I am looking at getting one and have come across these 2

Kenko 1.4 PRO 300DG
Kenko 2.0 PRO 300DG

Both fully automatic and maintain all the functionality of the camera talking to the lense.

But are Kenko any good?

The 1.4 seems the better option but they are both similarly priced.

ie €142 and €148 respectively.

so if Kenko are any good which is the better converter?

Any advice greatfully received.

Cheers
Steve

What lenses do you plan to use them with ?

What lenses do you plan to use them with ?

I have 2 lenses,

Canon USM II 28-105
Canon USM II 70-300

I will mainly be using the 300 lense for taking pics of rugby matches so that is probably what the converter will spend most of its time connected to but I will also be using it on the smaller lense for other stuff.

my Camera is a Canon EOS 20D if that makes a difference.

Cheers

There is little point in using a teleconvertor on a shorter lens when the focal length will be the same as the longer lenses in your kit.

If you put a 2x on the 28-105 it becomes a 56-210 - not much point when you have a 70-300.

If you want to use the 70-300 for rugby then obviously the 2x would take it 140-600, but your aperture would drop by two stops - in 25 years I've never done a rugby match where I could use f11 and still get a fast shutter speed !!!

The 1.4x would be a better choice, purely because of the 1stop loss as opposed to two, and would take your focal length to 420 mm - for your info, my standard lens for rugby is a 400mm f2.8 :) - see what I'm suggesting ?

I can't comment on the quality of the kit, perhaps others can, but hope that helps.

Gareth

I have the Kenko 1.4x 300 DG

In fact I posted on a thread about it a week or so ago, and you can get them on ebay for around 50 quid from Hong Kong (where I got mine from)

The thoughts tend to be dont get the 2x unless you have a minimum of a f2.8 lens as you will lose 2 stops and therefore on most lenses you will lose autofocus

I use mine on a Sigma 70-300 APO DG Lens mainly for taking shots of the moon

You might stuggle a little with the Rugby unless you get very good light or bump the ISO up quite high, unless using it on a fast lens to begin with

The other thing with the Kenko TC's is that they fit virtually any lens, whereas the Canon and Sigma ones are very very specific over what Lenses they will work with, as they have a protuding element

Also a lot of folks over on the Canon forum have said that the quality of the Kenko isnt that much different to the Canon ones, and certainly not worth the extra cost

Also just to add, with the 2x on a slower lens, then even if it is a non reported TC (and the 300 Pro ones are reporting unless you tape the pins) the 2 stop loss even if you dont lose AF will cause your lens to constantly hunt unless pointing at the sun :)

Kenko 300 DG 1.4x is the one to get (same as Tamron SP AF). 2x is pushing your luck, although image quality depends largely on what the mother lens can deliver.

But, if the camera will focus at all, it will struggle and even wide open you will need a very bright day to get a decent shutter speed, which is why the likes of Gareth have to shell out a fortune for those big white things ;)

Cheers,

Richard.

my Kenko 1.4 arrived yesterday (annoyingly without a bill for duty, so I can't claim it against tax!), and it seems as good as the Sigma which I paid twice as much for

here's the thing though...I put ir on my 24-105 f4, and still got f4 :wonder: - shouldn't it drop to f5.6?!

didn't try it on my 70-200 though, which is where it'll get used

It may still indicate f4 as the camera is told by the lens that f4 is the max aperture, but it will still effectively be f5.6.

I have noticed that the ad for the Kenko 1.4 and 2.0 PRO 300DG says it is not suitable for Canon EF lenses.

Now I am confused as to whether I have AF or EF lenses! I have been told the 2 I have are EF and not AF but what is EF?

Canon USM II 28-105
Canon USM II 70-300

I assumed AF meant AutoFocus. and I also assumed the 2 lenses I have are standard good quality Canon lenses designed for the EOS DSLR.

I didn't know there were different types.

Cheers
Steve

EF is just the initials given to Canons autofocus lens range - Electronic Focusing. (I think) :)

It can be confusing! But the facts are these.

The Canon Extender 1.4x will not fit many lenses, including some Canon EF lenses. The mount is the same, but it has a large protruding front element that often clashes with the rear of the mother lens. Basically, unless your lens is long and white, the Canon Extender probably won't fit.

The Kenko/Tamron is a simpler optical design with a recessed front element so it fits many more lenses. But you really need to check it on your camera/lens, remembering that the rear of the mother lens will often move back as you zoom or focus. I suspect that you will be okay with the 70-300mm, but maybe not with the 28-105mm. Why would you want to use it with that lens anyway, and it's likely to be optically poor - extenders/teleconverters like longer lenses where the image-forming light is presented to them differently.

Then there's Sigma, but this also has a slightly protruding front element so may not fit, although it has a good reputation optically.

I guess by now you're wondering if it's all worth it. Truth is that teleconverters are generally a weapon of last resort when you're prepared to compromise on everything just to get that little bit more reach. You may be better off just enlarging a bit more on the PC.

Cheers,

Richard.

Cheers Richard, I think I have already decided to give up on the teleconverter idea and save my money.

Cheers
Steve

I have the Nikon TC-14E II 1.4 which actually seems to make my 300mm f4 lens sharper though of course you lose the one stop. As already said, only worth using a converter to bump up an already quite long and quite fast lens though.

I've ordered the Kenko from DigitalRev, and will post some reference pictures up here when I get a chance...

For that money, though, I'll take a chance on it being crap.

SB

I have the Kenko 1.4 PRO 300 (the white one) and the EF 28-105 F4.5 which does fit and still shows on camera as being F4.5, as others have said though gives a strange zoom range. Not sure about your 70-300 (F4.5?) but with the 70-200 F4L it jumps up to F5.6 so you would loose AF unless you taped over some pins. Quality wise if you are able to get a steady shot there is not much reduction in quality. I usually find 200 enough for what I shoot, (800 would be nice ocassionally) but its a tiny piece of glass to keep in your bag for when its needed.

Lots of tests here Lens Tests by LightRules Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com (http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests)