180mm Macro lens / 1.4X Extender/Teleconverter Image Quality

[Jim Cash]

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.

[Chris Ober]

It works great with the 1.4x and I use them together often. I rarely use the 2X. The 180mm is one of Canon's sharpest lenses, if not the sharpest. If the 1.4X degrades at all, I can't tell.

[Jim Cash]

It works great with the 1.4x and I use them together often. I rarely use the 2X. The 180mm is one of Canon's sharpest lenses, if not the sharpest. If the 1.4X degrades at all, I can't tell.

That's good to hear. Thanks so much for the reply. I just saw a picture on the macro forum of a tiny ant taken by D. Robert Franz, using the 2X and the 180 macro, and it looked quite good.

I'm still wondering if I can use a teleconverter with the Tamron, just so I can keep using the great polarizer control knob. I use a polarizer a lot on my macro and close-up shots of flowers and other non-moving subjects, and it is so convenient to be able to turn the polarizer with a ring just behind the lens hood and not have to remove the lens hood every time I want to adjust the filter. It's addictive. I wish Canon would catch onto that idea!

But, image quality trumps convenience, so, if I can't find a teleconverter that will give good image quality with the Tamron, I will have to sell it and get the Canon. Without a converter, the Tamron is about as sharp as a lens can possibly be, but I often do want to use a converter to control the background of a close up shot or just to be able to stay back a few more inches to get the shot.

I did notice that the ant shot was made with a 7D camera, so that gives the impression of an even longer lens. I am now shooting a 5D MKII, which has pretty good image quality and allows fairly large prints, which is what I am after. To make large prints - 20 X 30 to 30 X 40 sizes - image quality is very important. I don't know if the 7D would give the same image quality for large prints. I've read some mixed reviews, some saying it is great and some saying that it is not good enough for very large prints. But, getting a 7D would be the equivalent of a 1.6X converter!

[Roger Clark]

That's good to hear. Thanks so much for the reply. I just saw a picture on the macro forum of a tiny ant taken by D. Robert Franz, using the 2X and the 180 macro, and it looked quite good.

I'm still wondering if I can use a teleconverter with the Tamron, just so I can keep using the great polarizer control knob. I use a polarizer a lot on my macro and close-up shots of flowers and other non-moving subjects, and it is so convenient to be able to turn the polarizer with a ring just behind the lens hood and not have to remove the lens hood every time I want to adjust the filter. It's addictive. I wish Canon would catch onto that idea!

But, image quality trumps convenience, so, if I can't find a teleconverter that will give good image quality with the Tamron, I will have to sell it and get the Canon. Without a converter, the Tamron is about as sharp as a lens can possibly be, but I often do want to use a converter to control the background of a close up shot or just to be able to stay back a few more inches to get the shot.

I did notice that the ant shot was made with a 7D camera, so that gives the impression of an even longer lens. I am now shooting a 5D MKII, which has pretty good image quality and allows fairly large prints, which is what I am after. To make large prints - 20 X 30 to 30 X 40 sizes - image quality is very important. I don't know if the 7D would give the same image quality for large prints. I've read some mixed reviews, some saying it is great and some saying that it is not good enough for very large prints. But, getting a 7D would be the equivalent of a 1.6X converter!

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

[Chris Ober]

The Canon converters won't work with the Tamron lens without using an extension tube because of the protruding front element on the converter.

[Jim Cash]

The Canon converters won't work with the Tamron lens without using an extension tube because of the protruding front element on the converter.

Yes, that's right.

I am still hoping that a Tamron or Kenko teleconverter (or another that I don't know about), that does not have the protruding element, will work well and give sharp images, so that I can keep the Tamron, which handles well, is light, has the fabulous polarizer control ring, and is tack sharp

But, I can find no one who has used these converters with the Tamron 180mm Macro and I hate to spend $250 to find out that it's not very sharp.

So, I will probably buy the Canon 180 Macro, when I get the Tamron sold.

Thanks so much.

[Chris Ober]

Buy a teleconverter from a reputable dealer that has a good return policy and return it if you aren't happy with the results.

[Jim Cash]

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

[Chris Ober]

The 1.6x crop of the 7D and any other crop format body doesn't increase magnification.

No one can explain it like Roger... http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...tor/index.html
Break out the calculator :)

[Jim Cash]

The 1.6x crop of the 7D and any other crop format body doesn't increase magnification.

No one can explain it like Roger... http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...tor/index.html
Break out the calculator :)

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.

[Roger Clark]

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.

Any ideas or suggestions from your vast experience are appreciated.

Jim

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

[Jim Cash]

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.

[Bob Decker]

I am still hoping that a Tamron or Kenko teleconverter (or another that I don't know about), that does not have the protruding element, will work well and give sharp images, so that I can keep the Tamron, which handles well, is light, has the fabulous polarizer control ring, and is tack sharp

Thanks so much.

