# Teleconverter advice



## Chisox2335 (Apr 11, 2014)

I have a 70D and planning to get a 5d3. 

I have a Canon 100-400 and a tamron 70-200 f2.8 SP 

I was think of getting a 1.4 teleconverter to use for birds and to give me a 98-280mm f4 on the Tamron. 

Would love done input if you guys think it's worth even getting and if so, Canon mkii? Mkiii? Tamron or kenko?

Thanks!


----------



## Jim Saunders (Apr 11, 2014)

I have heard in passing that for the 1.4x extenders there isn't a huge difference between the II and the III for image quality. I'd need to see a screaming deal to get the II though, the IIIs (both of them) apparently offer AF improvements with the big white lenses, no sense handicapping your future if you don't have to. My 0.02.

Jim


----------



## Steve (Apr 11, 2014)

Nah, I'd say there's no reason at all to pay extra for the III. The II's are about half the cost used and there's literally no difference in image quality. If you ever decide to buy a $12,000 lens I'm sure you can find it in your wallet to upgrade to the mark III at that time. 

One thing to look out for is whether or not the tammy 70-200 can take the canon TC. I have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and my TC won't physically attach because of the extended lens element, which is pretty annoying. Kenko and sigma TC's don't have that extended element so they fit more lenses. I don't know how good the IQ is on those, though.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 11, 2014)

The 1.4x Kenko is very good, using it on my 70-300L. One big plus is that it does not extend into the rear of the lens, pretty much making it a "universal" TC. If you get one of these, make sure it is the "TELEPLUS PRO 300 DGX" version.


----------



## BL (Apr 11, 2014)

The main advantage for the mkIIIs is the improved AF with white super tele's.

Other than that, the optical improvement is not very noticeable.

I purchased both mkII and mkIII 1.4 extenders to do a test myself back when they were both available.

No regrets sticking with mkII and saving myself quite a bit of coin


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 11, 2014)

Past year I've upgraded from a Kenko Teleplus 300 Pro 1.4x to Canon's TC 1.4 III and I was positively shocked by the improvement both in IQ and AF performance. I was so frustrated about the Kenko that I practically stopped using it. I use both Canon's Mark III 1.4x and 2.0x TC's with my EF 70-200/2.8 II, EF 300/4 (L IS USM), EF 400/5.6 and EF 500/4.5 (2x TC manual focus only with those two longest lenses), and I have to say that I did not regret the investment. 

In 2012 a German photozine reviewed in particular 70-200/2.8 + 1.4 TCs in the lab, and their conclusion was that Canons Mark II lens and Mark III TC combo outperformed Nikons (70-200 II) and Sigmas combos optically by far, it was a different league.


----------



## procentje20 (Apr 11, 2014)

Ive used a kenko 1.5, not the 1.4. The one I had was so bad the resolution of the subject actually worsened upon using the teleconverter. Ruining a whole birding walk. This was when I had a 7D and 70-200/2.8IS.

I've also used the canon 1.4 II and III. I dont really see a difference between the two. So when I'll buy one again, it will be the version II secondhand.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2014)

Others have intimated this but I think it needs to be stated forcefully: Canon teleconverters do not tend to fit third party lenses (or even most of Canon's own lenses, especially non-telephoto ones). They have protruding front elements, so the lenses they are attached to must have quite a deep recess at the back to accommodate them. I've not used this Tamron lens, and it's not easy to tell from cross section diagrams how much space there is at the back, but I'd want to be sure others have successfully mated it to Canon extenders before buying one. (You can of course use an extension tube, but that will impact autofocus speed, infinity focus, and possibly image quality).

