nashville that has Tamron converters in stock, so I plan to go to Nashville next week and try one out on the lens to see for myself.
I also asked them if they had the Canon 180 macro for me to try and they said that they never stock that lens. It just doesn't seem to be hugely popular.
Looks like the ticket for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Don Lacy
90% of my Dragonfly images were made with the 300 f/4 IS and 25mm Ext tube with and without the 1.4TC the rest were made with a 500 f/4 and ext tube
.
http://lacy.smugmug.com/Other/Dragon...85938730_uiSbC All of the back grounds in these images are natural and created in camera using the 300 f/4 at apertures up to f/16 if this is the type of subjects along with wild flowers that you are interested in then I highly recommend the 300 f/4 it is just about the perfect all around lens that Canon makes.
Yes, thanks so much, Don. Backgrounds like these are exactly what I am looking for, to make the subject stand out. I'll be planning to go ahead and get the 300 f/4 very soon.
