1.4x TC's ... I used to be indecisive...

jgs001

jgs001

Brian Cox
Messages
12,646
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got a nice new lens, 70-200 F/4L, and it's so much better than my old 55-250, but just doesn't quite reach as far. Now I'm figuring that the 70-200 with a 1.4TC is still gonna be much better than the 55-250... and onto my dilemma

I've been reading plenty on these, and I just can't decide what to do... I've seen some people indicating that the Canon is the only way to go, that the Kenko is as good, that the Sigma is as good, that the Kenko is better than the Sigma and vice versa.

Now I know that ideally, the Canon would be the way to go, if for no other reason than it matches the colour of the lens, but the Canon is more expensive, and I'm having to look at the TC on a tight budget.

Can anyone provide any direct comparisons between them, any and all opinions would be greatly appreciated...
 
Kenko over Sigma if it's not for a Sigma lens.
I would expect the Canon to be better than the Kenko but it's your decision as to whether it's sufficiently better to justify the extra cost.
The cost of the Nikon converter made it a non-starter for the amount I expect to use mine so I went for Sigma as it was mainly for a Sigma 50-150mm but I'd have taken the Kenko if it had been in stock.
 
I bought a Kenko DGX 1.4x recently as it was compatible with more of my lenses than the Canon. The Kenko works flawlessly with my 70-200 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 50 f1.8, 100 f2.8 L macro and even retains AF on my 100-400 L when at the long end. I haven't tried it with my Sigma 150-500 OS yet but as that is f6.3 at the long end I'm sure it will be manual focus only. The Canon TC is only compatible with the 70-200 f4 for AF and the 100-400 at manual focus only. When you see the benefit of the Kenko at probably half the cost of the Canon there's only one way to go IMO.

Should of mentioned that the one I got was the DGX Pro300 1.4x and I got it for about £120 off ebay and IMO it's worth every penny. I did have a MC7 2x that was good image wise but wouldn't retain AF on my lenses.
 
Last edited:
John,

Here is a picture taken with a 1.4x Kenko DG (not DGX) and 70-200F4L on a 5D2. It is a 100% crop and has a little extra sharpening applied in LR (the default sharpening is much lower than DPP applies in "standard").

http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/IMG_6906-2.jpg
 
modchild said:
I bought a Kenko DGX 1.4x recently as it was compatible with more of my lenses than the Canon. The Kenko works flawlessly with my 70-200 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 50 f1.8, 100 f2.8 L macro and even retains AF on my 100-400 L when at the long end. I haven't tried it with my Sigma 150-500 OS yet but as that is f6.3 at the long end I'm sure it will be manual focus only. The Canon TC is only compatible with the 70-200 f4 for AF and the 100-400 at manual focus only. When you see the benefit of the Kenko at probably half the cost of the Canon there's only one way to go IMO.
Click to expand...

I get a little confused by all of this extender stuff. I have the 70-200 F4, 100mm F2.8 and the 17-55 F2.8.

Your saying that the Kenko will work with all these ( I know you didn't list the 17-55, but I'm assuming)

If I used the 1.4 extender:

Is the lens speed affected i.e F4 becomes F5.6?
Does the auto focus still work?
is there any picture degradation?
 
Won't work with the 17-55mm as its an EF-S lens

Yes f/4 becomes f/5.6, AF still works and image quality will be affected
 
Hard to spot the difference between a TC picture or a lens only picture when using the Canon 1.4 mk2 extender on a 70/200 f4 (IMO). Which is probably why it costs more. The Mk3 extender is/was way overpriced by comparison to the Mk2. not tried teh Mk3 but its probably that much more because it makes the newer lenses seem even closer to a bare lens, not sure its worth it on "older" lenses though. I'd get a second hand Canon 1.4 TC
Matt
 
Thanks for the comments guys. Excellent result with the extender Andy.
 
Yeah, I was pleased with that too John. It does slow the autofocus though, but it still works :) Not really taken anything that has everything in focus to the corners (I'm looking for reach here, so cropping is normal ;)) so I couldn't tell you what it's like to the edge on full frame. That crop is equivalent to the centre 11.5mm of your sensor though (22mm x 15mm IIRC) and shot at f6.3, ISO 320, full 280mm...

I only occasionally use it, so I didn't think it worth the extra for a Canon one (paid ~£70 delivered IIRC from ebay for mine - there were loads when I was looking, none cheap there now :().
 
quality dosent have a budget save for the canon [that from a nikon man].
 
