 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2006Teleconverters and Canon 70-300, IS,f4-5.6 USM
Is there a teleconverter that will work with this lens? > 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. > > Is there a teleconverter that will work with this lens? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. > > > Is there a teleconverter that will work with this lens? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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. >>>>Is there a teleconverter that will work with this lens? >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird 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). 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. Plus, on consumer bodies, you lose AF a slower than f/5.6 (it is not due to light; it is due to the light cone of the high f/ratio). Roger > >>>>Is there a teleconverter that will work with this lens? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 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. >>>>>>Is there a teleconverter that will work with this lens? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > 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? > >>>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, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 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. >>>>> 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, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > 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. Greg  Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>>>>> 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, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> 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. Signature--- Paul J. Gans i dont have any idea about this ..... >>>>> Additional caveat: ALL (and I do mean _ALL_) Kenko stuff that >>>>> I've ever seen is utter crap for a serious photographer. Run [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > 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. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > 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. Rita > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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? >> 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? Tubes. I already have original Nikon TCs. Rita >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 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(!). SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson 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. ;-) SignatureBart > >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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. >> 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. Rita >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > no > free lunch with TCs. Yup. Neither 3x, nor 2x nor 1.4x. They're the "digital zooms" of SLRs. -- Jeff R. > Yup. > Neither 3x, nor 2x nor 1.4x. > > They're the "digital zooms" of SLRs. You are not correct. I suppose those who have purchased 16x24 inch prints of mine will have to return those done with TCs (which are many of my animal shots). Try this: Teleconverter Experiences http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/teleconverter1.html also other 1.4x + 2x images: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.08.2004.JZ3 F1969.b-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.08.2004.JZ3 F1965.b-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.08.2004.JZ3 F2172.b-700.html Roger >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 Signature"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 >>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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Lovely work, simply stunning. Thanks, >>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? Try this: Teleconverter Experiences http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/teleconverter1.html also other 1.4x + 2x images: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.08.2004.JZ3 F1969.b-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.08.2004.JZ3 F1965.b-700.html http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.08.2004.JZ3 F2172.b-700.html > 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. Yeah, the site is getting overloaded. I need to get a faster pipe. Qwest (the isp) has also had problems the last few days. Roger 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). SignatureBart >>>> Is there a teleconverter that will work with this lens? >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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 SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Is there a teleconverter that will work with this lens? Thanks to all for the replies. I'll be looking for a fixed lens when I determine what parameters I actually need. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.