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.

[Charles Glatzer]

I know the Canon and Sigma 180 are killer sharp and work well with the 1.4x, but I just sold my Canon as I found I was not using it as much as the 300 f/4 with extension tube. I have no experiance with the Tamron.

That said...I know pro butterfly and dragonfly photogs recommend using the 300 f/4 with extension tubes. The narrower field of view helps to select backgrounds. The longer focal length does not alter behavior or flush subjects, and helps to seperate the subject from the background.

Chas

[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.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Jim,
Be aware that on some lenses.....like my (older model) 180mm Sigma.....I have to use a 20mm tube in between the older version TC and the lens......not sure on the newest versions if that is the same.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Jim I have used the Canon 180mm macro in conjunction with Canon 1.4 and 2.0 TC, the reason I bought the canon is that it would be compatible wit the TCs. Results are excellent.
If you really need convincing of the potential of the Canon 180 with Canon TC have a look here:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/gallery.php?l=en&id=16#014272

[Charles Glatzer]

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.

Hey Don,

Freak'in Killer Image ... Halloween Pennants Mating!!!!!

Chas

[Don Lacy]

Hey Don,

Freak'in Killer Image ... Halloween Pennants Mating!!!!!

Chas

Thanks Chas I posted the link to highlight your comments on the benefits of shooting with the 300 f/4 which I love those images at least in Florida are not possible with a shorter focal length marco lens.

[Jim Cash]

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.

[Jim Cash]

I know the Canon and Sigma 180 are killer sharp and work well with the 1.4x, but I just sold my Canon as I found I was not using it as much as the 300 f/4 with extension tube. I have no experiance with the Tamron.

That said...I know pro butterfly and dragonfly photogs recommend using the 300 f/4 with extension tubes. The narrower field of view helps to select backgrounds. The longer focal length does not alter behavior or flush subjects, and helps to seperate the subject from the background.

Chas

It looks like I am going to have to get a 300 f4. Many people are suggesting it and I'm sure it is a valuable tool. I've only been using Canon gear for about a year and I used to shoot a Nikon 200 macro (the older, manual focus model) with a 1.4X and a 1.7X converter with good results. That combination gave similar results to shooting with a 300mm f4, which I also did with the Nikon version (which focuses to about 4 ft.) I'm trying to get it back together in the Canon world.

[Jim Cash]

Hey Jim,
Be aware that on some lenses.....like my (older model) 180mm Sigma.....I have to use a 20mm tube in between the older version TC and the lens......not sure on the newest versions if that is the same.

Thanks, Roman. I tried that with the Canon converters and Tamron, with a 12mm Kenko tube that I have. I didn't really like the results. Not terrible, but not super sharp either. That's why I keep thinking that the Canon 180mm and Canon teleconverters may give better results.

[Jim Cash]

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.

[Jim Cash]

Jim I have used the Canon 180mm macro in conjunction with Canon 1.4 and 2.0 TC, the reason I bought the canon is that it would be compatible wit the TCs. Results are excellent.
If you really need convincing of the potential of the Canon 180 with Canon TC have a look here:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/gallery.php?l=en&id=16#014272

Very nice images, Jonathan. Fantastic subjects you have in Europe! We have some great ones in Tennessee, also, but seeing some new colorful butterflies and other insects that I have never seen before definitely gets a reaction.

You seemed to get perfectly parallel to each subject, giving that perfect sharpness. I can see that you work hard at your craft because you have excellent results.

I also am now convinced that the Canon 180 macro does indeed give good results even with a teleconverter. Thanks so much for sharing your encouragement and showing me these wonderful pictures.

I have been using a 5D MKII, the only body I have. I like the image quality pretty well, but sometimes think about getting a 7D for a backup and for the extra crop / magnification / reach --- whatever you want to call it --- the more frame-filling image from further away. I see that you seem to get very good results from the 7D. I keep reading mixed reviews about it and can't decide if I should consider it. You mention on your website that you make images available for printing. I wonder how the 7D files enlarge to fairly large sizes in comparison with the 5D MKII? They look so great on my computer monitor, but enlarging really shows the quality and I'm interested in your experience. I see that you use various pieces of equipment, so you must have some idea of how well the 7D images enlarge.

Thank you for any suggestions.

[Jim Cash]

Jim I have used the Canon 180mm macro in conjunction with Canon 1.4 and 2.0 TC, the reason I bought the canon is that it would be compatible wit the TCs. Results are excellent.
If you really need convincing of the potential of the Canon 180 with Canon TC have a look here:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/gallery.php?l=en&id=16#014272

Hi Jonathan, I thought this was your website, the Juza site. I guess not. But I did read the article by Juza about cameras and why he liked the 7D. He's got some fine photos and is a prolific writer, also, even having his own set of discussion forums. A lot of interesting information and great pictures.

Thanks for letting me know about another resource, almost like the European equivalent of BPN.