Archive 2015 · Yongnuo 2.0x TC
p.2 #1Yongnuo 2.0x TC
kezeka wrote:
I am probably going to end up picking up the canon 2.0x TC II since I don't intend on using one frequently and don't feel like spending $400 on one. The Yongnuo just happens to cost about the same as the mk II TCs.
http://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-YN2-0X-III-Teleconverter-Extender/dp/B00OT0VCP4/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&qid=1420101444&sr=8-18&keywords=canon+2x+teleconverterHow do they copy the glass? IIRC Canon and Nikon have dozens of specific types of glass available and develop special glasses when needed.
EBHIf Canon and Nikon can make it, why can't someone else?It is not that they cannot make it, they can. The issues I have had with third party glass, are af consistency, quality control and the often inability to work with future OEM bodies.
Being as good is not enough for me, especially when Canon 2xIII are trading for under $300 would not sway me to purchase a piece of third party glass. The third party extender would need to be better for me to purchase it. Of course, it is just my opinion.
Strokes for folks. The best.I would call into question the AF accuracy complaint when it comes to extenders since there are no motors within the extender. Clearly, I am no lens designer and do not know how extenders impact the AF calculations but it would seem to me that they would not modify the AF motor in the lens' ability to focus nor the cameras ability to convey that information. There is a possibility that the electronic connection between lens and body could be bad but I believe that extenders literally just connect the leads from the body to the leads on the lens.
I'll...Show more →
Thanks kezeka, I was making a general claim about third party glass, not this extender in particular.
For example, my siggy 50 1.4, not art, and siggy 85 1.4 both gave me af issues, after 18-24 months.
I cannot speak specifically about the extender in question, just third party lenses. And of course, just my experience.
Tom Dix wrote
kezeka wrote
EB-1 wrote
kezeka wrote
Was looking at picking up a 2.0x TC for use with the 300/2.8 I just picked up and I stumbled upon a Yongnuo variant of the latest Canon 2.0x TC. It looks fairly similar in design (probably an exact copy). Has anyone found any reviews regarding it? Anyone here have any experience with them?I am probably going to end up picking up the canon 2.0x TC II since I don't intend on using one frequently and don't feel like spending $400 on one. The Yongnuo just happens to cost about the same as the mk II TCs.
http://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-YN2-0X-III-Teleconverter-Extender/dp/B00OT0VCP4/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&qid=1420101444&sr=8-18&keywords=canon+2x+teleconverter
EBH
Being as good is not enough for me, especially when Canon 2xIII are trading for under $300 would not sway me to purchase a piece of third party glass. The third party extender would need to be better for me to purchase it. Of course, it is just my opinion.
Strokes for folks. The best.
I'll...Show more →
Thanks kezeka, I was making a general claim about third party glass, not this extender in particular.
For example, my siggy 50 1.4, not art, and siggy 85 1.4 both gave me af issues, after 18-24 months.
I cannot speak specifically about the extender in question, just third party lenses. And of course, just my experience.
Jan 05, 2015 at 11:39 PM
p.2 #2Yongnuo 2.0x TC
kezeka wrote:
I would call into question the AF accuracy complaint when it comes to extenders since there are no motors within the extender. Clearly, I am no lens designer and do not know how extenders impact the AF calculations but it would seem to me that they would not modify the AF motor in the lens' ability to focus nor the cameras ability to convey that information. There is a possibility that the electronic connection between lens and body could be bad but I believe that extenders literally just connect the leads from the body to the leads on the lens.
A good TC (e.g., OEM Nikon) will be coded to inform the camera of it's existence and factor. In some of the older cameras that was very simple, but entails a chip nowadays. The 3rd party TCs may not have any coding, but depends on what the manufacturer decides to do. If the camera does not know there is a TC attached, the AF may have a higher miss rate.
EBH
I would call into question the AF accuracy complaint when it comes to extenders since there are no motors within the extender. Clearly, I am no lens designer and do not know how extenders impact the AF calculations but it would seem to me that they would not modify the AF motor in the lens' ability to focus nor the cameras ability to convey that information. There is a possibility that the electronic connection between lens and body could be bad but I believe that extenders literally just connect the leads from the body to the leads on the lens.
A good TC (e.g., OEM Nikon) will be coded to inform the camera of it's existence and factor. In some of the older cameras that was very simple, but entails a chip nowadays. The 3rd party TCs may not have any coding, but depends on what the manufacturer decides to do. If the camera does not know there is a TC attached, the AF may have a higher miss rate.
EBH
Jan 06, 2015 at 12:16 AM
p.2 #3Yongnuo 2.0x TC
here is a comparison between the Yongnuo 50mm 1.8 and the canon 1.8.
