More on TCs (1 Viewer)

[Keith Reeder]

Morning all,

I have a 40D and a 7D, a 100-400mm, the Canon Mk II 1.4x and the Kenko Pro DG (not DGX) 1.4x.

Neither of these converters work in any meaningfully useful way (pins taped) with either camera and the lens: yes, I sorta get AF if I get off the centre AF point, but to say it's sketchy is an understatement.

We know all this, of course

But yesterday I managed to get hold of an older Kenko MC-4E 1.5x non-reporting TC, on the basis that I've heard more positive comments about it in this situation than I have any other TC (I know that Ian F uses this TC with his 7D and 400mm f/5.6 prime). Having fewer pins in the first place, it doesn't need to be taped.

I've yet to try it for real with birds, but initial tests in the house with a football mascot cuddly toy are very encouraging - this is an example shot handheld with the 7D at 600mm in 1/50, 3200 ISO light (Exif is in there) - the AF point is on the "L" of "England":

That's plenty sharp/in focus enough for me, and this was AF with the centre point.

AF was still a little temperamental in that light - back-button AF helped - but assuming the weather here (NE coast of England) perks up today, I feel pretty confident that I'll be able to get some useful results out of the set-up.

Now the down side: this TC is long out of production, and is rarer than rocking-horse dung. I got mine - old stock sold off as used - from Walters Photographic for just £49, but it was just a pure fluke that I found it.

 

[mike from ebbw]

I had one a few years ago Keith and always got AF with it,even on the Canon 75-300mm USM MK2.Comparing the IQ with my later Kenko 1.4x pro there was very little difference if at all.

 

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Mike,

yep, I've heard comments that this TC loses a bit in IQ terms, but if the test above translates meaningfully to birds, that'll do me.

 

[Cartman]

Morning all,

I have a 40D and a 7D, a 100-400mm, the Canon Mk II 1.4x and the Kenko Pro DG (not DGX) 1.4x.

Neither of these converters work in any meaningfully useful way (pins taped) with either camera and the lens: yes, I sorta get AF if I get off the centre AF point, but to say it's sketchy is an understatement.

We know all this, of course

But yesterday I managed to get hold of an older Kenko MC-4E 1.5x non-reporting TC, on the basis that I've heard more positive comments about it in this situation than I have any other TC (I know that Ian F uses this TC with his 7D and 400mm f/5.6 prime). Having fewer pins in the first place, it doesn't need to be taped.

I've yet to try it for real with birds, but initial tests in the house with a football mascot cuddly toy are very encouraging - this is an example shot handheld with the 7D at 600mm in 1/50, 3200 ISO light (Exif is in there) - the AF point is on the "L" of "England":

That's plenty sharp/in focus enough for me, and this was AF with the centre point.

AF was still a little temperamental in that light - back-button AF helped - but assuming the weather here (NE coast of England) perks up today, I feel pretty confident that I'll be able to get some useful results out of the set-up.

Now the down side: this TC is long out of production, and is rarer than rocking-horse dung. I got mine - old stock sold off as used - from Walters Photographic for just £49, but it was just a pure fluke that I found it.

the suns just came out in Hebburn so you should get a chance to try it out mate

 

[Roy C]

I tried the Kenko 1.5x non reporter a few years ago with the 40D and 400/5.6 and AF was a lot better than taping the pins on either the Kenko pro or the Canon 1.4x. Never had the chance to compare IQ though.

 

[IanF]

I use mine quite a bit - though mine's described as the Kenko 1.5x MC DG converter so it may be a little different. I think the MC-4E preceeded mine though I've never been able to confirm that.

It's as sharp as using the 400mm f5,6 on it's own. I'm still amazed by the sharpness of some of the photos I'm getting with it. Even when using two or three converters (two Kenko 1.5x and a Canon 1.4x) sharpness can be maintained though colour saturation and contrast drop off sharply.

With one converter I find there is slight IQ loss in terms of colour saturation and contrast which can be corrected on the computer.

I'm now using mine on the 7D and in the sunny weather we've been having I can use it with the centre focus point, even for birds in flight though I must admit it's still faster using one of the outer 'corner' points especially on dull days.

 

[Paul Jarvis]

Interesting thread Keith I have a 1.5 mc like ian's and have found it has potential at 600mm but not much room for cropping due to IQ loss. Would like to know how it compares to the newer 1.4 mc DGX though if any one could do a test.

 

[IanF]

Paul raises a good point which I forgot to mention. There does seem to be some variation in manufacturing quality between the Kenko 1.5x converters as I've heard other people having an issue with IQ.

I think I must have fallen lucky with mine as both are pin sharp even taking 900x675 pixel crops often without having to apply sharpening, particularly when using the converter with the camera tripod mounted and manual focus utilising the LCD at 10x magnification.

One trick I've discovered is that with a converter fitted and even with two 1.5x converters fitted I can retain autofocus in LiveView with the LCD at 5x or 10x magnification.