Third party teleconverters will be more accommodating - I have a Kenko 2x version which fits all lenses I've tried it with - but they will not produce such good results (reflected in the price difference). Nonetheless, they can still be a good choice. It's worth stopping down the aperture a little if you use them, I would say, especially if the lens suffers from distortions/aberrations to begin with.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 11, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Others have intimated this but I think it needs to be stated forcefully: Canon teleconverters do not tend to fit third party lenses (or even most of Canon's own lenses, especially non-telephoto ones). They have protruding front elements, so the lenses they are attached to must have quite a deep recess at the back to accommodate them. I've not used this Tamron lens, and it's not easy to tell from cross section diagrams how much space there is at the back, but I'd want to be sure others have successfully mated it to Canon extenders before buying one. (You can of course use an extension tube, but that will impact autofocus speed, infinity focus, and possibly image quality).
> 
> Third party teleconverters will be more accommodating - I have a Kenko 2x version which fits all lenses I've tried it with - but they will not produce such good results (reflected in the price difference). Nonetheless, they can still be a good choice. It's worth stopping down the aperture a little if you use them, I would say, especially if the lens suffers from distortions/aberrations to begin with.



The canons fitting was one of my main concerns. I've heard the 100-400 isn't great with teleconverters in the first place. I wonder if I should just get the tamron to pair with the tamron and if it works on the 100-400 great and if not oh well.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2014)

Chisox2335 said:


> The canons fitting was one of my main concerns. I've heard the 100-400 isn't great with teleconverters in the first place. I wonder if I should just get the tamron to pair with the tamron and if it works on the 100-400 great and if not oh well.



The Canon extenders will fit the 100-400. As for the image quality, I expect there is a noticeable penalty (though no doubt good results could be obtained in the right conditions). A Tamron teleconverter should fit the Canon too, but I can't say for sure. I'd say it's worth having a go, you might like it - I started out adding teleconverters to lenses when I got into bird photography, and it was amazing what even fairly cheap equipment could reveal.

What sort of things are you hoping to photograph?


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 11, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Chisox2335 said:
> 
> 
> > The canons fitting was one of my main concerns. I've heard the 100-400 isn't great with teleconverters in the first place. I wonder if I should just get the tamron to pair with the tamron and if it works on the 100-400 great and if not oh well.
> ...



I have a pond near me that I photograph geese ducks te occasional blue heron te local beaver. I will also be going on a safari in October. I am attempting to rent a 600mm at one of te reserves in which case I would be less concerned with my 100-400. I don't think I'm skilled enough to pop a tc on a 600 an get that kind of reach.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2014)

Chisox2335 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon extenders will fit the 100-400.
> ...



With a Canon 1.4x on the 100-400L, you will not be able to autofocus with your 70D unless you're using Live View. Only the 5DIII and 1D X support AF at f/8 (which is where you'll be with a 1.4x TC on an f/5.6 lens).

The 600/4L IS II + 1.4xIII is a great combo for birds. It can be handheld with practice, but you'll likely want a monopod or tripod with gimbal head for that setup especially if you're renting.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 11, 2014)

Chisox2335 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Chisox2335 said:
> ...



I'd say you could stick with the 100-400 for larger birds like that, but if you do rent a 600, prepare to be blown away by the step up in image quality. Even with a 1.4 teleconverter, it will produce wonderful images, although depending on how close the birds let you get, that might be too much focal length (although shier ducks/larger bodies of water often require even more focal length in my experience). As Neuro says, you may want a tripod/monopod with that - you can get used to handholding the super telephoto lenses (I do 99% of the time), but at first it can seem impossibly heavy and unwieldy (plus it's expensive if you drop it!).

Good luck either way


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 11, 2014)

http://www.mashatu.com/photo_types.htm

The 600mm would be used in the last hide of the attached as we will be in it one morning of our stay there. I should be able to use my monopod or tripod. I do not have a gimbal and likely would not invest in one for the rental of the 600. They also have options so I could use it in a beanbag from the hide. 

The 600mm may not even be available for my stay. I'll know in September.


