# Extenders - Kenko vs Canon 1.4's & 2.0's



## knifez (Feb 23, 2013)

Hi guys, I'm new to the extender world. Would love some advice. 

Tossing up between the;

*Canon 1.4 iii
Canon 2.0 iii
Kenko 1.4 Pro 300
Kenko 2.0 Pro 300*

One of the above + Kenko Extension Tube Set.

Would love some advice on their pros & cons and how they compare against one another. 
I have a 100L & might use it on a future 135L

What do you suggest? 

Samples would be great ;D

Cheers!


----------



## TheFlorist (Feb 23, 2013)

Hi knifez,

Please allow me to write my first post and to share my small experience:

In order to match a 7D and a Canon 70-200 f4 IS, I purchased following extenders in June 2012:
- Kenko Teleplus MC PRO 300 DGX 2.0x, then...
- Canon Canon Extender EF 2x III

The reason I sent the Kenko back doesn't show on samples:
I found I was unable to achieve reliable focus:
I made small tests on contrasty building fronts, 200m distance, center point AF, under cloudy skies.
In 50% of the cases, focus was achieved after 4 seconds.
In 25% of the cases, the 7D reported no focus.

I found it not acceptable for my use.
I never faced such issues with the Canon 1.4x II, I owned before.
I am aware that handling f4 and 2x might be beyond the 7D's capacity. 

Sadly, sharpness and color with the Kenko seemed ok to me.
(I do have samples using the Kenko, but I now know that I didn't spend enough time AFMA'ing my 70-200)

I now use the Canon 2x III on a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II, and I am very pleased with the match.
The Canon 2x III doesn't show the ugly OOF-artifacts I observed on the 1.4x II.

I hope this is useful to some extent,
Looking forward to having feedback from other users.

Cheers


----------



## heptagon (Feb 23, 2013)

You should only consider extenders if cropping won't do it. The extender basically is an magnifying glass making the image bigger but doesn't add sharpness if the lens doesn't already have much more sharpness than the sensor. 

Regarding sharpness there are very mixed reports. It seems to depend on the lens-extender combination how well it works. If you are unlucky and the manufacturing errors of both devices add up you'll get poor quality even though both alone seem ok. Canon extenders are designed to work well with the long lenses (300 and up). That's also the reason why they are so expensive. If you spend 10k on a lens 1k for the extenders won't hurt.

Focusing is slower but works well for me (canon 2x-III) with very good light. Also stopping down one stop is needed to achieve acceptable image quality (F2.8 original lens * 2 extender * 1.4 = F8).

This site has some information on and comparisons of teleconverters:
http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/telekonverter/telekonverter_check_Teil2.php


----------



## Rockets95 (Feb 23, 2013)

TheFlorist said:


> I now use the Canon 2x III on a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II, and I am very pleased with the match.
> The Canon 2x III doesn't show the ugly OOF-artifacts I observed on the 1.4x II.
> Cheers



I am glad that combination has worked for you. I'll share a different experience.

I tried the 7D / 70-200 f2.8 IS II / 2X III combination. Intitial shots showed severe Front Focus Issues. I talked to the folks at CPS about the setup asking if Microadjustment settings would remember the combination as its own lens, or would it also apply those microadjustments to the 70-200 by its self also. They could not answer that question, so I exchanged that extender for another. I later discovered that the combination is remembered as it's own lens.

Based on the intial bad results with the replacement extender (and really wanting that combination to work for me) I tackled lens Microadjustment. What I discovered was that at 400mm, the setup was fairly accurate, (although also somewhat inconsistant) with little or no adjustement needed, but at 200mm I needed to adjust focusing to +12 on the -20 to +20 scale. I decided this was not going to work for me, so I returned the second extender.

I understand that lenses and extenders are built to tolerance ranges, and if the tolerances of the lens and extender are at the oposite ends of that range, problems could result. CPS suggested I borrow one of their 2x's to compare, as the ones I purchased may have be built together with similar tolernces towards one end of the scale. I have not tried that yet. I may give the 1.4x a shot but I really wanted to get to 400mm.