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/27/comparing-optics-40-yongnuo-50mm-f1-8-125-canon-50mm-f1-8-ii/
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/27/comparing-optics-40-yongnuo-50mm-f1-8-125-canon-50mm-f1-8-ii/
Jan 06, 2015 at 12:29 AM
p.2 #4Yongnuo 2.0x TC
With today's optical software it is easy to copy lenses, you start with the physical measurements diameter and radius. Make a reasonable guess for the glass properties, measure the mtf etc at infinity and a reasonable distance. Input all of the above, into the computer and let it rip over the weekend, then presto you have a design. Well almost you still need tha AF software hardware easy to reverse engineer from vivitar ef lenses, the figure out some of the mechanical stuff. The last thing you ever want to do is patent your lens because you are required to give the glass composition. Btw you can buy the raw glass from Hoya.
Gerry
Gerry
Jan 06, 2015 at 07:18 PM
p.2 #5Yongnuo 2.0x TC
Just got one of these in the mail today. Unfortunately, I don't have a Canon 2x III to compare against but I'll post some samples later today.
Jan 07, 2015 at 02:28 PM
p.2 #6Yongnuo 2.0x TC
Sorry for the delay but I'm seeing some weird behavior with this and want to get a better understanding of it before I present anything. So far what I've seen it that the images with the teleconverter on the 70-200ii are razor sharp in the center and reasonably good at the borders at short focus distances but the shots are just downright mushy at reasonably long focus distances. I'll report back when I have a better understanding of what's going on but I only have ~20 minutes of daylight per day to play with until the weekend.
Jan 08, 2015 at 03:33 PM
p.2 #7Yongnuo 2.0x TC
Any updates and test shots to share whumber? I am interested in this YN-2XtcIII. I am particularly interested in AF speed and accuracy as well as sharpness. I would love to see and hear a direct comparison with the Canon version when someone is able to have both side by side. Thanks in advance.
Jan 12, 2015 at 02:09 PM
p.2 #8Yongnuo 2.0x TC
I'm pretty sure the copy I received must have been defective so I'd rather not post the results I have now as it seems like they could give an unfair reputation. It gave excellent results when I tested in a studio environment but the results were quite awful outdoors at more realistic subject distances. I'm in the process of exchanging it for another copy at the moment and will post up some results when the replacement comes. If the next copy exhibits the same behavior then I'll feel comfortable enough that it's not just a freak occurrence.
Jan 12, 2015 at 04:11 PM
p.2 #9Yongnuo 2.0x TC
Thanks for the update, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the replacement!
Jan 12, 2015 at 09:52 PM
p.2 #10Yongnuo 2.0x TC
whumber wrote:
I'm pretty sure the copy I received must have been defective so I'd rather not post the results I have now as it seems like they could give an unfair reputation. It gave excellent results when I tested in a studio environment but the results were quite awful outdoors at more realistic subject distances. I'm in the process of exchanging it for another copy at the moment and will post up some results when the replacement comes. If the next copy exhibits the same behavior then I'll feel comfortable enough that it's not just a freak occurrence.
Have you tried it on a long tele lens?
EBH
I'm pretty sure the copy I received must have been defective so I'd rather not post the results I have now as it seems like they could give an unfair reputation. It gave excellent results when I tested in a studio environment but the results were quite awful outdoors at more realistic subject distances. I'm in the process of exchanging it for another copy at the moment and will post up some results when the replacement comes. If the next copy exhibits the same behavior then I'll feel comfortable enough that it's not just a freak occurrence.
Have you tried it on a long tele lens?
EBH
Jan 12, 2015 at 10:30 PM
p.2 #11Yongnuo 2.0x TC
whumber wrote:
I'm pretty sure the copy I received must have been defective so I'd rather not post the results I have now as it seems like they could give an unfair reputation. It gave excellent results when I tested in a studio environment but the results were quite awful outdoors at more realistic subject distances. I'm in the process of exchanging it for another copy at the moment and will post up some results when the replacement comes. If the next copy exhibits the same behavior then I'll feel comfortable enough that it's not just a freak occurrence.
Thanks looking forward to hearing and seeing more on this...
I'm pretty sure the copy I received must have been defective so I'd rather not post the results I have now as it seems like they could give an unfair reputation. It gave excellent results when I tested in a studio environment but the results were quite awful outdoors at more realistic subject distances. I'm in the process of exchanging it for another copy at the moment and will post up some results when the replacement comes. If the next copy exhibits the same behavior then I'll feel comfortable enough that it's not just a freak occurrence.
Thanks looking forward to hearing and seeing more on this...
Jan 14, 2015 at 01:03 PM
p.2 #12Yongnuo 2.0x TC
EB-1 wrote:
Have you tried it on a long tele lens?
