Please -- experince with TC 1.4 or 2X

If you have you have used an extender either 1 1.4 or 2X (Canon or other) can you share your experience? Does it have to be a Canon TC? I heard some very good things about the Kenko pro...

i've used a kenko 1.4X...what lens are you planning on using it on, and for what purposes? some lenses don't take the canon TC, which is why the kenko get's used in some instances

135L - my kids sports. they are only 9 and 6...

I own a 100-400 and a 5DIII which retains center point AF with the 1.4x extender. I rented the Canon TC 1.4x III and took some test shots of a wall map across the room and some birds at the local wetlands. In both cases the shots without the TC, cropped to match the FOV with the TC, were actually sharper than the shots with the TC. For birds in flight, losing the extra AF points made catching focus that much harder. For me, at least with this lens, the TC wasn't worth it.

vargasjv wrote in post #17452979
If you have you have used an extender either 1 1.4 or 2X (Canon or other) can you share your experience? Does it have to be a Canon TC? I heard some very good things about the Kenko pro...

Heya,

I use Kenko PRO 300 Series DGX TC's. They're sharp. And they work like a charm. Inexpensive compared to the Canons and do the same thing. I use the 2.0x mainly, because when I want to get more reach, I'm wanting every ounce. I generally use it the most on my 200 F2.8L prime, making a 400 F5.6 prime out of it that is still very fast to focus and sharp wide open.

Very best,

I've had a Tamron SP 1.4x TC (the white model) for years. I think Kenko make an exact replica now. I don't use it all that much but when teamed up with certain lenses the results are very good to excellent. Works great with my 135L and Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 non OS.

Sounds like the Kenko PRO 300 Series DGX might be what I need!

I have the older Kenko Pro 300s - both a 1.4x and a 2X. I also have a Canon 1.4X II. The Canon and the Kenko 1.4X give near identical results. I occasionally use the 1.4X on any of my longer lenses, but my 150-500mm Sigma doesn't seem to like TCs much (often seems too soft (even if used on a tripod, to lessen user error).

I do not use the 2X often as I don't usually like the results. Of my lenses, only my 135L (this is also the shortest lens that will take a Canon TC) and 100L (MANUAL mode only) will occasionally see the 2X. The 100L and 135L seem to still have acceptable IQ with the 2X. My other lenses don't do the 2X well - IMO usually too much of an IQ hit. I keep the 2X because unfortunately it is sometimes the only way to get the shot. I do my best to not get into those sometimes situations.

I know the OP does not have a 100L, but I'll add this in case he decides one day to get one (or anyone else interested). Above I mentioned that I use the 100L with the 2X (Kenko) in manual mode only. The 100L should take a 2X without issue, but 100L doesn't take MOST TCs without issue. It will almost always rack back and forth not locking focus, and it even occasionally errors out. That happens with only the 100L with all my TCs (1.4X & 2X Kenko, 1.4X Canon & Tamron, and the Canon Life-Size Converter which is half TC & half ET). I said most TC in this paragraph because I've been told the new Kenko dgX models do keep AF with the 100L (though I have yet to actually verify this). On the 100L the manual focus is not a huge deal, as 1:1 and above I usually manually focus anyway. (But) It would make the 100L more versatile for me if I could use TC with AF for regular (not macro) photos. It would give me a 100mm f/2.8, a 140mm f/4, and a 200mm f/5.6 all with very close focusing ability.