----------



## candc (Apr 13, 2014)

I have the kenko pro 1.4x and the canon 1.4xiii. They both have about the same IQ. The kenko is about half the price and works on just about everything, the canon has weather sealing.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 13, 2014)

candc said:


> I have the kenko pro 1.4x and the canon 1.4xiii. They both have about the same IQ. The kenko is about half the price and works on just about everything, the canon has weather sealing.



Thanks!


----------



## jrista (Apr 13, 2014)

Chisox2335 said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > I have the kenko pro 1.4x and the canon 1.4xiii. They both have about the same IQ. The kenko is about half the price and works on just about everything, the canon has weather sealing.
> ...



As I own the EF 600/4 II, and have used both the 1.4x III and Kenko 1.4x, I can attest to the fact that they do NOT have the same IQ. You wouldn't notice the difference that easily with the 100-400, largely because that lens just doesn't offer the initial IQ to see it without looking for it. The key difference with the Kenko is how it messes with your boke quality. Without the Kenko, my 600/4 II produces the creamiest, cleanest, richest background boke you'll ever see. WITH the Kenko, however, my boke gets muddy and loses the clean, smooth, creamy look that it has without any TC. With the 1.4x TC III, my backgrounds are largely the same, albeit more blurred, as with the bare 600. 

The area where the lower IQ of the Kenko comes out most is in point highlights. If you are shooting birds on a beach, for example, you'll have specular highlights in the background water. With the 600 and TC III, those specular highlights result in nice, clean, normal boke blur circles. With the Kenko, those highlights become these warped, spotted, deformed, and generally UUUUGLYYYY blur circles. I mean, think about the worst blur circle you can imagine...and that's what you get with the Kenko. 

These are not generally IQ factors you look for when your shooting, but once you start processing, the lower background quality (and even some of the slightly smudged midframe and corner detail) show up. The ugly blur circles in particular are a MAJOR turnoff with the Kenko TC. The blur circles are going to be visible on all lenses, regardless of quality. 

So it's unfair to say the Kenko and Canon TCs offer the same quality. They do not offer the same IQ, and while the drawbacks of the Kenko on lower end lenses are certainly harder to discern, it's something to think about. You may not have the option, as the design of the Kenko allows it to be used with pretty much any and all Canon lenses except EF-S mount. It also allows AF with lenses that would normally not AF with the TC attached (note that this is due to misrepresentation of the aperture to the camera by the Kenko...this results in missmetering, so if you do not use manual mode, you MUST be aware of this, and you must underexpose your images by 1/3rd to 2/3rds of a stop to compensate. You must also still be aware of it when using manual, as it will throw off the metering scale by the same amount, which can lead you to adjust your exposure by the wrong amount if you don't keep the Kenko's misrepresentation of aperture in your mind at all times).


----------



## candc (Apr 13, 2014)

I have the teleplus pro 300 dgx or what is called the "blue dot" version. I have read around the web and found from my own comparisons that the sharpness is on par with the canon. I havent had any metering or exposure problems, it works as it should. I haven't noticed any background blur/bokeh anomalies but then I was not looking for it so maybe there is some degradation there?

Here is a review of the kenko that may be useful to you because the lens that is used is the tamron 70-200 


http://www.steveoakley.net/template_permalink.asp?id=263


----------



## jrista (Apr 13, 2014)

I also have the Teleplus Pro 300 DGX. Trust me, the quality is not as good as the Canon 1.4x TC III.


----------



## candc (Apr 14, 2014)

there are sample variations and some tc's seem to work better with certain lenses. 

here is a site that did testing on all the converters available and it seems the kenko mc4 is the best on average across the frame, that makes it a real bargain and i might pick one up and try it.

http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/open_test/telekonverter/overview.php


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 14, 2014)

candc said:


> I have the teleplus pro 300 dgx or what is called the "blue dot" version. I have read around the web and found from my own comparisons that the sharpness is on par with the canon. I havent had any metering or exposure problems, it works as it should. I haven't noticed any background blur/bokeh anomalies but then I was not looking for it so maybe there is some degradation there?
> 
> Here is a review of the kenko that may be useful to you because the lens that is used is the tamron 70-200
> 
> ...



