Which is best teleconverter

[jeds]

Any recommendations for best teleconverter for use with a 40D. (not Canon extenders as I want to use with non Canon lenses)

I'm not bothered about autofocus.

Which would be a better option between a 1.4 with some croppiong and a 2x converter?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

 

[birdshot]

Any recommendations for best teleconverter for use with a 40D. (not
Canon extenders as I want to use with non Canon lenses)

I'm not bothered about autofocus.

Which would be a better option between a 1.4 with some croppiong and
a 2x converter?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Forget the 2x. I own both and the 1.4 is useable, but the 2x is a waste of money.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

I have both the Kenko Pro 1.4X and the cheaper Tamron 1.4X. Both give great results with my 70-200 F2.8 L IS (and the 70-200 F4 that I had before). The cheaper Tamron doesn't report the aperture to the camera, so it can be used with an F5.6 lens to maintain autofocus. The Kenko Pro has slightly higher quality than the Tamron, but not by much. I've even used the two stacked with the 70-200, and the results are usable, but a significant reduction in quality from using just one.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[Cleanoduck]

that the 2.0 TC is a waste of money. In my opinion the 2.0 TC can be used, but only with some very good lenses, like the 300 f.2.8. All the shots below are taken with the 300 + 2.0 TC, and they are not only good for internet purpose, but are also very good for large printing.

If you have to choose between a 1.4 and 2.0 than I would recommend a 1.4 which you always can stack with another 1.4.

Good luck.

1DII



30D



1DII

 

[ShudderBug]

They're great! I was reading about it the other night, looked on Amazon and for user opinions elsewhere, didn't see a whole lot, and not totally positive and some rather negative. If I remember what I was reading, it is best used with an L glass lens. Plus I think you will need to MF. What's wrong with setting just a tad below infinity if you don't want/need bokeh?

So I'm not going to rush to order it, but your words are very encouraging, would love to have the 600mm, but with my 100-400 I might get near 800mm, I hope? I'd gladly settle for anything above 400 or 500mm.

Now I also have the 70-200 2.8, and there was more talk about that, but I can't see where that would make much difference in my case other than it's faster.

So it sounds like I might be happier getting the 2X rather than stacking two 1.4 TC's, especially because I wouldn't be using it that often. The idea of stacking anything right now does not appeal, takes extra practice and knowhow.

 

[Anastigmat]

The Tamron 1.4x is also made by Kenko. It has 4 elements. The Kenko Pro 1.4x is also available as a Tamron SP 1.4x. The Kenko Pro and Tamron SP both have 5 elements, which is one reason why they outperform the regular 1.4x teleconverter.

I have both the Kenko Pro 1.4X and the cheaper Tamron 1.4X. Both give
great results with my 70-200 F2.8 L IS (and the 70-200 F4 that I had
before). The cheaper Tamron doesn't report the aperture to the
camera, so it can be used with an F5.6 lens to maintain autofocus.
The Kenko Pro has slightly higher quality than the Tamron, but not by
much. I've even used the two stacked with the 70-200, and the results
are usable, but a significant reduction in quality from using just
one.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[Anastigmat]

Any recommendations for best teleconverter for use with a 40D. (not
Canon extenders as I want to use with non Canon lenses)

I'm not bothered about autofocus.

Which would be a better option between a 1.4 with some croppiong and
a 2x converter?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Forget the 2x. I own both and the 1.4 is useable, but the 2x is a
waste of money.

The 2x is not a waste of money. The difference in reach is noticeable and significant, although you do lose AF with slow lenses with the 2x. But getting a 300mm f/2.8 lens so one can use the 2x teleconverter is not a very economical thing to do.

 

[JulesGo]

A 2X TC is useless with the 100-400 and the 1.4X Canon is ok if you use a tripod and don't mind manual focus. Auto focus is possible under good light if you tape the pins but is often slow.

So I'm not going to rush to order it, but your words are very
encouraging, would love to have the 600mm, but with my 100-400 I
might get near 800mm, I hope? I'd gladly settle for anything above
400 or 500mm.

--
Jules Gobeil
Nature photographer
Photographe de la nature
http://www.julesgobeil.com

 

[Imagemaker18]

Has anyone compared the two? And, is the older Canon EF 1.4x (Mk 1) sharper than the Kenko Pro 1.4x, or vice versa?

I have the Mk 1 Canon 1.4x, and wonder if I would be better off with the Kenko Pro?

Cheers!
Imagemaker

I have both the Kenko Pro 1.4X and the cheaper Tamron 1.4X. Both give
great results with my 70-200 F2.8 L IS (and the 70-200 F4 that I had
before). The cheaper Tamron doesn't report the aperture to the
camera, so it can be used with an F5.6 lens to maintain autofocus.
The Kenko Pro has slightly higher quality than the Tamron, but not by
much. I've even used the two stacked with the 70-200, and the results
are usable, but a significant reduction in quality from using just
one.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[jeds]

I'm thinking towards the 1.4x at the monent. Does anybody have any experience of comparing the Sigma APO with the Kenko Pro?

 

[ShudderBug]

A 2X TC is useless with the 100-400 and the 1.4X Canon is ok if you
use a tripod and don't mind manual focus. Auto focus is possible
under good light if you tape the pins but is often slow.

I'd better go with the 1.4X. Another poster I correspond with told me she uses the 2X with her 400mm prime and seems to get decent results. I'd rather not mess with taping the pins and can mf but it is harder for me because I don't see that well.

