Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II + Kenko 1.4x MC4 DGX

I figured I'd give this extender a shot based on Silverfox1's recommendation and the review here:

http://www.traumfliege​r.de …elekonverter/ov​erview.php

It arrived today so I went out and snapped a couple quick pictures as examples for anyone curious how it fares. This was a very unscientific test and the pictures are not exact, as you can see. They were both taken handheld with IS on.

(When you click on the links below, right click on the photo, then "View Image" to see them in full resolution)

200mm, 1/2500s, f/3.2 (didn't realize it was on 3.2 instead of 2.8 until I got back, sorry), SOOC, 100% crop
http://imageshack.us …ges/94/200mmsoo​ccrop.jpg/

Link to full size, uncropped:
http://imageshack.us …images/194/200m​msooc.jpg/

280mm (1.4x), 1/1000, f/4, SOOC, 100% crop
http://imageshack.us …images/269/280m​msooc.jpg/

Link to full size, uncropped:
http://imageshack.us …es/560/280mmsoo​ccrop.jpg/


It actually looks a lot better than I thought it would in this very simple test. I'll be using it this weekend at a swim meet, so we'll see how it performs in real life situations. Just thought I'd throw this up in the meantime.

Didn't perform very well at all this weekend at the meet. It was overcast and cool, but still getting 1/640-800 shots at 2.8 and ISO 200. Focus was extremely hit or miss (mostly miss). It was harder to determine IQ as well since nothing really seemed to lock focus. Not impressed at all with it. I'll be trying it out again this week sometime in different conditions.

I'm much satisfied with my MC4 extenders (1.4X AND 2X) and was made aware of them by Silverfox1.
The comparison test at the German website is most compelling.

I looked at the data and was kind of doubtful to see that the kenko 1.4 would outresolve the new canon 1.4 III. I think some of his data might be incorrect.

http://translate.googl​e.com …ekonverter%2Fov​erview.php

google translate ftw

"Here we have also recognized that the Kenko 1.4x super telephoto lens on DGX against the Canon converters has a disadvantage, but this here at the Canon 70-200mm / 4,0 L IS USM is not the case."

While the image quality could be tolerable, I have confirmed that the AF is severely degraded with this extender on the lens. I took it out again yesterday and tried shooting some static objects as well as some people milling about slowly. The AF was incredibly hit or miss (mostly miss). Out of 30 pictures, maybe 7 or 8 actually hit focus. AF couldn't even track a slow moving person walking about. Needless to say, I'll be sending this back.