Unfortunately this is the old tamron  thanks tho


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 14, 2014)

candc said:


> I have the kenko pro 1.4x and the canon 1.4xiii. They both have about the same IQ. The kenko is about half the price and works on just about everything, the canon has weather sealing.



Definitely not if you shoot FF and use the Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 1.4x, at least with my Canon teles/superteles it gets extremely soft in the corners with my 5D3. Canon's 1.4 III delivers much better IQ.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> I also have the Teleplus Pro 300 DGX. Trust me, the quality is not as good as the Canon 1.4x TC III.



Yep, I agree. The general rule of thumb I stick to is to use the same brand tele converter as the lens. If it's a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS....then use a Sigma tele converter...they are designed to work together. If it's a Canon lens, then use the latest and best available...a Canon 1.4 mkIII. 

I have and had most tele converters available and my 400mm f2.8 LIS is best served with the new Canon 1.4x mkIII and a 2x. I get the best IQ and AF out of those combinations...by IQ I mean the whole Image quality package: sharpness, distortion, contrast, colour, flare, detail, corner quality etc, not just ...oh it's a bit sharper.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 14, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I also have the Teleplus Pro 300 DGX. Trust me, the quality is not as good as the Canon 1.4x TC III.
> ...



Using this logic is it even worth using a TC on the 100-400 on a 5d3 or should I just stick to using the 100-400 on my 70D and get the tamron TC for my 70-200 tamron for the 5d3 when I want a little more reach and the 100-400 is already being used on the 70D?


----------



## Etienne (Apr 14, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Others have intimated this but I think it needs to be stated forcefully: Canon teleconverters do not tend to fit third party lenses (or even most of Canon's own lenses, especially non-telephoto ones). They have protruding front elements, so the lenses they are attached to must have quite a deep recess at the back to accommodate them. I've not used this Tamron lens, and it's not easy to tell from cross section diagrams how much space there is at the back, but I'd want to be sure others have successfully mated it to Canon extenders before buying one. (You can of course use an extension tube, but that will impact autofocus speed, infinity focus, and possibly image quality).
> 
> Third party teleconverters will be more accommodating - I have a Kenko 2x version which fits all lenses I've tried it with - but they will not produce such good results (reflected in the price difference). Nonetheless, they can still be a good choice. It's worth stopping down the aperture a little if you use them, I would say, especially if the lens suffers from distortions/aberrations to begin with.


I've used the Canon 2x III with 12 mm extension tube between it and 50mm 1.4, and the 100mm 2.8L IS macro, and both work quite well for macro. Adding the 2x with extension tube to the 100 mmm macro gives a big boost in magnification.
The 2x converter does result in some loss of sharpness wide open, but for macro the lenses are stopped down quite a bit anyway.


----------



## John (Apr 14, 2014)

i have used the 1.4x III on my 300 f/2.8 lens with excellent results. there is a slight loss of sharpness with the teleconverter but the images are still sharp. i've never used the kenko but i can easily recommend the canon 1.4x TC.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 14, 2014)

Most of the time it's really not about which TC has the best optical quality, but it's more about which TC will fit the lens. I will use the Canons if they fit, but if not then I grab the Kenkos. IMHO, the Kenkos are currently the best available as a universal TC.


----------



## applecider (Apr 15, 2014)

And just to make it a visual discussion here is a picture taken with the 600 plus canon 1.4iii.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/13336267185/in/photostream/

This was hand held, which is possible even for a middling in shape person such as myself. But daily use and three days a week in a gym doing shoulder exercises doesn't hurt. If I was going on safari I'd spend at least an hour a day with my biggest lens for a month before to get ready.

To the point of this thread, I'd go with the canon iii tc unless you never planned to upgrade your equipment to another white lens. I'd take the tamron 70-200 to a shop and try the 1.4 iii on the lens to see if it worked.


