Gnostos Agnostos
Member
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 7
Which is better?
which is older?
which is older?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Please does anybody know what's the difference between Kenko MC4 the MC7 and Pro 300 teleconverters?
- Thread starter Gnostos Agnostos
- Start date
D
Darrell Spreen
Guest
This website has a good general discussion by a respected photographer and there are some photos. I believe Tamron and Kenko teleconverters are the same.
http://bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/tc3.html
Test data is hard to come by -- this site is the most useful I've found with photos and charts (even if you don't read German!).
https://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/telekonverter/telekonverter_check_Teil2.php
I think it's interesting that the Canon 70-200L WITH the Kenko 1.5X converter outperforms the Canon lens alone (upsized) at several apertures (if I understand the chart correctly).
The following updated page and the 3 pages which follow it may be more useful to answer your questions.
http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/telekonverter/konvertertest2.php
I would not buy any teleconverter greater than 1.5X. Newer models appear to be more compatible with cameras and lenses. Older models may not even work with autofocus.
--
DS
Last edited:
Tourlou
Senior Member
MC4 is older and discontinued. It supports AF-D lenses and G lenses.
MC7 is the current. No support for AF-D.
MC7 is the current. No support for AF-D.
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
The MC4 has four elements and is available in 1.4x or 2x.
The MC7 has seven elements and is only available in 2x.
The Pro 300 is available in 1.4x, 2x, or 3x and has five or seven elements depending on the magnification factor.
The Pro 300 line theoretically has the best optical design for use with long lenses, but actual results with any of the models will depend on the specific lens being used.
There are numerous generations of those and other models. For example, I have a Kenko that's labeled as 1.5x which hasn't been offered in a long time.
Optically, the generation of the model is unimportant. What could matter more is the electronic functionality that enables it to communicate modified focal length and aperture data to the camera. Some Kenko models and generations do that correctly, some don't.
Last edited:
The Grumpy Snapper
Leading Member
- Messages
- 573
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 624
The heavier one makes a better paperweight.
The Pro 300 was designed for longer tele lenses, from 300mm and up.
with shorter lenses it will have softer edges than some of their other types but may have a sharper centre so could still be usefull for those that ,say, use a 200mm with it and then still crop.
(BTW, hidden in the FAQ : Teleplus PRO 300 DGX series is a premium series of teleconverters designed to fit high resolution cameras and lenses. The optical construction is tuned to perform best results when used with Tele lenses whose focal length is 300mm or longer)
As already mentioned , with tele converters it is very important to get the right match. The one some rave on in use with their 70-200mm U Beut lens may not work all that well with your Different Brand/model lens.
Also because there are several versions of most of the Kenko converters , to know if it will work on AF or talk to you camera at all you need to make sure you have the exact same unit as one that you know it works with your lens.
For example the TELEPLUS MC4 AF 1.4X DGX may work but the TELEPLUS MC4 AF 1.4X DG or the Kenko TELEPLUS HD 1.4x DGX may not.
with shorter lenses it will have softer edges than some of their other types but may have a sharper centre so could still be usefull for those that ,say, use a 200mm with it and then still crop.
(BTW, hidden in the FAQ : Teleplus PRO 300 DGX series is a premium series of teleconverters designed to fit high resolution cameras and lenses. The optical construction is tuned to perform best results when used with Tele lenses whose focal length is 300mm or longer)
As already mentioned , with tele converters it is very important to get the right match. The one some rave on in use with their 70-200mm U Beut lens may not work all that well with your Different Brand/model lens.
Also because there are several versions of most of the Kenko converters , to know if it will work on AF or talk to you camera at all you need to make sure you have the exact same unit as one that you know it works with your lens.
For example the TELEPLUS MC4 AF 1.4X DGX may work but the TELEPLUS MC4 AF 1.4X DG or the Kenko TELEPLUS HD 1.4x DGX may not.
Last edited:
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
Last edited:
I used to sell them and best from 300mm plus was always the suggestion from TelePlus.
That is why it is called 300. But no doubt others can disagree .
Note that the review you posted comments :works best with lenses of 200mmto 500mm and that I did not say it does not work below 300mm ....
In case you missed my point , here it is again, from kenko :
To the OP.
Converters are only worth using if you get the right combination that happens to work better than cropping.
That is an exception rather than the rule with converters. Hence my emphasis on pointing out "best" as opposite to "OK , it works"
Search this site and you will find plenty of comments from members along the lines : after many tests I found out I was better off cropping with the lens I have (or similar of course...)
