Reading mode: Light Dark

Why a Kenco TC 1.4 with 70-300VR

Go to last post
alexgodro said:
Why a Kenco TC 1.4 with 70-300VR?

How good it is?

Anybody uses this combo?
Click to expand...
I've tried both the Kenko and the Sigma EX 1.4X TC. The Sigma had some AF hunting issues on a BIF. Haven't used the Kenko on moving objects but did do a static test for comparisons -- not the most objective but... FWIW
70-300VR -- Kenko -- Sigma



Having my Bigma, I'm doubtful that I'd ever use the 70-300 w/ either TC. I guess that if you have a feeder and want a bit more reach, either will do. I'm not sure if cropping a bare 70-300 image's FOV
--
Telecorder (Dave)
My Image Galleries --

http://www.nikonians-images.com/galleries/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=121399&password=

http://Telecorder.smugmug.com/

 
Would it be better to change my 6MP body for a 10 MP or futur 12 MP and use more cropping instead of a using a teleconverter ?

Wich option would give the best results overall?
 
Yes, definitely. with 12 MP you have a pseudo magnification of 1,4 times and higher quality with no crop.
But the price difference is some more bucks compared to the TC
If you can afford go for more resolution or get the 300/4 + TC14
 
alexgodro said:
Why a Kenco TC 1.4 with 70-300VR?

How good it is?

Anybody uses this combo?
Click to expand...
If you do some research you will find that the 70-300mmVR is not compatiable with any TC as Nikon suggests. I mean it will work in the sense of AF though very slow and hunting, but the IQ degradation is too much for anyone who cares about IQ at all.
--
LayneC
 
Layne22 said:
If you do some research you will find that the 70-300mm VR is not
compatible with any TC as Nikon suggests.
Click to expand...
If YOU do proper research you will find, as hundreds have the Kenko Pro 300 1.4x supports all 70-300 functions, including AF.

AF does slow up - but it is better than no AF, and image quality suffers somewhat as at 300mm without converter image quality is some way behind Nikon's 300mm primes.
On a budget the Kenko on any of the 70-300's is a useful option.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Practicing and thinking can do more for good photography than buying or consuming.
 
Thanks for your comments, I will learn to use the 70-300vr at is best potential and maybe change the body for a 10-12 MP within the next months/years.
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
Leonard Shepherd wrote:
AF does slow up - but it is better than no AF, and image quality
suffers somewhat as at 300mm without converter image quality is some
way behind Nikon's 300mm primes.
On a budget the Kenko on any of the 70-300's is a useful option.
Click to expand...
It's been my experience that the Kenko 300 DG 1.4 and the 70-300vr is pretty much useless. As much as I wanted that combo to work here's what I found on numerous tests:
  • AF is much slower
  • IQ is worse than cropping without the TC
I managed to get almost identical IQ compared to cropping by stopping down to F9.

So you basically get the worst of both worlds degraded handling and loss of IQ.
 
Actually do not expect a great difference in clarity or IQ going from 6 -10mb or even 12mb. Pro/good/dedicated glass (whatever you want to call it) will make quite a bit more difference than mb's---ron s.
alexgodro said:
Thanks for your comments, I will learn to use the 70-300vr at is best
potential and maybe change the body for a 10-12 MP within the next
months/years.
Click to expand...
--
Keeping it sane in an insane world is an inconvenience at an inconvenient time!!
http://www.pbase.com/ron9ron
 
maverick01 said:
It's been my experience that the Kenko 300 DG 1.4 and the 70-300vr is
pretty much useless. As much as I wanted that combo to work here's
what I found on numerous tests:
  • AF is much slower
  • IQ is worse than cropping without the TC
I managed to get almost identical IQ compared to cropping by stopping
down to F9.

So you basically get the worst of both worlds degraded handling and
loss of IQ.
Click to expand...
I had an identical experience (Kenko Pro 1.4x w/70-300VR). AF is not merely slower - in good light it frequently would not lock on at all. Waste of money to use a TC with 70-300.

