kenko 3x tc

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

.::SuperBLUE::. - 15 Mar 2005 06:15 GMT

Any info about the quality of this teleconverter, please :)
Thanks

Reply to this Message

gmr2048 - 24 Mar 2005 21:02 GMT

I've never heard about this specific TC, but I've always heard that
the 1.4x TCs produce acceptable results, while the 2.0x TCs produce
soft results. Based on that, I'd guess that a 3.0x TC would produce
very soft results. Hope that helps some.

-gary
http://www.eighteenpercent.net

>Any info about the quality of this teleconverter, please :)
>Thanks

-gary
gmr2048 at yahoo dot com
Washington DC, USA
http://www.eighteenpercent.net

Reply to this Message

RSD99 - 25 Mar 2005 01:38 GMT

I don't know ... Roger Clark has admitted to using stacked 1.4x and 2x
multipliers which would probably be equivalent, and his standards are
pretty high.

> I've never heard about this specific TC, but I've always heard that
> the 1.4x TCs produce acceptable results, while the 2.0x TCs produce
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Washington DC, USA
> http://www.eighteenpercent.net

Reply to this Message

Ken - 25 Mar 2005 03:29 GMT

> I don't know ... Roger Clark has admitted to using stacked 1.4x and 2x
> multipliers which would probably be equivalent, and his standards are
> pretty high.

I think a lot of it depends upon which end you are stacking from and the
quality of the TC. A lot of the fixed lens P&S camera makers offer lens
add-ons but they very greatly in their quality and performance. Compare
these with the multipliers that DSLR and SLR owners use for doubling
their zooms and I think you will find quite a bit of difference in the
performance of the two application methods.

I recently tried lens stacking with my Panasonic FZ20 and the results were
mediocre at best. See -http://ken.smugmug.com/gallery/436065

See also - http://www.pbase.com/10kzoomfz/tele_pd62_comparisons

Reply to this Message

Ken - 25 Mar 2005 03:18 GMT

> I've never heard about this specific TC, but I've always heard that
> the 1.4x TCs produce acceptable results, while the 2.0x TCs produce
> soft results. Based on that, I'd guess that a 3.0x TC would produce
> very soft results. Hope that helps some.

I've heard several people complain that the Kenko brand TCs were
junk. Buyer beware and you get what you pay for kind of stuff.

Reply to this Message

JPS@no.komm - 26 Mar 2005 03:21 GMT

>> I've never heard about this specific TC, but I've always heard that
>> the 1.4x TCs produce acceptable results, while the 2.0x TCs produce
>> soft results. Based on that, I'd guess that a 3.0x TC would produce
>> very soft results. Hope that helps some.

>I've heard several people complain that the Kenko brand TCs were
>junk. Buyer beware and you get what you pay for kind of stuff.

I have the Tamron SP 2x, and from what I can see, it is as good as the
Canon 2x. It is actually a rebadged Kenko, from what I understand.
There is more than one series of Kenko converters; the cheap ones are
allegedly just that, and the better ones are excellent.

Signature

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to this Message