Teleconverters and Canon 70-300, IS,f4-5.6 USM

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Ken Lucke
wrote:

In article , Bill
wrote:

"U-Know-Who" wrote in message
...
Is there a teleconverter that will work with this lens?


The Canon brands will not, but you can probably find a third-party
model from Tamron or Sigma or Tokina that work, but you may not like
the image quality results with that lense.

Note that even with a 1.4x you will probably lose autofocus since
the teleconverter reduces the amount of light that hits the sensors,
although metering should still work. I would visit a camera shop and
try it out first to see if the results are worth it.


I tried a Kenko once, and it still allowed autofocus and metering,
even though it was 3x, but, as you noted, the image quality was pure
crap. I sold it within a week.

BTW, This was when I was in "really cheap mode". That mode no longer
exists on my selector dial. :^)

Additional caveat: ALL (and I do mean _ALL_) Kenko stuff that I've
ever seen is utter crap for a serious photographer. Run away. Far,
far away. As rapidly as possible. Don't even bother to glance over
your shoulder. Just run.

That simply not true.
Kenko actually makes very good extenders...but you bought a whopping 3x.
Have you ever used Canon's 2x? It seriously compromises the best lenses. I
ONLY use mine if I have no alternative. If you stick with a 1.4x, you
should get VERY good results with the Kenko. I use Canon's 1.4x and
occasionally the 2x, but I had occasion to borrow someone's Kenko, and it
was very good.

-Mark²

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , change username to rnclark
wrote:

Additional caveat: ALL (and I do mean _ALL_) Kenko stuff that
I've ever seen is utter crap for a serious photographer. Run
away. Far, far away. As rapidly as possible. Don't even bother
to glance over your shoulder. Just run.

This is simply not true. The Kenko Pro 300 TCs have image quality
equal to the Canons. I know several people who use them, and I
use 1.4x and 2x Kenko Pro 300s and they produce extremely
sharp images on my 500 f/4 L IS and 300 f/4 L IS lenses.
e.g., see:


Mine certainly didn't. I had the 300 DG Pro, and it stank with a
Capital "S". I threw away every single image that I ever took with
it in the week that I owned it. Perhaps I had a bad one, but
nothing else that I've ever tried with the Kenko branding was of
good quality, either.

I appreciate the counter experience, though - while I personally
won't consider using Kenko in the future due to my own experiences,
I'll remember that some others have had positive experiences.

And what lens did you put a 3x TC on?

A 400 L IS f2.8 (rented for the shoot), a 75-300 IS f4-5.6 (non-L),
and a 24-105L IS f4. All were equally horrible. Normal shots were
crystal clear and razor sharp. The ones with the TC were horribly
lacking in sharpness, even when it was clear that the focus was
correct, and the contrast sucked bigtime. I lost some very good
pictures [composition-wise] of some unusual Snowy Owl activity in our
area (we don't normally get them around here).

The ONLY thing I _did_ like about the Kenko was that it enabled the
use of a TC on some lenses that the Canon TCs don't (like the 24-105 -
which gave me "72-315" in an L rather than having to use the non-L
75-300). But as it didn't perform image-wise, it was a useless
benefit.

I'd really be interested to see some of the shots you describe from
the others that are actually using the Kenko 300. Got a pointer to
any of them? It really could be that I just had a horrible
experience with a bad unit.

A 3x is going to be crap no matter WHO makes it.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

In article , Rita Ä Berkowitz
@aol.com wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:

I'd really be interested to see some of the shots you describe from
the others that are actually using the Kenko 300. Got a pointer to
any of them? It really could be that I just had a horrible
experience with a bad unit.

I recently acquired a set of Kenko tubes and the build quality is good, but
it's nothing near what a genuine Nikon tube is. For the price of Kenko
tubes versus Nikon it is still a great bargain buying and using Kenko.

Are you talkiing extension tubes, or teleconverters?

G.T. wrote:
Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , change username to rnclark
wrote:

Additional caveat: ALL (and I do mean _ALL_) Kenko stuff that I've
ever seen is utter crap for a serious photographer. Run away. Far,
far away. As rapidly as possible. Don't even bother to glance over
your shoulder. Just run.
This is simply not true. The Kenko Pro 300 TCs have image quality
equal to the Canons. I know several people who use them, and I
use 1.4x and 2x Kenko Pro 300s and they produce extremely
sharp images on my 500 f/4 L IS and 300 f/4 L IS lenses.
e.g., see:

Mine certainly didn't. I had the 300 DG Pro, and it stank with a
Capital "S". I threw away every single image that I ever took with it
in the week that I owned it. Perhaps I had a bad one, but nothing else
that I've ever tried with the Kenko branding was of good quality,
either.

I appreciate the counter experience, though - while I personally won't
consider using Kenko in the future due to my own experiences, I'll
remember that some others have had positive experiences.
And what lens did you put a 3x TC on?

A 400 L IS f2.8 (rented for the shoot), a 75-300 IS f4-5.6 (non-L), and
a 24-105L IS f4. All were equally horrible. Normal shots were crystal
clear and razor sharp. The ones with the TC were horribly lacking in
sharpness, even when it was clear that the focus was correct, and the
contrast sucked bigtime. I lost some very good pictures
[composition-wise] of some unusual Snowy Owl activity in our area (we
don't normally get them around here).

The ONLY thing I _did_ like about the Kenko was that it enabled the use
of a TC on some lenses that the Canon TCs don't (like the 24-105 -
which gave me "72-315" in an L rather than having to use the non-L
75-300). But as it didn't perform image-wise, it was a useless
benefit.

I'd really be interested to see some of the shots you describe from the
others that are actually using the Kenko 300. Got a pointer to any of
them? It really could be that I just had a horrible experience with a
bad unit.

I don't have any handy on this computer but my friends and family don't
notice any differences between my shots with a 70-200 f/4 L with or
without my Kenko 1.4x.

I've had good luck with a Kenko Pro 200 and a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L.
At about 150% magnification I can tell the difference, but it is
small.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Rita Ä Berkowitz
@aol.com wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:

I'd really be interested to see some of the shots you describe from
the others that are actually using the Kenko 300. Got a pointer to
any of them? It really could be that I just had a horrible
experience with a bad unit.

I recently acquired a set of Kenko tubes and the build quality is
good, but it's nothing near what a genuine Nikon tube is. For the
price of Kenko tubes versus Nikon it is still a great bargain buying
and using Kenko.

Are you talkiing extension tubes, or teleconverters?

Surely (if he means tubes) he must realize that the empty air-space inside a
Kenko tube is of equal "optical quality" to the empty air-space inside a
Nikon tube(!).

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:27:09 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:


This is simply not true. The Kenko Pro 300 TCs have image quality
equal to the Canons. I know several people who use them, and I
use 1.4x and 2x Kenko Pro 300s and they produce extremely
sharp images on my 500 f/4 L IS and 300 f/4 L IS lenses.
e.g., see:

I'm in the market for a TC or two so this input is very timely.

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird

Lovely work, simply stunning.

All images where a TC is listed are done with Kenko Pro 300s, and I
make wonderfully sharp 16x24 inch prints from the images. You'll also
note I have images done with stacked 1.4x and 2x TC (which still
auto focuses with a 1D Mark II body).

Can you indicate which images have the stacked TCs?

While your photos are wonderful and I certainly don't mind browsing,
they are taking forever to download. Then I have to scroll down to
see if the photo used a TC then scroll back up to the "next" link. It
would really help to be able to just go straight to a few shots with
the stacked TCs to see how they come out.

Thanks!

jc


--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Ken Lucke wrote:
SNIP
Are you talkiing extension tubes, or teleconverters?

Surely (if he means tubes) he must realize that the empty air-space
inside a Kenko tube is of equal "optical quality" to the empty
air-space inside a Nikon tube(!).

I've learned to never take the obvious for granted. ;-)

--
Bart

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote in message ...
SNIP
For the OP: your zoom is not high enough quality to benefit from a
TC in my opinion; you need fixed focal length lenses, which tend to
be sharper than zooms.

Indeed, possibly because longer fixed focal lenses tend to have fewer
residual aberrations that will be magnified by a converter/extender. I
tried a Kenko Pro 300 2x on my 200mm f/2.8 L lens, and the combined
result was horrible (loss of contrast and green colored fringes). I
replaced it with a Canon 2x extender, and that worked rather well
(much better than the Kenko anyway).

--
Bart

In article , Mark² wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Rita Ä Berkowitz
@aol.com wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:

I'd really be interested to see some of the shots you describe from
the others that are actually using the Kenko 300. Got a pointer to
any of them? It really could be that I just had a horrible
experience with a bad unit.

I recently acquired a set of Kenko tubes and the build quality is
good, but it's nothing near what a genuine Nikon tube is. For the
price of Kenko tubes versus Nikon it is still a great bargain buying
and using Kenko.

Are you talkiing extension tubes, or teleconverters?

Surely (if he means tubes) he must realize that the empty air-space inside a
Kenko tube is of equal "optical quality" to the empty air-space inside a
Nikon tube(!).

Which was why I was clarifying, to make sure that I was interpreting
that correctly.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Ken Lucke wrote:

Surely (if he means tubes) he must realize that the empty air-space
inside a Kenko tube is of equal "optical quality" to the empty
air-space inside a Nikon tube(!).

Which was why I was clarifying, to make sure that I was interpreting
that correctly.

Of course I know the difference. I was just comparing "general" build
quality between Kenko and OEM. The Kenko build quality is good, but not
as
good as Nikon or Canon's. For the price they are not bad. As
"specifically" for TCs, optically 2x is the limit for "acceptable" image
quality. I just don't understand why a person would buy a 3x TC and
expect
it to be optically acceptable? This is beyond foolishness since there's
no
free lunch with TCs.


Yup.
Neither 3x, nor 2x nor 1.4x.

They're the "digital zooms" of SLRs.

--
Jeff R.