Group Since Aug 25, 2010
Drag to set position!
Share
bfishing
10:53pm, 17 March 2013
Using the Kenko 1.4X PRO 300 Teleconverter DGX on the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens and took some test shots today. I'm thinking it did okay. Here is a sample could you tell me your thoughts and/or share your own experience with this setup?
www.flickr.com/photos/77724886@N06/8564919419/in/photostream
Also posted the extreme closeup cropped image to show the sharpness.
www.flickr.com/photos/77724886@N06/8564919483/in/photostr...
www.flickr.com/photos/77724886@N06/8564919419/in/photostream
Also posted the extreme closeup cropped image to show the sharpness.
www.flickr.com/photos/77724886@N06/8564919483/in/photostr...
TODZILLA64
Posted 11 years ago. Edited by TODZILLA64 (member) 11 years ago
i have the same set up and wasnt happy with the results! too much loss of image quality for me cuz im a pixel peeper and want my L lens to perform at its best and sharpest cuz thats what i bought it for and paid big money for its sharpness! not to mention i lose autofocus.
bfishing
11 years ago
want my L lens to perform at its best and sharpest cuz thats what i bought it for and paid big
Thanks for the reply, I'm not sure why you didn't have auto focus. Maybe you got a bad copy? The TC was very sharp IMO and autofocus was very good as well.
TODZILLA64
Posted 11 years ago. Edited by TODZILLA64 (member) 11 years ago
i use 7d and autofocus is good to f/5.6. Only 1 series bodys can autofocus at f/8.
compared shots wth and without converter and noticebly sharper without converter. i think your cropped shot shows its not sharp. i like to see more detail in the feathers. converters were really designed for prime telephoto lenses not zoom lenses. i guess im against any degration of image quality when i spend good money on and L lens.i would rather crop the shot and still maintain fast autofocus for fast action in flight bird shots.
rwells1961
Posted 11 years ago. Edited by rwells1961 (member) 11 years ago
I tried the Kenko MC4 1.4x DGX AF on a 40D with my non-L 70-300 but returned it after 2 days. I think it was a bad combo of camera/TC/lens. I don't see that kenko model even listed at B&H now so perhaps it was outdated.
I've been considering a TC and borrowed a friends Canon 1.4 TC to do some test shots on a 5DmkII. The Canon TC only fits if the lens is between 200-300mm . AF works with the pins taped and in good light, I wouldn't buy the Canon but will consider the Kenko.
Have you compared a 300mm image w/o TC but cropped to the same size as a shot with the 1.4 TC ? My initial observation was that a cropped 300mm shot was as good as the 420mm shot.
Your samples have me believing the 1.4TC may be worth trying again. I'd be happy with the images you posted. I'll be interested in reading other users' results.
bfishing
Posted 11 years ago. Edited by bfishing (member) 11 years ago
Thank you again for your reply and comments regarding the image. I have a T2i and 5D Mark II and I've used the TC @ f/8 with autofocus. Granted I'm using only the center focus point and I have magic lantern on both, but nothing else. Maybe the focus peek feature is doing something?
Yes, I agree the TC was better on the 300mm f2.8L prime, but is in another league too.
The house finch in general has less than "interesting feathers". I don't think it's this birds best feature. Also not sure if it's just the prinicple of TC being on the lens that is also part of the issue. My eye is more drawn to the detail around the eyes and the beak and whatever his latest meal was... To me this is a pretty sharp capture, so to each his own.
Again this was a handheld shot and I have no doubt it would have been better on a tripod/gimbal mount with no IS and tweaked with a pinch of manual focus.
bfishing
11 years ago
Thank you for your reply and comments.
Yes, Kenko MC4 1.4x DGX AF has really bad reviews they may have pulled it from being sold.
I've heard of this "pins taped" way of getting the TC to have autofocus, but honestly I have not tried it. Maybe Kenko's is just made with the "pins taped"???
Yes, I would recommend giving it a try. If it's not for you then just return it. I think you can rent them as well.
