Kenko extension tubes

[Rudi]

Got mine today! (Finally!!)

Watch this space.... (errr, make that "critique corner" ) :D

[mrchips]

Rudi

Have you ever used the Kenko Teleconverters? I went the big bucks for a Canon 2x II but if the Kenko 1.4 or I see they have a 3x work well enough I might purchase them. Any ideas?
Thanks
Denny

[toycollector]

Extension tubes are for macro....

I too am looking into them but at one end...if you're trying to do a macro of a spider...how close do you really want to get to it!!!

[mrchips]

I know what extesion tubes are for I have both Canon Tubes.

I was looking to see if he had used there teleconverters.

[toycollector]

sorry about that....

[Rudi]

mrchips wrote:
Rudi

Have you ever used the Kenko Teleconverters?

Denny,

I bought the Kenko extension tubes because they have no glass in them! :D

I have used Tamron TCs in the past (with my old Canon FD lenses), but only because they were cheaper. I wasn't picky then. I wanted magnification and couldn't afford the genuine article, so I went with the next best thing...

I have found over time that to get the best results out of your lenses and TCs, you should ALWAYS buy the manufacturer's TCs, and preferably use them with prime lenses. Now, I can make a concession and use my 70-200 L f/2.8 with my 1.4x TC, but it's a Canon TC, and that makes a lot of difference! :)

I think that it's good in a way that the Canon TCs are only for the L lenses. First, you won't put a cheap no-name lens on it and then complain about the TC, and second: It wouldn't make sense (to me) to put a great L lens on a camera and then a cheap third-party TC in between them.

Your optical train is only as good as the weakest link!

That said, the only way to know whether these things are acceptable to you is to try them out for yourself. If they a LOT cheaper, and you get the shots with the 3x TC that you wouldn't ordinarily get, then great! But don't expect to get great images out of the 3x TC, it's not likely to produce anything spectacular. The 1.4x TC could be quite good, on the other hand. Like I said, if you can try and sell them if not happy, try them. If you don't want to take chances, the only way is the Canon way... :D

[mrchips]

Rudi

Thanks for the info. I use the Canon 2x II on my 100-400 L with great success. Ialways look for a cheaper alternative then go for the real thing.

Thanks
Denny

[Rudi]

Denny,

There’s nothing wrong with looking for a cheaper alternative. With TCs, however, the thing about the manufacturer seems to apply across the board. Whether you own Nikon or Canon or Pentax, or... you get the point.

If I owned mainly Sigma lenses, and if I was in the market for one, I would most probably consider buying a Sigma TC…

[JCDoss]

I'm skeptical that Canon TC's are so much better than Kenko TC's that they're really worth twice the price. Karlg, a regular poster at DPR, is all the time posting comparisons between Canon and Kenko (or Tamron?) TCs demonstrating the miniscule differences in image quality that sometimes even favor the third party brands. He says that third party TCs "are a good place to cut costs" if it's important to you.

Kenko TCs are compatible with ALL lenses, not just L's which is a benefit. Granted, the better the lens, the better the image... but Kenko at least gives you the option of slapping a 1.4xTC on your 28-135IS.

I plan to buy the Sigma 180/Macro sometime in the next few months, and I can't use Canon TC's without extension in between. I *can* use Kenko TCs directly with the lens.

(BTW: The Sigma 180/Macro is another good place to "cut costs," if you're interested in a macro lens in that range. Half the price of Canon's.)

[Edit]: I've seen very few images taken with the Kenko 3x converter, but the ones I did see looked surprisingly good. I need to see more samples to be sure, but if the 3x converter is superior to stacking a 2x and 1.4x, then it is worth the cost.

Finally, with all the horrendous reports of lens-to-lens variation on the internet, I just don't see that it matters all that much which TC you buy when your 70-200IS might produce images that are significantly different from the 70-200IS that your neighbor bought.

JCDoss

[Dick Ginkowski]

I have Kenko extension tubes and use them without problem. They certainly beat Canon OEM in terms of price and performance is equal.

I would NEVER suggest using a third-party teleconverter. The OEM teleconverters are matched physically and optically to the Canon lenses. If you need to save money, buy used.

I know that it's easy to spend other people's money, but allow me to repeat my favorite mantra:

THE EASIEST WAY TO WASTE MONEY IS TO OVERSPEND OR UNDERSPEND.

[Hyperfish]

mrchips wrote:
Rudi

Have you ever used the Kenko Teleconverters? I went the big bucks for a Canon 2x II but if the Kenko 1.4 or I see they have a 3x work well enough I might purchase them. Any ideas?
Thanks
Denny


Denny-

1D, 70-200mm L, Kenko TelePlus Pro 300 2x:

http://www.pbase.com/image/2574272

http://www.pbase.com/image/2574877

http://www.pbase.com/image/2575761

http://www.pbase.com/image/2613547

http://www.pbase.com/image/2613598

http://www.pbase.com/image/2646762

http://www.pbase.com/image/2650495

http://www.pbase.com/image/2825399

http://www.pbase.com/image/2825527

Etc. Etc. Etc...

:)

[mrchips]

Awesome pictures :)

Thanks
Denny

[Hyperfish]

Thanks!