----------



## jthomson (Feb 23, 2013)

TheFlorist said:


> I am aware that handling f4 and 2x might be beyond the 7D's capacity.
> I now use the Canon 2x III on a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II, and I am very pleased with the match.
> Cheers



Focusing at f8 (f4+2x) is unreliable on the 7D this is a 7D issue and has nothing to do with the kenko converter, except that the kenko allows the camera to try and focus. Put a Canon 2x converter in the same position and the 7D won't even try to focus. The 7D is limited to focusing reliably at f5.6, which is why the f2.8 + 2x works fine.


----------



## knifez (Feb 24, 2013)

heptagon said:


> This site has some information on and comparisons of teleconverters:
> http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/telekonverter/telekonverter_check_Teil2.php



Thanks Heptagon, those comparisons sure put me off the 2.0x ii & kenko 300 The resulting images are unacceptably blur!. Perhaps the reviewer was a little "unlucky" as you say, with the tolerances because those images seem completely unusable. Are you fellas yielding similar results in RL? Is the image degradation that severe?!

TheFlorist, good to hear that the 2x iii works on the 70-200, that's a lens I'm hoping to add one day so I'll keep that in mind. But Rockets95 review is starting to put me off the 2x all together.  

I guess my question now is, are the 1.4's much better than the 2.0's for sharpness retention? 
And do you guys, owning the canon 2x iii find your images to take a big hit in your images compared to the 1.4x.?

I'm thinking that maybe 1.4x is the way to go, at least start there anyway. 


Thanks everyone.


----------



## knifez (Feb 24, 2013)

I thought I'd share an image I took yesterday. This is the reason for why I'm looking into magnification, as this is as close as I could get to the little fella with the 100 macro. Would have loved to get more detail!
This was shot handheld so the focus plane is a little off, but oh well  Cheers


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 24, 2013)

knifez said:


> I thought I'd share an image I took yesterday. This is the reason for why I'm looking into magnification, as this is as close as I could get to the little fella with the 100 macro. Would have loved to get more detail!
> This was shot handheld so the focus plane is a little off, but oh well  Cheers


I notice you have a 5D MK III. Be aware that neither the Canon or the Kenko TC's will work with the 100L. The Canon TC's will interfere and will not mount, while the Kenko 1.4X PRO 300 DGX will lockup and require the camera battery to be removed and re-inserted before the TC will function again with the 5D3 and a different lens. You can get a fully manual TC and use manual exposure with the L, but not autofocus.

I hope there is a update to the TC.


----------



## ncsa (Feb 24, 2013)

If you are looking at > 1:1 then E.tubes will help, the kenko ones work well, but will come down to what you are shooting - if small critters then the MP-E will be on the kit list.

The Kenko 1.4x TC works well with the 100mm L and reports to the camera correctly even on the 5D3. AF is accurate even on the outer focus points.

5D2 + 1.4



Rainbow Lorikeet by ncsabkk, on Flickr

5D3 + 1.4



white by ncsabkk, on Flickr




Passing by ncsabkk, on Flickr

5D3 + 1.4 + 68mm ET



Purple by ncsabkk, on Flickr



knifez said:


> I thought I'd share an image I took yesterday. This is the reason for why I'm looking into magnification, as this is as close as I could get to the little fella with the 100 macro. Would have loved to get more detail!
> This was shot handheld so the focus plane is a little off, but oh well  Cheers


----------



## knifez (Feb 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane, I use the 60D at times when I need the extra reach but thanks for the heads up. 

Ncsa, I think you've convinced me there. I don't shoot critters much, so the MP-E 65 although interesting, probably isn't for me. I'm just looking for the occasional extra reach on my current lenses. 

The Kenko 1.4 you're using, is that a Kenko TelePlus MC4 AF 1.4X DGX? or the Teleplus PRO 300 DGX 1.4x AF? The Pro300 is the one that has issues with the 5D is that right?

Thanks again.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> knifez said:
> 
> 
> > I thought I'd share an image I took yesterday. This is the reason for why I'm looking into magnification, as this is as close as I could get to the little fella with the 100 macro. Would have loved to get more detail!
> ...