They are other examples on Flickr that I've found of others who use the Kenko's PRO TC and appear to be happy with the results as well. Some even use two!
bfishing
11 years ago
"Have you compared a 300mm image w/o TC but cropped to the same size as a shot with the 1.4 TC ? My initial observation was that a cropped 300mm shot was as good as the 420mm shot."
I have not done this, but I have read comments that some actually think it looks better with the TC on then off. I did compare it to the 100-400mm captures and I think the 70-300mm + TC are sharper.
I've understand the 300mm f/4 is good with the TC as well. I try a friends this coming week.
A bird as small as a house finch (about 5inches) are pretty hard to capture. I think I will try something bigger and get some BIF too.
I really enjoy the 70-300mmL, and it is really super sharp at the lower end too!
I have not done this, but I have read comments that some actually think it looks better with the TC on then off. I did compare it to the 100-400mm captures and I think the 70-300mm + TC are sharper.
I've understand the 300mm f/4 is good with the TC as well. I try a friends this coming week.
A bird as small as a house finch (about 5inches) are pretty hard to capture. I think I will try something bigger and get some BIF too.
I really enjoy the 70-300mmL, and it is really super sharp at the lower end too!
I'm wondering if anyone knows exactly why Canon made the EF 70-300L incompatible with its own EF Extenders, while they can be mounted to the EF 100-400L and all of their EF 70-200L series.
Its variable maximum aperture has nothing to do with its incompatibility, since the EF 100-400L is also a variable aperture telephoto zoom, therefore I don't see why the 70-300L cannot use EF Extenders. Not that I intend to use a teleconverter with my 70-300L, but just curious. Hmmm.
Its variable maximum aperture has nothing to do with its incompatibility, since the EF 100-400L is also a variable aperture telephoto zoom, therefore I don't see why the 70-300L cannot use EF Extenders. Not that I intend to use a teleconverter with my 70-300L, but just curious. Hmmm.
bfishing
11 years ago
Thats a really good point. I don't know the answer, but I think one could make the case that it appears that Canon did not want the EF 70-300L to a competing lens choice to the EF 100-400L.
What's also interesting is they make 4 different zooms in the 300mm range.
EF 75-300mm
EF 70-300mm
EF 70-300mm DO
EF 70-300mm L
bfishing
11 years ago
I would like to disclose that the Kenko 1.4X PRO 300 Teleconverter DGX is also a favorite on another lens too. The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro for extra extreme close-ups I use it with a 12mm tube.
So it has mutiple purposes in my camera bag and on a few of my lenses. I can respect if you may not like the thought of using a TC, but for me it's just another useful tool.
So it has mutiple purposes in my camera bag and on a few of my lenses. I can respect if you may not like the thought of using a TC, but for me it's just another useful tool.
rwells1961
11 years ago
It seems the Canon TC will not fit on any lens that uses a rear focusing system, like the 70-300L , it works from 200-300mm since the rear element is away at that point. The 100 Macro is also a rear focusing lens so will only fit a TC if you use an extension tube. The 100-400 is an older design which doesn't use rear element focus. It will be interesting to see if the expected re-design of the 100-400 can use a TC.
bfishing
11 years ago
I'm starting to wonder if they are going to update the EF 100-400 or just offer the EF 200-400... From my understanding the EF 200-400 will be in a totally different price range.
Then I wonder why they don't just introduce a "R" version of the TC?
It does leave the door open for a 3rd party to make one.
Then I wonder why they don't just introduce a "R" version of the TC?
It does leave the door open for a 3rd party to make one.
However, if the 70-300L were made in such a way to persuade buyers to go for the EF 100-400L for the reach, owners of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L models have long been able to stretch their focal range to 140-400mm @ f/5.6 with an EF Extender 2x with a bit of loss in sharpness.
I found a discussion relating to operational AF drive issues with EF Extenders here but am unable to trace the original transcript by Chuck Westfall, Canon USA's spokesperson.
