Index  •   • New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Bird Talk
Thread started 03 Feb 2012 (Friday) 09:18
PREV/NEXT

Tele converters

 
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
artyman's Avatar
14,317 posts
GALLERY: 13 photos
Joined Feb 2009

Hampshire UK
MORE INFO

Shot with a 2X TC on a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, I can live with this sort of quality :D

IMAGE: http://s139.photobucket.com/albums/q290/artymanphotos/Photography/dec/IMG_7117.jpg

Feb 10, 2012 10:32

Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​ukexternal link
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Ontario55
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
52 posts
Joined Dec 2005
MORE INFO

Hand held or tri-pod ?
Awesome shot

artyman wrote in post #13862253external link
Shot with a 2X TC on a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, I can live with this sort of quality :D

QUOTED IMAGE

Feb 10, 2012 10:55



LOG IN TO REPLY
sloanbj
Senior Member
sloanbj's Avatar
296 posts

Joined Jun 2010

Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
MORE INFO

This is handheld with a 100-400mm and the Kenko 1.4. I have no particular qualms. The TC seems to focus just fine for me and BIF are possible.

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6822725803_e2072fcc64_b.jpg

Feb 10, 2012 20:14

Flickrexternal link 5Dii * Canon 50 * 85 * 17-40L * 24-105L * 180L * 100-400L * 580ex ii
Film: Contax | Rolleiflex | Pentax

LOG IN TO REPLY
Shar824
Cream of the Crop
Shar824's Avatar
11,948 posts

Joined Jun 2007

Lower Alabama
MORE INFO

Here's a shot I took using the Kenko MC4 AF 2.0X DGX on the 100-400L, handheld. I've gotten some pretty decent shots with it, the only draw back is having to manually focus. Haven't even tried any BIF shots because having to manually focus....the bird would more than likely be long gone.

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://sharonc.smugmug​.com ...KvZhS/0/L/IMG476342​-L.jpgexternal link
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Feb 12, 2012 10:31 as a reply to sloanbj's post 1 day earlier.

Sharon

"If you want to see birds, you must have birds in your heart." -- John Burroughs

LOG IN TO REPLY
afh1989
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Apr 2012
MORE INFO

Hi,
Sorry, I'm new to this forum and haven't worked out how to post a new thread.

I've been reading through this thread and also looking been looking about for a 1.4x converter to use with my 100-400 canon lens. I know its probably not the best idea and will only use it in good light, but it seems that people are getting some good results with them from the pictures posted.

My question is, which converter would give best results? Would it be best to get a canon, as I have a canon lens? The images produced from other converters look good, but I am wanting to know which would produce the best quality.

Have people gone for a converter that has not been made by canon because of the cheaper price, or because they are better?

Apr 29, 2012 18:21



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
tonylong
do I really have to respond?
tonylong's Avatar
53,018 posts

Joined Sep 2007

Vancouver, WA USA
MORE INFO

afh1989 wrote in post #14349738external link
Hi,
Sorry, I'm new to this forum and haven't worked out how to post a new thread.

I've been reading through this thread and also looking been looking about for a 1.4x converter to use with my 100-400 canon lens. I know its probably not the best idea and will only use it in good light, but it seems that people are getting some good results with them from the pictures posted.

My question is, which converter would give best results? Would it be best to get a canon, as I have a canon lens? The images produced from other converters look good, but I am wanting to know which would produce the best quality.

Have people gone for a converter that has not been made by canon because of the cheaper price, or because they are better?

I haven't tried the new "generation" of Canon TCs, so can't comment on them.

I did test the older MkII version of the 1.4x Canon TC along with the Kenko Pro 1.4x TC and the Kenko held up well enough to convince me to buy it.

The same was not true though comparing the Kenko 2x TC with the Canon 2x TC. I bought the Canon. IQ performance matters!

Apr 29, 2012 22:54

Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBaseexternal link
Wildlife project pics hereexternal link, Biking Photog shoots hereexternal link, "Suburbia" project hereexternal link! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics hereexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Duane ­ N
Cream of the Crop
Duane N's Avatar
8,617 posts

Joined Nov 2007

Chesapeake, VA USA
MORE INFO

Are you aware that Canon TC's won't allow the camera to AF using the 100-400mm lens..or any f/5.6 lens for that matter. I think the newer Kenko's report they're on now so they won't allow AF.

Apr 30, 2012 03:53 as a reply to tonylong's post 4 hours earlier.

www.3rdicreations.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Larry ­ Weinman
Goldmember
1,230 posts
Joined Jul 2006
MORE INFO

photocopy wrote in post #13823758external link
heres what lens are compatable with the 2x teleconverters..

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com ...arts/canon2xExtende​r.htmlexternal link

I just ordered the 2xii... should be here by next week...

Compatible means the 2X will fit in the lens, it does not mean it will work well. I own the 100-400 and also the new series III 1.4 and 2X Teleconverters. I tried both of these on my 100-400 as a curiosity and focused manually while on a heavy tripod. The results were substandard. Unless you have or plan to have one of the primes listed as compatible you will save yourself allot of anguish and money by sending the TC back

Apr 30, 2012 08:25

7D Mark II 6D 100mm f 2.8 macro 180mm f 3.5 macro, MP-E-65 300mm f 2.8 500mm f4 Tokina 10-17mm fisheye 10-22mm 17-55mm 24-105mm 70-300mm 70-200 f 2.8 Mk II 100-400mm 1.4 TC 2X TC 580EX 430 EX II MT 24 EX Tamron 150-600

LOG IN TO REPLY
afh1989
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Apr 2012
MORE INFO

tonylong wrote in post #14351005external link
I haven't tried the new "generation" of Canon TCs, so can't comment on them.

I did test the older MkII version of the 1.4x Canon TC along with the Kenko Pro 1.4x TC and the Kenko held up well enough to convince me to buy it.

The same was not true though comparing the Kenko 2x TC with the Canon 2x TC. I bought the Canon. IQ performance matters!

Thanks, I think I will go for the kenko, Ive read that other people have been very happy with it also.

Apr 30, 2012 12:47



LOG IN TO REPLY
afh1989
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Apr 2012
MORE INFO

Duane N wrote in post #14351763external link
Are you aware that Canon TC's won't allow the camera to AF using the 100-400mm lens..or any f/5.6 lens for that matter. I think the newer Kenko's report they're on now so they won't allow AF.

I was aware of this, I have heard that you can tape some of the pins to regain AF, but I cant imagine this being very effective. Do you know if this is a good idea, or if it works well?

I would be happy to use MF, and would use the converter on few occasions, but I think it will be nice to have just in case I need it, as in the past Ive needed just that little bit longer.

Apr 30, 2012 12:52



LOG IN TO REPLY
Duane ­ N
Cream of the Crop
Duane N's Avatar
8,617 posts

Joined Nov 2007

Chesapeake, VA USA
MORE INFO

On the 1.4II extender I did tape the three pins using my 400mm f/5.6 and it worked fine...not sure if that works on the 1.4III version though.

Apr 30, 2012 15:05 as a reply to afh1989's post 2 hours earlier.

www.3rdicreations.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Muteki
Member
198 posts
Joined Jul 2009
MORE INFO

Besides the 400/5.6L, my on-the-road setup is 300/2.8L IS MK1 + stacking of Canon 1.4x II and Kenko 1.4x to get myself ~600mm (588mm to be exact), and the focus is just as fast as using only Canon 1.4x II. The photo still ends up fairly sharp with minimal degradation in crappy lighting/weather. The only penalty is my Canon 7D is about +1 EV off, so you have to compensate by -1 EV if you're shooting in the auto modes. For manual mode it's irrelevant.

Here's an okay flight shot of a Pileated Woodpecker, and I'm sure I will still get similar results with my 400/5.6L as these woodpeckers are not easy to photograph:

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5325/7097794299_95353a65b4_c.jpg

Here's a Common Merganser male I shot recently with lighting behind my back:
IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7126/7114533967_59454c0ab3_c.jpg

On the other hand, if you have a slow prime, i.e., 400/5.6L, either tape the pins of the Canon TC, or you can try use the Kenko 1.4x, and the focus will work at f/8, but slow and hard to detect contrast! Here's an example of a Snowy Owl I shot in early spring:
IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7137/7001779825_c39e5c2632_c.jpg

Moral of the story, use teleconverters on fast primes!

Apr 30, 2012 17:14

Raymond

Gears|external linkFlickr | external link5∞pxexternal link| external linkFacebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
bowser_23
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined May 2012
MORE INFO

Lots of talk and theory - always good to add real life experience - here's a good thread to look at

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=983021

May 01, 2012 14:39 as a reply to Muteki's post 21 hours earlier.



LOG IN TO REPLY

2,664 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tele converters
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Bird Talk

NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF    •   JUMP TO FORUM    •   FORUM RULES    •   Index    •   New Posts    •   RTAT    •   "Best Of"    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.1version 1.1
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00316 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is JaPaKoMom
803 guests, 865 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014