If 400mm is a must, you either have to pay the Nikon premium for the slow in-need-of-an-update 80-400 or get a Sigma/Tamron/Tokina equivalent.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
 
Thanks for the advice...at this point of time, I can not supply more than 1.5 k$. This is why I believe that more cropping range is the best option. A compatible teleconverter would have been even better.
 
Your question makes sense. The Kenco TC 1.4 does degrade the quality, particularly at the long end.

I'm only an amateur and take bird pictures of my garden birds. The pictures are displayed on my sight. The gallery displays the pictures labelled for the equipment with which they are taken.

If you look carefully at the pictures displayed, you will note that those taken with the Nikon 70-300 vr WITHOUT the TC are of better quality than those taken WITH the Kenco TC 1.4.

None of my picures are perfec since I'm more interested in the birds that I protect than the hyperquality of the shots. Nontheless, I try the best I can to take good shots and my technique is improving as I go along...

Hope this helps.
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries
 
I got my hands on a Kenko TC and I won't get rid of it just yet.

Sort of in the vein of what Peter writes here, if the quality is not fully meant to be tops and you are aiming to get better as you go, the TC can be useful. For example, even though the IQ would probably be better simply cropping, just the act of PPing a crop when you've got 100s of pictures, can be daunting.

There are, of course a couple of options when considering a TC or not. As one poster mentions, taking pics of a fixed bird feeder without the need for following action could be useful but I would like to add, if you are trapped behind a window looking at a feeder, maybe, just maybe, you could get out from being behind that glass (or simply open the window if possible) the increase of IQ can be quite noticeable (with and without a TC).

Also as some people have noted, using a flash might not spook the birds as much as you think it would. That could help any picture drastically.

If and or when you get a Kenko, there is yet another use. It increases the"macro" ability of your lenses. I have found that I can even use it on my 18-55DX at 55mm to get an even closer "macro". It can focus, and in macro you are often using flash anyway so stopping down shouldn't be a problem to shoot at f8 for example.

As for "macro" lenses, remember that simply having the word "macro" (or Micro in Nikon speak) doesn't mean that it can get the best magnification. Compare all of your lenses. For example, even though my 35-70 f2.8 has a macro setting, the humble 18-55DX gets me even closer to the action, so to speak.

I haven't tried my TC on the newest 70-300 (I only have the 70-300G and 70-300ED)

My original reason for buying the TC was to use it on my 80-200 f2.8 , but the 1st time I compared, the humble 18-135 pics cropped seemed sharper, than my 80-200 plus TC. hmmmm NOT was I was hoping for! It could be that my 80-200 is heading for the place old lenses go when they lose their vision. I'll have to test the TC on another 80-200 if I can because that SHOULD be better. :-/

In the meantime, I have tried the TC in many combinations which I recommend to anyone. The only combo I HAVEN'T tried is with my 55-200VR for fear of killing the cheap VR in it.

Guy Moscoso
Peter Clark55 said:
Your question makes sense. The Kenco TC 1.4 does degrade the
quality, particularly at the long end.

I'm only an amateur and take bird pictures of my garden birds. The
pictures are displayed on my sight. The gallery displays the
pictures labelled for the equipment with which they are taken.

If you look carefully at the pictures displayed, you will note that
those taken with the Nikon 70-300 vr WITHOUT the TC are of better
quality than those taken WITH the Kenco TC 1.4.

None of my picures are perfec since I'm more interested in the birds
that I protect than the hyperquality of the shots. Nontheless, I try
the best I can to take good shots and my technique is improving as I
go along...

Hope this helps.
--
Click to expand...
 
Awful. Don't use a t.c. on the 70~300. Poor IQ, poor focussing and very slow f8 @300mm (and needs to be stopped down further).
I'd rather use it naked (the lens, not me) and crop later.
 
Taken with 70-300VR +Kenko 1.4, also heavy crop @5.6 1000iso It had everthing going against it. Would my 300 f4 have done better ??? of course it would, but the problem was it was at home and all I had was the above combo. Sometimes you can make compromises.



Cheers Ray.
 
Nice shot (better than I achieved) but don't you wish you left the 70~300 at home and took the 300mm f4?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top