Randy Winston also mentioned the EF 70-300L's obvious product positioning as a premium general purpose telephoto zoom (not as a wildlife lens) for demanding photographers but didn't mention anything about its incompatibility with Canon's Extenders.
Not trying to be petty about the issue but I think there must be some optical engineering related reason as to why the 70-300L was never designed to work with the EF Extenders. :o)
bfishing
Posted 11 years ago. Edited by bfishing (member) 11 years ago
Yes, Thank you (rwells1961) for the information regarding the rear focusing system. It's been interesting searching around and reading documents about it.
I agree with you (stratman2) that there is likely a engineering related reason to why the 70-300L was not designed to work with the EF extenders. Just wanted to vent a little...
Granted a zoom lens is a different animal than a prime, but then the EF 70-200mm comes around and oh it's okay to add an extender?
Granted I'll likely use the extender more on a prime like the 300mm f2.8 than the 70-300mm zoom.
For me it does not mean a extender is automatically bad, as the end result might be better than cropping, but that depends on the lens, extender, and camera body. I tend to think of it this way. If your able to get closer to a given subject in general your likely going to get better details and the extender can sometimes offer a better closer more detailed capture if your not able or willing to move closer to the subject. Yes, they are risk in using the tool, but just like other tools they are pros and cons in using them.
I agree with you (stratman2) that there is likely a engineering related reason to why the 70-300L was not designed to work with the EF extenders. Just wanted to vent a little...
Granted a zoom lens is a different animal than a prime, but then the EF 70-200mm comes around and oh it's okay to add an extender?
Granted I'll likely use the extender more on a prime like the 300mm f2.8 than the 70-300mm zoom.
For me it does not mean a extender is automatically bad, as the end result might be better than cropping, but that depends on the lens, extender, and camera body. I tend to think of it this way. If your able to get closer to a given subject in general your likely going to get better details and the extender can sometimes offer a better closer more detailed capture if your not able or willing to move closer to the subject. Yes, they are risk in using the tool, but just like other tools they are pros and cons in using them.
bfishing
11 years ago
Just wanted to say thanks and really enjoyed the links too! birdphotographers.net is a really cool site!
rwells1961
11 years ago
Pehaps "Rear Focusing System" wasn't the correct term I was trying to describe. If you take your 70-300L off the camera , zoom out to 300mm and then rotate the focus ring, you'll see that the "rear" lens element is the one that moves to achieve focus. It travels quite a distance from well inside the lens body to being almost flush with the mount. This would contact the Canon TC because of its protruding stem. From my limited understanding, this is not the most typical configuration for the focus system and most are moving lens elements toward the front of the lens ( as shown on the 70-200 f/2.8 & 85 f/1.8 diagrams linked above from
stratman2 ) . I gather that moving the rear elements gives a closer min. focus distance and finer focus adjusting but often at the trade-off of slower focus speed. Focus speed doesn't seem an issue on the 70-300L though.
I don't have a 70-200 so I can't confirm if it also moves the rear elements to focus. My 85 f/1.8 & 24-105 do not show movement during focus. I'm not sure what function the protruding ring on the Canon TC serves but the Kenko, Sigma & Tamron don't seem to require such a ring.
I don't have a 70-200 so I can't confirm if it also moves the rear elements to focus. My 85 f/1.8 & 24-105 do not show movement during focus. I'm not sure what function the protruding ring on the Canon TC serves but the Kenko, Sigma & Tamron don't seem to require such a ring.
I don't have an EF 70-200L either to compare with, although some years ago as a newbie I once borrowed my relative's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (Mk I) but he didn't own an EF Extender as he didn't need one.
At the camera store where I purchased my EF 70-300L last year, I also asked to try out the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM (although my heart was totally set for the 70-300L, lol) but failed to note the differences in both lenses' rear element designs. :o)
I've often been jibed at, e.g., "Hey Stratman, why didn't you get the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM + EF Extender 1.4x II instead?" and my replies were simple:
- Where I live, the EF 70-300L alone actually costs less than the 70-200 f/4L IS and Extender combined.