----------



## Vivid Color (Apr 15, 2014)

candc said:


> there are sample variations and some tc's seem to work better with certain lenses.
> 
> here is a site that did testing on all the converters available and it seems the kenko mc4 is the best on average across the frame, that makes it a real bargain and i might pick one up and try it.
> 
> http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/open_test/telekonverter/overview.php



Am I reading the data in Traumflieger's site correctly? It seems to say the (presumably older) Kenko mc4 is not only better than the current Kenko version, but also that the mc4 is better (in the way it is being measured) than the Canon 1.4 Mark III? Please let me know if I am misreading the data or how this could be? Thanks!


----------



## ftico (Apr 15, 2014)

I have the kenko pro300dgx 1.4x and 2x. They work well and I am happy with them, but they freeze my 70D + 400mm 5.6 if I try to use it in live view with AF microadjustments on. It is a known problem... not a big deal, since in liveview you do not need AF microadjustments. However, you need to remember to turn it off before using DPAF on your 800mm f11 lens


----------



## candc (Apr 15, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > there are sample variations and some tc's seem to work better with certain lenses.
> ...



yes, i found it interesting to see the results. what they are showing is the resolution of a lens and camera combo, a 5dii and 70-200 f4 at 200. the numbers below each tc are the drop in resolution center, mid, and edge, they also average the 3 and list them along with the resolution in lpm of all the tcs across the frame at the bottom. 

others have pointed out that there are other attributes besides sharpness but according to the data on the site: the kenko mc4 is the sharpest tool in the shed

i also found it interesting that the series ii tc's are sharper in the center but not near as good in the mid frame and corners as the series iii which makes sense i guess if your lens is already a bit soft in the edges then losing another 500-600 lpm res is going to show pretty bad. it seems they choose to give up some center sharpness in order to get better mid frame and corner performance with the series iii


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 17, 2014)

Dustin Abbott has some insight (and sample pix) on the Kenko TC with his 70-300L here:

http://dustinabbott.net/2013/04/canon-70-300mm-f4-5-6l-is-review-the-ultimate-zoo-lens/


----------



## Vivid Color (Apr 17, 2014)

Does anyone on this forum have experience with Kenko's mc4 model?


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

I do not own one myself, however there are plenty of comments around the web about the MC4. There are a plethora of comments about strong vignetting on the MC4, especially on FF but even when used on APS-C. IQ is better in the center, but commentary also seems to indicate that IQ is still not generally as good as the Canon 1.4x TC III (despite what the german article indicates).

I got a 300 DGX Blue Dot, however if the MC4 had been available for purchase at the time I purchased, I'd probably have one of those, despite the vignetting. At the time I bought, it simply was not in stock at any of the major distributors (Amazon, Adorama, B&H...I generally don't like buying from anywhere else, had too many problems.) I waited for a while, and eventually got the 300 DGX. 

From what I've read, I am honestly not sure that the core IQ issues that I experience with the DGX are fixed with the MC4. My primary issue with the Kenko I own is not really with vignetting or corner sharpness...it's with the way it convolves detail, and especially the way it renders out of focus blur. The MC4 might be a little better than the 300 DGX in the center for the focused target, but the "scratchy" background blur, the warped and spotty highlight blur circles, and "rough" detail (it can be sharp...but there is something else going on with it that makes images produced with the 300 DGX just not as appealing as those produced with the 1.4x TC III), as far as I can tell based on commentary and sample images those issues exist with the MC4 as well (and probably most/all other Kenko TCs). 

If you don't really care about your background blur, the MC4 should be sharp enough, but it still doesn't seem to give the same kind of aesthetics to it's IQ as the Canon 1.4x TC III does.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Apr 17, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> Does anyone on this forum have experience with Kenko's mc4 model?



Sure, have a look at this Spotted Towhee shot:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1233294/1


----------

