Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2009 · Kenko or Canon extender?
  
 
steffan1
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Kenko or Canon extender?


I have a Canon 300mm F2.8 lens. I am wanting more reach and have been looking at the Canon and Kenko (1.4 and 2x)extenders. Are the Kenko extenders as good as the canon? It seems as though alot of people post photos with the kenko. Does anyone have sample photos with this lens and the canon 2x. The 500 or 600mm lens is at least a year out in my budget. Thanks Stephen


Mar 16, 2009 at 03:33 PM
_SBS_
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Kenko or Canon extender?


Some interesting discussions about the lens and extenders here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/686959/0?keyword=300,extender#6161406

Toward the bottom is a test of the Canon and Kenk 1.4 + 2.0.

No pictures however...



Mar 16, 2009 at 03:42 PM
M Vers
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Kenko or Canon extender?


I posted a thread a while back and the general consensus seems to be that the Kenko, Tamron SP and Canon 1.4x TC's were virtually identical pertaining to IQ. The obvious differences are price and weather sealing.

Here are a couple with the Tamron 1.4x + 100-400 just to give you an idea.












Mar 16, 2009 at 03:43 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Kenko or Canon extender?


Question is, how do you know if the TC you have is a bad copy or not? Specially considering it's widely accepted that TC will degrade the IQ.


Mar 16, 2009 at 04:07 PM
M Vers
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Kenko or Canon extender?


n0b0 wrote:
Question is, how do you know if the TC you have is a bad copy or not? Specially considering it's widely accepted that TC will degrade the IQ.


The same way you know if you have a poor copy of a lens. Test it. If the results are not what you expect then either exchange it or send it back for a refund. You must also take into account the degree to which the TC will degrade IQ, which when using one in conjunction with a prime like the 300/2.8 shouldn't be much, if any at all. In my case I know how sharp my 100-400 is without a TC and when I use the TC I don't notice much degradation (mostly contrast) so I'm assuming I have a pretty good copy. Either way, the results speak for themselves.



Mar 16, 2009 at 04:19 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Kenko or Canon extender?


Thanks mate. It's just that I got impulsive and bought a 3x Kenko TC and the poor result with my 100-400 is making me wary of other TCs.


Mar 16, 2009 at 04:32 PM
M Vers
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Kenko or Canon extender?


n0b0 wrote:
Thanks mate. It's just that I got impulsive and bought a 3x Kenko TC and the poor result with my 100-400 is making me wary of other TCs.


I don't know if I'd even use a Canon 2x with my 100-400 let alone a 3x, so that is likely the reason you were not impressed with the quality. If reach is what you're looking for and you can't afford a longer lens I'd seriously suggest picking up a Kenko, Tamron SP or Canon 1.4x TC to at least try out--if you've got a good copy of the 100-400 you won't be disappointed.



Mar 16, 2009 at 04:42 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



fourfa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Kenko or Canon extender?


both 1.4x extenders are great. I owned the Kenko and it was totally fine. I replaced it with the weather-sealed Canon version (for a rainforest expedition) and of my two samples, the Canon was microscopically better. Basically same sharpness, but less additional CA. Different samples might go the other way.

2X extenders are typically noticeably softer. 3X extenders are probably not worth the money.



Mar 16, 2009 at 04:43 PM
bpark42
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Kenko or Canon extender?


n0b0 wrote:
Thanks mate. It's just that I got impulsive and bought a 3x Kenko TC and the poor result with my 100-400 is making me wary of other TCs.


A 3X with a 100-400 is probably going to look like garbage no matter who makes the converter...also that makes your max aperture f16!! I believe at full zoom...

A 1.4x on the 100-400 should work ok so long as you keep the shutter speeds up, but I wouldn't even bother with a 2x, much less a 3x (I don't think I would put a 3x on anything really)



Mar 16, 2009 at 05:04 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Kenko or Canon extender?


Well, seems like there's only one lens that can take the 3x TC without any noticeable loss of quality, my MP-E 65mm macro, which gives it 3x - 15x magnification. Though at that magnification, the bloody diffraction sets in early.

I'll give that 1.4x a try, but what about two 1.4x TC? that'll be pretty close to 3x. I'll need a LOT of light for sure but hey, if there's one thing Australia is not lacking of it's the sun.



Mar 16, 2009 at 05:35 PM
mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Kenko or Canon extender?


nope, just ~2. You multiply the factors together, not add them.

haven't used my Kenko pro on your lens, but am very happy with it in general... and it's really small compared to the canon.

>>but what about two 1.4x TC? that'll be pretty close to 3x.



Mar 16, 2009 at 06:17 PM
jamato8
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Kenko or Canon extender?


Yes, I have the Kenko pro 1.4 (never thought I would have anything but a Canon) and it is very fine. A 3X? I have never read of a good outcome with that. My Canon 2X works fantastic with my 180L but so-so with my 70-200 (so much so I won't use it with that combo). So the 2X with the 180 as a proven combo and the 1.4 with others works great.


Mar 17, 2009 at 01:32 AM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Kenko or Canon extender?


TCs are optimised to work best with long lenses of very high sharpness and contrast. The longer the TC multiplier the greater the visible impact on the lens performance. 3x is pushing too far. It can still be better than enlarging a bare-lens image but you'll know you're using a TC.

In past threads here on FM and probably several tests that I cannot point you towards it has been noted that the Canon TC gives better overall image quality whereas others tend to fade a bit at the edges. If you are shooting birds or sports then you probably concentrate on the centre part of the image anyway and so any loss of edge quality is of little concern. Not always, however.

The Canon II series are weather resistant to match the pro cameras and lenses. That can be very important, or not. Depends how much you work in the dust or rain.

There is merit in stacking two 1.4x TCs rather than using a single 2x TC because only one is reported to the camera and that may allow AF to work better than it would with a 2x, depending on the maximum aperture of the lens. e.g. on a 300 f/2.8 with a 1-series camera you'd get to keep high-precision AF with the centre AF sensor because it would function like a dark f/4 lens instead of a normal f/5.6 lens.

Two Canon 1.4 TCs cannot be stacked; physically impossible. A Kenko and a Canon can be stacked. I'm guessing that two Kenkos can be stacked also.

"Kenko" is a brand. They make various grades and qualities of TC. Get the best and you'll have decent optics suitable for a high-end lens. Get a cheap and nasty one and you've wasted your money.

- Alan



Mar 17, 2009 at 02:46 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password