- I'm not into bird photography and I just needed a very sharp GP telephoto zoom with a 300mm FL. Not even the equally pricey-but-compact, EF 70-300 DO beats the EF 70-300L's awesome sharpness.
- The 70-300L in its storage position + 60D fits into my Tamrac top loader and LowePro Nova AW170 bags without having to detach the lens first. On the other hand, the 70-200L will not fit (what more with a T/C attached) into either bag without dismantling the lens.
I'm quite happy with this lens and feel it was worth every cent paid, compared to something like the costlier EF 35mm f/1.4L USM prime. :o)
The reason I've puzzled over the EF Extender incompatibility is because as a very profit-minded corporation, Canon will usually try to sell its own accessories to go along with its cameras and lenses. For this reason its EF lens AF firmware is never licensed to third party brands (e.g. Tamron, Sigma, Tokina) and as you know, the latter companies have to resort to reverse engineering Canon's lens AF firmware routines.
It's the same thing with their Speedlite flashes. Although off-brand flash companies have managed to emulate Canon's E-TTL flash exposure system, AFAIK only Canon Speedlites can be directly controlled from the camera's menu system.
Going by their usual marketing logic, Canon would've been only too glad to make the EF 70-300L Extender-compatible (why force owners to buy third party T/Cs instead?) but perhaps in their preliminary testing stages they didn't like the 70-300L's image results even with their own teleconverters. *shrugs*
bfishing
11 years ago
I found a thread that is pretty massive and a several post with the Kenko Pro and different configurations. In the end I believe that there are some conditions the extender is very useful and others it's not.
Also appears to be different PRO versions out there, some with issues. Many cropped sensor users are happy with the camera body's x 1.6 and don't feel the need to extend more which makes sense. They have several examples of BIF and sharp stills using the extender.
2x
photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=955129&...
Osprey TC
photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=955129&...
7d kenko
photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=955129&...
bobobird has some amazingly sharp captures of a black-crowned night heron, but I can't seem to find the thread again.
One of the users on this thread posted examples on his website....
imagesfromnature.foliopic.com/gallery/canon-70-300-lis---...
Also appears to be different PRO versions out there, some with issues. Many cropped sensor users are happy with the camera body's x 1.6 and don't feel the need to extend more which makes sense. They have several examples of BIF and sharp stills using the extender.
2x
photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=955129&...
Osprey TC
photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=955129&...
7d kenko
photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=955129&...
bobobird has some amazingly sharp captures of a black-crowned night heron, but I can't seem to find the thread again.
One of the users on this thread posted examples on his website....
imagesfromnature.foliopic.com/gallery/canon-70-300-lis---...
mj Markovitch
11 years ago
Depending what you're shooting you could just crop and not worry about an extender. It would be helpful but I wouldn't use an extender AND crop.
rwells1961
11 years ago
I'm still on the fence regarding a 1.4x TC. I'd like to think it would give just that little extra length when needed , kind of like "turning it up to 11" (thanks Nigel Tufnel) .
I recently borrowed a friends Canon 1.4x TC and took some backyard test shots using both my 40D & 5D2 and 70-300L lens, with & without the TC. The cameras were both in manual mode, 300mm, f/8 , 1/320 sec. , ISO 400, imported into LR4 , no additional sharpening or other image adjustments were made. I cropped all the shots to get roughly the same view and put all 4 side by side to compare.

A crude test I know, but it's not obvious to me that the TC made a significant difference one way or the other and the extra cropping required on the 5D2 without extender holds up even to the 1.6x crop & 1.4x TC. I hope the fence is sturdy, it looks like I'll be here for a while!
I recently borrowed a friends Canon 1.4x TC and took some backyard test shots using both my 40D & 5D2 and 70-300L lens, with & without the TC. The cameras were both in manual mode, 300mm, f/8 , 1/320 sec. , ISO 400, imported into LR4 , no additional sharpening or other image adjustments were made. I cropped all the shots to get roughly the same view and put all 4 side by side to compare.