The 2X sounds so tempting to get that range I crave, but if I'm going to end up being disappointed and frustrated, I had better not risk it.

I don't use a tripod with the 100-400 now and get good photos with it, sometimes miss but think I understand why I'd need my tripod when going past 400mm. I usually try to keep my zoom just under the limits on either end.

I'm assuming I'd have to turn the IS off if I mount it on a tripod.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

So it sounds like I might be happier getting the 2X rather than
stacking two 1.4 TC's, especially because I wouldn't be using it that
often. The idea of stacking anything right now does not appeal,
takes extra practice and knowhow.

Stacking two 1.4Xs gives just as good results as using one 2X (in fact, I've seen claims here that the results are better). It's also very easy to do. You just attach the two converters to each other, and then to the lens, and then to the body. Or, you can do it in whichever order you please. If you can attach a lens to a body, you can attach a teleconverter to a lens, and if you can attach one, you can attach two. It really takes no practice at all, unless you are one of those people who pay close attention on airplanes to the instructions for securing your seatbelt!
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[fbernardino]

Here are some tests.

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/tctest

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2xtcs

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/14xtctest

--
Fabio Bernardino
http://www.fbernardino.com.br
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

 

[Alastair Norcross]

The Tamron 1.4x is also made by Kenko. It has 4 elements. The Kenko
Pro 1.4x is also available as a Tamron SP 1.4x. The Kenko Pro and
Tamron SP both have 5 elements, which is one reason why they
outperform the regular 1.4x teleconverter.

Interesting. I knew that the Kenko Pro and more expensive Tamron are the same, but I didn't know that the cheaper Tamron is made by Kenko. Does one company own the other?
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[jeds]

Thanks for those. Very well done. The Kenko looks good.

 

[wcrosman]

http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showfull.php?photo=60336
--
T---
http://www.crosman.org
http://www.portfolio-shots.com

 

[ShudderBug]

Stacking two 1.4Xs gives just as good results as using one 2X (in
fact, I've seen claims here that the results are better). It's also
very easy to do. You just attach the two converters to each other,
and then to the lens, and then to the body. Or, you can do it in
whichever order you please. If you can attach a lens to a body, you
can attach a teleconverter to a lens, and if you can attach one, you
can attach two. It really takes no practice at all, unless you are
one of those people who pay close attention on airplanes to the
instructions for securing your seatbelt!

Ok, hope it will work on my 100-400mm, that's where I want it the most right now. How about I start with one? If I'm happy with that, I can get another one. You make it sound simple enough, doable, so many thanks for that.

Today I ordered a Giottos Professional Car Window Mount, and I wasn't sure which way to go, messed up the first order by my questions so think we've got it right now. One issue was whether whatever I bought would support my camera with the 100-400 and at least one converter, all my other lenses not a problem. I figure since I always keep the camera strap around my neck in case something fails even working off my tripod, worst case scenario is that I will break the car window or manage to strangle myself lol.

Anyway I wanted a quick release so I have the option of leaving the the mount on, roll up the window as far as it lets me and drive on, etc. In this cold weather, the idea is to keep the car warmer soas to be able to stay out longer, not such an issue in warmer weather. Or I can take the mount off according to circumstances. So I ordered an adapter for quick release. From the looks of it, I'm not sure it's going to be right, but if not, I can ask here if and when.

It is inhibiting me from taking more night photos by having to park, drag out my tripod, set up, get some shots and then on to another one. Sometimes I will have to get out, but my fingers get so cold I can no longer work the controls after awhile even with gloves with the fingers cut out.

When I'm on narrow state roads with traffic, I realized how dangerous it is to park on the shoulder and get out, get the shots, etc., which I will do sometimes anyway, but this might give me another option for that as well especially birds, that's kept me from going out in the cold and waiting for eagles.

 

[jsonic]

I owned a Soligor 1.7 converter and sold it because I lost a awful lot of contrast when using my 70-200 2.8 (Sigma) and the Canon 70-200 F4 Also it suffered from a large degree of abberations. Mechanically it was sound and well build. Electronis where fine but no adjusting of maximum aperture.

Now I own the Sigma 1.4 which is in a different class, it is sharp has good contrast and just a little bit of increase of abberations. Also the mechanical and electronic quality is outstanding (aperture and focal length are displayed correct) Also the combination is recognized as a seperate lens when using micro-af adjust.

Considering that the price difference between the Soligor and Sigma is not that big I can't recommend the Soligor. The Sigma is very good.

I use(d) both on 40D as well on 50D

 

[Phil88]

You just attach the two converters to each other,
and then to the lens, and then to the body.
Or, you can do it in whichever order you please.

???????? Surely the only order is lens, 1.4x, 1.4x, camera? Am I missing something?
--
Phil Wallace
http://www.birdmad.co.uk

 

[Phil88]

I have the Canon 1.4 and 2x, the 100-400 and the 500 f4. Someone said that you must use L glass with converters for best results. You will get better results using a TC with better glass but the degradation will still be there.

I use the 1.4 quite a lot but there is a noticeable loss in quality. I'm sure Brian Schneider will confirm that even with the best lenses, feather detail is degraded with any TC. Brian?

I rarely use the 2x because the loss in quality is very evident, but the compromise may be worth it if the bird (subject) is very distant.

--
Phil Wallace
http://www.birdmad.co.uk