I'd imagine Andy, that even slowing the AF down a bit, it'll still focus faster than my 55-250... I'm amazed at how much faster and more accurate (with less hunting) the 70-200 is.

Straycat... you're right... and that's my dilemma. It's not like I'll get weather sealing anyway...
 
If you can find a good 2nd hand Canon mkII TC I'd opt for this personally. It's matched well to your 70-200 F4 (which is a fantastic lens), does slow the AF down a little, but yes I think it'd be still quicker than your 55-250 was.
 
Have a quick google John. The consensus is there's not much in it, although a lot of value judgements were when the thing was a lot cheaper compared to the Canon. As far as I'm aware, the DG and DGX are equivalent optically, just the DGX is more complete on reporting exif info.
 
Be aware Kenko make 2 versions of the DG/DGX. The better one is the 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300, the cheaper is the 1.4x Teleplus MC4.
 
Myrdhinn said:
Be aware Kenko make 2 versions of the DG/DGX. The better one is the 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300, the cheaper is the 1.4x Teleplus MC4.
Click to expand...
Good point. Mine is the Pro 300.
 
I agree Andy... that's why I asked the question, see if anyone on here had practical experience of both...

Thanks Peter... I should have mentioned in the opening post, that the Kenko I was looking at in question was the Pro300 DGX.

Thanks Andyred
 
Be aware Kenko make 2 versions of the DG/DGX. The better one is the 1.4x Teleplus Pro 300, the cheaper is the 1.4x Teleplus MC4.
Click to expand...

I didn't think the MC4 or the 2x MC7 was a DG/DGX. I had a 2x MC7 Teleplus and it didn't have DG or DGX printed on it and it didn't report the exif correctly, unless mine was an older one before the DG/DGX was released.
 
Thanks, that's the sort of info I was after. Is that a mk1 or mk2 Canon ??
 
Aha... thanks Andy
 
I've managed to find a 1.4x pro 300 at a reasonable price, should be with me tomorrow.
 
Looking forward to your thoughts and the results John...
 
This info is wrong, the AF is decided by the camera body.

The Canon 1.4x extender will autofocus on a 100-400mm at f/8 on a 1D body.

Very misleading!

modchild said:
The Canon TC is only compatible with the 70-200 f4 for AF and the 100-400 at manual focus only.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cheers Andy...

my 70-200 will be at f/5.6 with the 1.4 so no issue whatsoever with AF. Actually, I did try using my 2x mc7 TC (mainly used with my telescope for the moon and sun) and as it doesn't communicate the exif information to the body, my 70-200 actually still performs AF pretty well (at f/8, although the body only "sees" f/4), and still faster than my 55-250.
 
I wondered the same and over time have ended up with all 3 :suspect:

There really isn't much in it at all IQ wise ... The Canon is by far the better made converter, the Sigma fits on lenses the Canon doesn't (100mm macro USM non IS) and the Kenko AF works with my 400mm 5.6 on the 50D.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Mike, that confirms what I'd read. I've not had any time to actually test it, but I got the DGX and so far, the EXIF communications seems to be good. The body is reflecting f/5.6 as wide open now instead of f/4.
 
Why?? I have a proper baader astro solar filter cell, for white light imaging which is good for sunspots and faculae, I don't post them on here, as white light sun images are not particularly interesting photographically. Now... if I had an Ha scope (cost far too much money) that would be different...

IMG_4145.jpg


Like that one, the EXIF is incomplete as the scope has no electrical contacts being fully manual.

Do not try this without proper and suitable solar filters.
 
Last edited:
Ok Ok, I didn't know people did this.

It just bought back memories of tracking birds in flight that fly into the sun. I couldn't see why anyone would do that deliberately!

Interesting photo, I like how the curvature is captured (in the third dimension)
 
those of us slightly more nutty than most :D... Yeah, I know what you mean, this sort of photography requires a great deal of care and attention to detail to avoid eye or camera damage. (I've got a filter cell for my 70-200 also... a piece of the astro solar film between a pair of UV filters), works a treat, but have to crop loads.

Some spots up there are so large the earth will fit many times over... but this setup, with the 2x TC (MC7) gives me 1200mm and thus I don't need to crop, gives a great image scale.
 
jgs001 said:
Why?? I have a proper baader astro solar filter cell, for white light imaging which is good for sunspots and faculae, I don't post them on here, as white light sun images are not particularly interesting photographically.
Click to expand...

Shoot in raw and fiddle with the white-balance ;) ...


Orange%20Sun.jpg
 
I shoot in raw, make it mono and apply a colour tint ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top