A crude test I know, but it's not obvious to me that the TC made a significant difference one way or the other and the extra cropping required on the 5D2 without extender holds up even to the 1.6x crop & 1.4x TC. I hope the fence is sturdy, it looks like I'll be here for a while!
"I recently borrowed a friends Canon 1.4x TC and took some backyard test shots using both my 40D & 5D2 and 70-300L lens, with & without the TC."
Hi, would you mind clarifying how you managed to use a Canon EF Extender 1.4x with the EF 70-300L? As far as we know, this L telephoto lens wasn't designed to go with EF Extenders in the first place.
BTW, those are really great moon shots and Spinal Tap rules! :o)
rwells1961
Posted 11 years ago. Edited by rwells1961 (member) 11 years ago
The Canon 1.4x TC will fit as long as you zoom out past 200mm before attaching it. 2 of the pins were taped as well. I was just for testing to see how a TC worked with this lens, I wouldn't get a Canon TC for regular use with this lens. My only other experience with a TC was with a Kenko MC4 model and my old 70-300 non-L lens on the 40D. the results were awful, I returned the TC next day. I'm tempted to try again using the Kenko Pro 300 with the 70-300L & 5D2 but from the Canon TC results, I'm not convinced of the benefit.
docteur_chris
10 years ago
Hi, I just got the converter and I am happy with first tests (see here www.flickr.com/groups/1488924@N20/discuss/721576276951471...)
Slight loss of image quality but very decent combo.
Slight loss of image quality but very decent combo.
rwells1961
10 years ago
Anyone had issues with continuous "burst" shooting?
On my 5D II in AI Servo and Continuous drive mode, I can often only get 1 shot, the viewfinder image then noticeable shakes around , and the camera will not take additional shots. It doesn't happen every time though.
I tried full manual mode with the AF turned off to see if it was a focus confirmation or metering issue. I could then get continuous shots at any aperture or shutter speed combo. Switching back to Aperture priority and AI Servo mode I was able to burst shoot, but 2 minutes later, it was back to only getting 1 shot. Without the TC there are no problems so I don't think it's a camera issue.
As for the image quality, I'm still undecided if 420mm is better than a 300mm cropped but I haven't been using the combo enough and in good light to really tell. I have a feeling that if there's ample light it will be well worth using.
On my 5D II in AI Servo and Continuous drive mode, I can often only get 1 shot, the viewfinder image then noticeable shakes around , and the camera will not take additional shots. It doesn't happen every time though.
I tried full manual mode with the AF turned off to see if it was a focus confirmation or metering issue. I could then get continuous shots at any aperture or shutter speed combo. Switching back to Aperture priority and AI Servo mode I was able to burst shoot, but 2 minutes later, it was back to only getting 1 shot. Without the TC there are no problems so I don't think it's a camera issue.
As for the image quality, I'm still undecided if 420mm is better than a 300mm cropped but I haven't been using the combo enough and in good light to really tell. I have a feeling that if there's ample light it will be well worth using.
rezcar
10 years ago
I just had this issue today using the Kenko 1.4 DG Pro 300, one shot only at a time and some kind of shaking in the viewfinder. Lens in fine without the TC.
setyabudigoenharto
10 years ago
Just bought the Kenko 1.4 DG Pro 300 because it was the only converter that works with 70-300. I thought the result soften a little and added CA. Later i bought Tamron 150-600 and try it with the Kenko....and it work....autofocus bit slower but still fast enough.
Although not directly relevant to this topic, the hyperlink below gives very good comparisons of image quality with teleconverters vs cropping. The first time I've seen direct comparisons. This is good because I just ordered my 1.4 yesterday!
www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/tc3.html
www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/tc3.html
TODZILLA64
Posted 9 years ago. Edited by TODZILLA64 (member) 9 years ago
like i said in an early quote,teleconverters are for fast,super sharp prime lenses,otherwise they are worthless! poor image quality and losing autofocus on a long zoom lenses just isnt woth it! i guess im just a sharpness freak and converters can make a sharp L lens look like crap! not happy with the results ive seen on any zoom lens! im speaking from hands on expirience,not other peoples examples. just not woth it,i prefer L glass alone without degration!