 

[Paul Jarvis]

Do you fancy swapping one of your sharp converters Ian? LOL. As I said the TC is usable but mine appears soft for cropping so sometimes a cropped 400 shot can look better than a full frame shot with the TC, I only use mine really for record shots.

 

[Tectortony]

Keith
that test shot is brilliant, there IS a difference between 100-400 lenses, and I certainly think you have one of the very best, I know you are VERY capable but a good lens and converter helps as this image shows, good gear AND competent use.
Tony

 

[Keith Reeder]

Thanks for the input, all - very useful.

Today's "real world" test was - to be kind - inconclusive.

When the AF locked on, sharpness was excellent - see the attached.

But often, the AF would just rack back and forth (even on the pigeon) without ever settling.

To be fair, the light was fairly poor, so I'll keep at it - it's definitely better than my Canon Mk II and Kenko Pro 300 DG TCs.

 

[micloi]

I have the Kenko 1.5x, the Vivitar 1.4x and the Kenko 1.4x DGX

AF with the 100-400 is hit and miss with the 1.5x whereas it is spot on 95% of the times with the vivitar and the DGX

Results are with the 550D and 600D (all points are ok with the 1.4x TCs) and the 60D/7D (only side points work reliably).

The 1.5x and vivitar are non reporting.
The DGX reports correctly all info in the EXIF data whereas it still fools the AF to work at f8.

More importantly I tried all 3 converters on a Sigma 500mm f4.5, a lens famous for not auto-focusing correctly with 1.4x teleconverters.

The 1.5x and vivitar did not allow correct AF (jumpy and working maybe 10% of the times). The DGX worked perfectly 100% of the times.

 

[wilfredsdad]

I have been using a kenko C-AF 1.5X Teleplus MC DG for some time with my 400mm f5.6L lens. I believe this is a non-reporting converter (it only has eight pins). I have never experienced any problem with autofocus other than it slows down a bit in poor light and just occasionally it fails to find focus in poor light - but works 95% of the time in reasonable light. I actually conducted some simple tests regarding I.Q. - photographing a target about 15mtrs away with and without the converter (kept the aperture constant and varied the speed) - a very crude test I admit but I could not say I found any noticeable drop off in image quality with the converter present.
I am also sure that I do get better shots of birds with the converter (when used appropriately) because the image of the bird covers more pixels on the sensor and I believe - all other things being equal - more data equals a bigger chance of a better picture.

 

[micloi]

May I ask what camera you use it with please?

 

[wilfredsdad]

Hello micloi - yes, I use an EOS 500D - I am hoping to upgrade fairly soon - probably to a 550D - can't afford a 7D. The main attraction of the 550D is the 18mp sensor which most reviewers have agreed does give more detailed pictures, regards Pete

 

[micloi]

That's why. The 500D and 500D will AF ok at f8 with good light with all points.

The xxD series and the 7D will only AF with the surrounding points but not with the centre one.

 

[Hor Kee]

I tried out the Kenko Teleplus Pro 2X Converter with the 100-400mm at max zoom at F5.6 on a 600D and it AFs fine with all points in both good and reasonable light. Focus is snappy and accurate. Haven't tried it on a 60D yet.

 

[Hor Kee]

Bumping up this thread.

I have noticed a few models of the Kenko 1.5X tele that are:

(1) Kenko 1.5x Teleplus DG AF;
(2) Kenko C-AF1 1.5X Teleplus SHQ; and
(3) Kenko 1.5X Pz-AF Teleplus SHQ.

Does anyone here know of the differences in IQ, AF performance and picture quality?

 

[Keith Reeder]

Can't help with that question Hor Kee - sorry.

To bring this thread to a logical conclusion, I've found that with the 100-400mm, while AF on the 7D is hit-and-miss on the central AF point, it's actually pretty quick and accurate on the outer points.

I use these all the time (one of the things I like about the 7D is the compositional flexibility afforded more AF points) and - given that I use the camera in Portrait orientation quite a bit (allowing me to benefit from another great 7D feature, the automatic switching to another pre-selected AF point when I turn the camera over) - I have to say that overall I'm pretty satisfied with results given the compromises that this implies.

Attached is an example (boring subject matter, but obliging test material): this is a bit of a crop, but - with some careful processing and sharpening, it'll do me.

600mm (or 960mm with the sensor size factored in), handheld. Very windy too - I was being shoved about quite a lot.

The TC won't be in place all the time, but it earns its place in my bag, no question.

 

[IanF]

Bumping up this thread.

I have noticed a few models of the Kenko 1.5X tele that are:

(1) Kenko 1.5x Teleplus DG AF;
(2) Kenko C-AF1 1.5X Teleplus SHQ; and
(3) Kenko 1.5X Pz-AF Teleplus SHQ.

Does anyone here know of the differences in IQ, AF performance and picture quality?

3. looks to the the Pentax mount of the 1.5x converter.

I suspect 1. & 2. are the same maybe listed without the mount in 1. and the Canon version in 2. Mine says C-AF though I'm not sure what the 1 after the CF refers to.