EBH
Unfortunately no, I don't have anything longer than 200mm in EF mount. As an aside, for some good news I should have an actual Canon 2x III to compare against by the time I get the Yongnuo replacement so hopefully the comparison should be a bit more useful now.
whumber wrote
I'm pretty sure the copy I received must have been defective so I'd rather not post the results I have now as it seems like they could give an unfair reputation. It gave excellent results when I tested in a studio environment but the results were quite awful outdoors at more realistic subject distances. I'm in the process of exchanging it for another copy at the moment and will post up some results when the replacement comes. If the next copy exhibits the same behavior then I'll feel comfortable enough that it's not just a freak occurrence.EBH
Unfortunately no, I don't have anything longer than 200mm in EF mount. As an aside, for some good news I should have an actual Canon 2x III to compare against by the time I get the Yongnuo replacement so hopefully the comparison should be a bit more useful now.
Jan 14, 2015 at 07:02 PM
p.2 #13Yongnuo 2.0x TC
whumber wrote:
Have you tried it on a long tele lens?
EBHUnfortunately no, I don't have anything longer than 200mm in EF mount. As an aside, for some good news I should have an actual Canon 2x III to compare against by the time I get the Yongnuo replacement so hopefully the comparison should be a bit more useful now.
Sounds good thanks...
EB-1 wrote
whumber wrote
I'm pretty sure the copy I received must have been defective so I'd rather not post the results I have now as it seems like they could give an unfair reputation. It gave excellent results when I tested in a studio environment but the results were quite awful outdoors at more realistic subject distances. I'm in the process of exchanging it for another copy at the moment and will post up some results when the replacement comes. If the next copy exhibits the same behavior then I'll feel comfortable enough that it's not just a freak occurrence.EBH
Sounds good thanks...
Jan 14, 2015 at 10:14 PM
p.2 #14Yongnuo 2.0x TC
whumber wrote:
Have you tried it on a long tele lens?
EBHUnfortunately no, I don't have anything longer than 200mm in EF mount. As an aside, for some good news I should have an actual Canon 2x III to compare against by the time I get the Yongnuo replacement so hopefully the comparison should be a bit more useful now.
Actual testing should be far superior to couching the whole thing like the previous page. Any idea when you will have all of the TCs in by?
EB-1 wrote
whumber wrote
I'm pretty sure the copy I received must have been defective so I'd rather not post the results I have now as it seems like they could give an unfair reputation. It gave excellent results when I tested in a studio environment but the results were quite awful outdoors at more realistic subject distances. I'm in the process of exchanging it for another copy at the moment and will post up some results when the replacement comes. If the next copy exhibits the same behavior then I'll feel comfortable enough that it's not just a freak occurrence.EBH
Actual testing should be far superior to couching the whole thing like the previous page. Any idea when you will have all of the TCs in by?
Jan 14, 2015 at 10:57 PM
p.2 #15Yongnuo 2.0x TC
kezeka wrote:
Have you tried it on a long tele lens?
EBHUnfortunately no, I don't have anything longer than 200mm in EF mount. As an aside, for some good news I should have an actual Canon 2x III to compare against by the time I get the Yongnuo replacement so hopefully the comparison should be a bit more useful now.Actual testing should be far superior to couching the whole thing like the previous page. Any idea when you will have all of the TCs in by?
Probably not for at least another week at best. I ordered the original one through Amazon but I think it shipped from somewhere in China as delivery took a bit over a week.
Edit: Actually scratch that. It seems they have some that are being distributed directly through Amazon's network now so I may be able to order one of those and turn this around much faster.
whumber wrote
EB-1 wrote
whumber wrote
I'm pretty sure the copy I received must have been defective so I'd rather not post the results I have now as it seems like they could give an unfair reputation. It gave excellent results when I tested in a studio environment but the results were quite awful outdoors at more realistic subject distances. I'm in the process of exchanging it for another copy at the moment and will post up some results when the replacement comes. If the next copy exhibits the same behavior then I'll feel comfortable enough that it's not just a freak occurrence.EBH
Probably not for at least another week at best. I ordered the original one through Amazon but I think it shipped from somewhere in China as delivery took a bit over a week.
Edit: Actually scratch that. It seems they have some that are being distributed directly through Amazon's network now so I may be able to order one of those and turn this around much faster.
Jan 15, 2015 at 12:11 PM
p.2 #16Yongnuo 2.0x TC
Edit: Actually scratch that. It seems they have some that are being distributed directly through Amazon's network now so I may be able to order one of those and turn this around much faster.
Good news. Can't wait and again thanks for any examples that you take the time to provide.
Jan 15, 2015 at 01:41 PM
p.2 #17Yongnuo 2.0x TC
Sorry for the long delay, it took longer than expected to get both the teleconverters together. I'll post some shots later tonight as well as my thoughts but it seems like the new Yongnuo 2X is at least as sharp, if not a bit sharper, than the actual Canon 2.0x III that I have.
Jan 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM
p.2 #18Yongnuo 2.0x TC
You mentioned 200mm. Which lens are you using it with?
Jan 24, 2015 at 12:06 PM
p.2 #20Yongnuo 2.0x TC
Do you a have the test shots to share? Any comment on AF speed and accuracy compared to the Canon 2XIII? Thanks in advance.
Jan 25, 2015 at 08:12 AM