Well, I had to give up my Sigma 150-500 to be able to afford my 70-300 L, so I lost 200mm of distance. Now if I can just keep up the L image quality for the first 300mm and use a teleconverter to keep up with the Sigma image quality from 300 to 420mm, I will be happy.
I'm 100% with Todzilla64 on the above subject. The EF 70-300L wasn't designed for tele-converters in mind - otherwise professional reviewers would have mentioned the ability to use it in conjunction with Canon's EF Extenders in their blogs and articles.
As a policy, Canon will never test third party accessories (and lenses) with its products. If Canon made accessories that will be compatible with the product, they will test them extensively to ensure their own branded accessories will not give any sort of technical problems. However when third party accessories are involved, you're pretty much on your own. Some non-Canon brands will work with no problems whatsoever, some may have partial issues while others won't function properly at all.
As a profit minded company, Canon would really love you (the consumer) to buy their original EF Extenders as they would be making additional sales from their own tele-converters. Models like the EF 70-200L family and the EF 100-400L zooms were designed to accept Canon's Extenders; but not the EF 70-300L in particular.
Due to this restriction, some EF 70-300L owners have no choice but to experiment with third party TC's, like the Kenko DG Pro 1.4x. Obviously the end results will vary; some photographers won't mind trading some IQ for additional magnification while others will find the downsides of using a T/C with the EF 70-300L totally unacceptable.
Canon Extenders are not exactly cheap but they are very sharp and are designed to match compatible EF telephoto primes and zooms. Many of my Flickr contacts who own something like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L went straight for the EF Extender 1.4x or 2x, instead of cheaper third party brands. Tele-converters are optical lenses too; and as with all lenses you get exactly what you pay for. :o)
As a policy, Canon will never test third party accessories (and lenses) with its products. If Canon made accessories that will be compatible with the product, they will test them extensively to ensure their own branded accessories will not give any sort of technical problems. However when third party accessories are involved, you're pretty much on your own. Some non-Canon brands will work with no problems whatsoever, some may have partial issues while others won't function properly at all.
As a profit minded company, Canon would really love you (the consumer) to buy their original EF Extenders as they would be making additional sales from their own tele-converters. Models like the EF 70-200L family and the EF 100-400L zooms were designed to accept Canon's Extenders; but not the EF 70-300L in particular.
Due to this restriction, some EF 70-300L owners have no choice but to experiment with third party TC's, like the Kenko DG Pro 1.4x. Obviously the end results will vary; some photographers won't mind trading some IQ for additional magnification while others will find the downsides of using a T/C with the EF 70-300L totally unacceptable.
Canon Extenders are not exactly cheap but they are very sharp and are designed to match compatible EF telephoto primes and zooms. Many of my Flickr contacts who own something like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L went straight for the EF Extender 1.4x or 2x, instead of cheaper third party brands. Tele-converters are optical lenses too; and as with all lenses you get exactly what you pay for. :o)
In the end, it only matters if one prefers a cropped shot or a teleconverter shot when more than a 300mm lens is required. Bob Atkins compared the two and his comments were: "Are TCs "worth it". The answer is yes, as long as you use them with a good lens, preferably a prime lens."
That behemoth of a lens is so expensive and rare that B&H Photovideo used to have a used one for sale for US$120k! It's a lot cheaper to buy a new EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM and slap on an EF Extender 1.4x although you'll be getting an equivalent FoV of 1,120mm @ f/8. I don't think anyone would really complain about some loss of sharpness with the EF 800L with a T/C as they're getting almost the same focal length at a fraction of the EF 1200L's price and weight. :o)

The EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM is the background.
The teleconverter will never see the light of day for anything requiring 300mm or less! By the way, those are two huge a_s lens!


