I am very confused as to whether or not the Kenko Pro 300 is as good as the Canon 1.4x teleconverter. I've heard that the Kenko is poorly built and well built; and that it offers the same, better, and worse image quality than Canon. I have also heard that there are auto-focus hunting issues with one or both brands, and that the Canon may need some of the pins to be taped down for some reason. One thing I do know is that the Kenko is less than half the price of the Canon.
Can you please help? I would use the 1.4x with my Canon 300mm f2.8L and maybe my 70-200mm f/2.8L.
Gary,
Don't know about the lenses mentioned, but I use mine with a 70-200/f4 with excellent results. Also just recently used on a rental 400/5.6.
I have never used the Canon TC so can't offer a comparison, but I have been happy with the images.
In my experience, the Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DG 1.4x TC and Canon EF 1.4x Extender are very much equal. I have used both on many lenses, including Canon EF 135/2L, 70-200/4L IS, 700-200/2.8L IS, 300/4L IS, and alternative lenses including the Mamiya M645 A 300/2.8 APO and Nikkor*ED 400/3.5. I have also performed controlled resolution tests with both TC's (and the Tamron SP 1.4x), with the USAF 1951 resolution test target.
The Kenko (at 0.13kg and 20mm long) is well made and usefully smaller than the EF (at 0.22kg and 27mm long). I don't hesitate to hang a 1DsIII off the Kenko (or EF, for that matter). Also, the Kenko doesn't have optics that extend past the edges of the front mount, and so it can be used with lenses that don't have recessed rear elements, and it can be stacked with other TC's.
Some cameras are better than others for AF with extenders (the manual will tell you the limits for the camera), and you need to tape pins or use some other solution for shooting alternative lenses with AF TC's. You can find many threads on these subjects with the search function.
Hi Gary.
In Canon FD, i had all the Canon brand converters made. These all worked well, even on my 600FD. In Canos EOS, i went to Tamron, for price and mostly the ability to fit more lenses than their Canon counterparts. I had many lense up to 500, all seemed to work well. I kept hearing the Kenko converters were the same as Tamron. I drifted back to Nikon, and purchased the Kenko 1.4 converter, it does appear to be Tamrons brother, so to speak. Iam getting outstanding results with it also. I know of a case where a person was able to take both home for a weekend, and returned the the Canon on Monday. I believe(not sure) the Kenko vrs. Canon-give a little different information to your viewfinder, depends maybe also on lens focal length. I think the Kenkos ability to fit more lenses, without restrictions, is indeed the way to go.
Good luck
Harry
I got the Kenko 1.4 because it is non reporting and works with more lens. IQ seems to be fine and it stacks well with my Canon 2X TC, Sigma 1.4 TC, or all three at once.
My experience is that AF hunting is more a function of the lighting than anything else. A bare lens will experience AF hunting in dim light with a low contrast subject. Here is a link that may be of interest to you concerning TCs
haven't exhaustive comparisons with my friend's Canon 1.4, but my Kenko seems about the same... which is certainly good enough... and I appreciate the small size and that I can mount it on any lens if I need to in a pinch.
I have both, did a few tests on both with 300 f4 IS. Here is the skinny:-
Kenko +ves
- Works with most of canon EOS lenses. Canon is limited to a few
- Lighter, black and more portable
- Cheaper than canon
- Non reporting to camera, so AF still works on non 1D bodies if you mount it on a f5.6 lens. Canon 1.4 will force you to tape pins to make it non reporting to camera body, or work with MF
Keep in mine there are two Kenko versions. The non-reporting one is the cheaper one, and the better one called the Pro (same as the Tamron SP) does report just like the Canon.
At some point, I had a Canon 1.4x v1, v2 and a white Tamron SP 1.4. They were pretty much indistinguishable in terms of optical performance. The bonus with the Tamron SP was the non-protruding front element meant compatibility with more lenses. I kept a Canon 1.4x II because of the weather sealing, but also kept the Tamron SP so that I can stack them.
And Michael, the kayak image is awesome! Your cow is good too, of course, but that kayak looks like it could float out of my screen.
I'm sold.
Has anyone tried their 3x version and I see there's an off topic but similar item called "ProOptic 1.4xCAF" for Canon EOS at just $89. that one Texan liked a lot according to his Adorama review.
ragebot wrote:
I got the Kenko 1.4 because it is non reporting and works with more lens. IQ seems to be fine and it stacks well with my Canon 2X TC, Sigma 1.4 TC, or all three at once.tc
The Kenko Pro DG is a reporting teleconvertor. The lesser MC7 or MC4 might not be reporting teleconvertors.
The Canon and the Pro DG are very comparable. In my own testing with 70-200 f/4L, I came to conclusion that Kenko was ever so slightly better in the Edge, and the Canon was was ever so slightly better in the Center. Another person, doing same comparison, found the Canon was was ever so slightly better in the Edge, and the Kenko was ever so slightly better in the Center. So I now say, 'virtual tie'. And the Canon and Kenko do stack very nicely, in terms of IQ which results!
I own a EF 300 2.8L and Kenko Pro DG 1.4x. Today I got a chance to test Canon 1.4x II, and I was prepared to order Canon TC right away, if I can see any sign of Canon being better in my 100% crops.
I couln`t. So I`m going to stick with Kenko. If there is a difference, I dont care if I can`t see it.
I have the Kenko and I am happy with it. From reading everything and casually comparing it with my friend's Canon 1.4, I'd say it is almost too close to call... but just based on size, weight and cost I'd say the Canon *must* be at least a tiny bit better... but I like the small small size and that I can use the Kenko on any lens I want. You might be surprised at what it may do in a pinch.
I've used both and haven't noticed a difference. I currently use the Kenko 300 Pro DG and find it to be a much more flexible converter. As far as reporting, it's a little strange. It doesn't report on any of my f1.4 or 1.2 lenses. I only shows up at f2 and slower. Here's a 100% cropped image with the Kenko and 85/1.2L II at f/2. I don't really use the converter with that lens...it was for a comparison against the 135/2L. Still is nice and sharp.