The 5D III gets locked up with the PRO 300 and the 300 mm II lenses as well.


----------



## heptagon (Feb 24, 2013)

Yes, in macro work is extenders can be useful. One thing I found handy about using an extender is that your subject is bigger in camera. Especially with TS-E lenses where it is hard to focus manually.

Most opinions I heard about the 1.4x were positive. Using the 2x-Extender under good conditions really allows to extract more detail from the subject that it would have been possible without extender. This is especially true when using current FF-cameras. Look at the second image here where the flower is a) cropped-magnified and b) photographed with an 1.4x/2x extender:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx

One downside by using an extender I found is that the whole image quality degrades i.e. lower contrast, CA, distortion etc. You have to use postprocessing to achieve the quality of the naked lens.

You should also consider using a crop camera. Especially the predicted 7D-II with 24MP already provides a much higher resolution (in pixels per mm) than the full-frame-cameras. That is like a 18MP full-Frame with a 2x-Extender built in.


----------



## ncsa (Feb 24, 2013)

I have the Kenko 1.4x 300 DGX version and have not experienced the issues of lockup - this is news to me other than a few comments here by other members.

I will try to do some tests to see if this does happen on my kit - Kenko do state that when mounting/dismounting this TC that the body is powered off due to the electronics inside the TC so this is what I have always followed.



knifez said:


> Mt Spokane, I use the 60D at times when I need the extra reach but thanks for the heads up.
> 
> Ncsa, I think you've convinced me there. I don't shoot critters much, so the MP-E 65 although interesting, probably isn't for me. I'm just looking for the occasional extra reach on my current lenses.
> 
> ...


----------



## knifez (Feb 25, 2013)

ncsa said:


> I have the Kenko 1.4x 300 DGX version and have not experienced the issues of lockup



Interesting.. If you can confirm that there's no issue then I think I'll go ahead and buy the kenko 1.4x. I've already bought the tubes.  

Thanks ncsa for your help.


----------



## ncsa (Feb 25, 2013)

I have tried in very quick succession using the Kenko 1.4x 300 DGX TC with the following Canon lenses on a 5D3 body (FW 1.1.3) 17-40 f4, 35 f1.4, 135 f2, 24-105 IS f4, TS-E 90 f2.8, 100 f2.8 IS L macro, 200 f2.8 II and all appear to function correctly reporting the correct f-stop adjustment and focus as expected.

As mentioned earlier in changing between lenses I ensure that the body is powered off, battery is still installed....this simply could be enough, but I do not use it extensively its a just incase where a bit extra reach is needed. As it has been working I did not go hunting for any compatibility issues.

I have had this DGX model since Jul '11 so not sure if there are newer versions with other FW which could a cause ..

Hope that helps.



knifez said:


> ncsa said:
> 
> 
> > I have the Kenko 1.4x 300 DGX version and have not experienced the issues of lockup
> ...


----------



## knifez (Feb 25, 2013)

Thanks mate, helps heaps. I'll wait for the tubes, have a play with those and then I'll look at getting the kenko. Appreciate you testing your gear & thanks to everyone else.


----------



## ncsa (Feb 27, 2013)

No worries - good luck



knifez said:


> Thanks mate, helps heaps. I'll wait for the tubes, have a play with those and then I'll look at getting the kenko. Appreciate you testing your gear & thanks to everyone else.


----------



## ncsa (Mar 3, 2013)

Was looking for something else and came across this thread which may have some relevance to you ... apparently there are various versions of the Kenko 1.4x TC ... 

My version has a green dot next to the made in Japan and operates with the 5D3

Thread here ....

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4977.60


----------



## qwRad (Mar 3, 2013)

My 5D3 (FW 1.1.3) works fine with the Kenko 1.4x PRO 300 DGX (blue dot) even if I have AFMA enabled. Lenses tested so far are 70-300L and 24-105L and both had AFMA adjustments by lens on both tele and wide ends.


----------



## TexinAfrica (Mar 8, 2013)

QwRad - I have same camera, lenses and Kenko TC as you discuss. They seem to work fine. What do you mean by "both had AFMA adjustments by lenses..........etc" 

Learning moment here.......


----------

