I am hoping to buy one of these in the next few days but I am not sure which is the best version. The Kenko Pro 300 DG looks like it is the best one to get but some I have seen are white and some are black. Is this just merely a paint difference or are there optical differences between them too?
Thanks
Allan
Can't wait for the shippment of this baby from BH to put on the 5D.
At the beginning, I am looking for a Canon 200mm f2.8. However because of this tiny little len, I go for a 135mm f2.0 so that I can have two Canon L lens at 135 and 200.
Have not tried it yet. I wish I have made a smart decision. If it is not buying them cheaper from US, I would just get the 200mm for Christmas.
CatKing wrote:
Can't wait for the shippment of this baby from BH to put on the 5D.
At the beginning, I am looking for a Canon 200mm f2.8. However because of this tiny little len, I go for a 135mm f2.0 so that I can have two Canon L lens at 135 and 200.
Have not tried it yet. I wish I have made a smart decision. If it is not buying them cheaper from US, I would just get the 200mm for Christmas.
Well, 135 and 189mm...but close to 200!
Will the EXIF record that a 1.4x TC was used? I like how Lightroom is able to capture this info from my Canon 1.4x TC and hope for the same if using a Kenko.
Also, if you stack 2 1.4's, would the EXIF only show 1 TC?
abnorm wrote:
How do they compare to Canon teleconverters?
Canon better build, better in corners but twice the price. You can't stack Canon 1.4x's
so that why I have one of each. Kenko's AF/IQ very close.
Jay S wrote:
Will the EXIF record that a 1.4x TC was used? I like how Lightroom is able to capture this info from my Canon 1.4x TC and hope for the same if using a Kenko.
Also, if you stack 2 1.4's, would the EXIF only show 1 TC?
Thanks!
You can stack the canon and the kenko, and it reports as 1 TC. This means you can autofocus with say a xxD body and an f/4 tele with an effective 2x teleconverter. With my 500/4 and 20D the quality is really quite good, and the autofocus works even in pretty dim light. So all around it's better than a 2x anyways
abnorm wrote:
How do they compare to Canon teleconverters?
I have both the Canon 1.4xII and the Kenko Pro(black) 1.4x and did comparison test shots between the two using them with 100-400L and the 500L IS lenses. Although they are very close, I was surprised to see that the Kenko is slightly better.
Is there any I.Q. loss difference between 1.4x and 2.0 KENKO teleconverters... which I should prefer better (my tele lens is 70-200 2.8L IS) IS is working with TC?
Julius wrote:
I have both the Canon 1.4xII and the Kenko Pro(black) 1.4x and did comparison test shots between the two using them with 100-400L and the 500L IS lenses. Although they are very close, I was surprised to see that the Kenko is slightly better.
I have a Tamaron 18mm-250mm on a Canon D350, would a Kenko 1.4x give me the equiv of 350mm? I am at f3.5-6.3 at 250. at 250mm and F6.3 what speed film 400? and then add 1.4x, speed of film would jump to 800 maybe? I am just trying to see if getting a 1.4x would work with my lens and speed of film.
Be advised that I tried my 135L with my Kenko Pro 1.4x the other day, and was less than thrilled with the results wide open. Soft, with a slight halo around the subjects. It may be a dud copy, or it may be a problem with the combination of just these two particular models. I have been quite happy with the results on the 80-200L and the 100 f/2.8 macro. Have anyone else tried the Kenko 1.4 + 135L combo, and would care to comment?
trenchmonkey wrote:
Canon better build, better in corners but twice the price. You can't stack Canon 1.4x's
so that why I have one of each. Kenko's AF/IQ very close.
second that. I have both and Canon is a hair better on 300 F4 vs the kenko wide open. Certainly noticeable side by side, but otherwise not really significant.