That includes many pro , dedicated types, such as those sold by the same brand for their Pro lenses, such as Nikon/Canon/Sony as well as Tamron and Sigma.
Again carefuly check you have plenty of good comments from people that use exactly the same combo you intend to use.
Last edited:
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
What you said: 'The Pro 300 was designed for longer tele lenses, from 300mm and up.'I used to sell them and best from 300mm plus was always the suggestion from TelePlus.
What that document says: 'The PRO 300 family are designed specifically to be used with prime telephoto lenses of 100mm or above, such as 300 mm f/2.8 lenses, and work best with telephoto lenses of 200mm to 500mm.'
I felt there was a difference worth noting.
That's not a review that I posted. It's a page from Kenko's 2014 full product catalog. The same information appears in their 2011 and 2010 catalogs.
In case you missed my point, I said the information that I relayed above is Kenko's own description of some of the older versions of the PRO 300.In case you missed my point , here it is again, from kenko :
The information you're showing is on Kenko's website, meaning the descriptions were revised at some point.
An additional item of possible interest is that the PRO 300 line was removed entirely from the 2018 catalog:
Last edited:
threw the lens
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,760
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,314
I would bypass the 1.4x Pro 300. You get the downsides of a teleconverter without a worthwhile magnification factor. With the 2x you at least get a substantial magnification and the quality was at least as good as the 1.4x. If you only want 1.4x, I advise to shoot in some crop mode or do it on the computer after, because I don't find the halfway house worth it in quality.
Last edited:
D
Darrell Spreen
Guest
The German website test results certainly don't support your conclusion. Neither the Canon or the Kenko 2X teleconverters match the quality of the 1.4-1.5X models. And Bob Atkins' test results show the teleconverter he tested was superior to the results he got from computer cropping.
--
DS
Last edited:
The plus side (!) of using a 1.4x is that you can still have AF with many long tele lenses, for example I get my 1.5x * to focus with my zoom on 400mm at f 5.6, and you only lose 1 stop .
However, as I have already mentioned, most often you are better off just cropping, for example I am with the 1.5x .
* I bought that 1.5x to use as coupled ext tube but I still have not got around to removing the glass.
I have a 1.4x pro 300 coming from Japan so in a couple of weeks I will know how it works with my tele lenses.
( I used to sell the Tele Plus line)
Last edited:
threw the lens
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,760
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,314
Usually I would say teleconverters are only a good bet with primes, not zooms.
I have seen that on some zooms, having a 2x instead of 1.4x means you can zoom less and avoid the worst quality at the long end of the zoom.
The only circumstances where I find a 2x acceptable are where I can stop down one stop, and keep the setup on a support.
I found using a 1.4x mostly a waste of image quality, unless again I can stop down by a stop. At a minimum half-two thirds stop with that 1.4x when I tested it. I can understand why someone who doesn't have an appropriate lens and wants files SOOC would want a teleconverter, but if you want decent results you lose a lot more light than people have been suggesting.
So despite what people say, I'd always recommend a 100-400 f5.6 to people over a 70-200 f2.8 if they need 400mm, because they really will get 400mm f5.6 with the long zoom. With the teleconverter the camera will tell you that you are shooting at f5.6 but it isn't good enough.
Michael Benveniste
Veteran Member
See:
https://kenkoglobal.com/catalog/teleconverters/
That site currently shows 4 different tiers of Teleconverters. The only one that's shown as discontinued is the MC4 2x -- the others are still shown as current.
The "HD Pro" teleconverters are the newest, having been announced in 2019. While the press release claimed that "the converters now contain more elements," the specs I've seen don't back that up. For 2x converters, all except the MC4 contain 7 elements. The MC7 and Teleplus 300 use 4 groups; the HD and HD pro apparently use 5 groups.
For 1.4x TC's it gets complicated:
- The MC4 has 4 elements in 4 groups.
- The Teleplus 300 has 5 elements in 4 groups.
- The HD has 3 elements in 2 groups.
- The HD Pro has 5 elements in either 4 groups or 3 groups, depending on where you look.
--
Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!
Last edited:
yesterday I received the Pro 300 in A mount.
I already had a 1.5x SHQ.
Both work with all of my 3 tele lenses on AF.
The 1.5 is a waste of time as far as image quality , I get much better results cropping. (it was bought to take the optics out and turn it into an ex tube)
The Pro 300 does not take my 30mm macro nor the 17-50mm BUT I can use it with the 1.4x by mounting the 1.4x first, then the 1.5 on it and then the lens.
Really weird but the results are not bad at all.
With the 55-300mm the Pro 200 might be a go because it gives me a very light 420mm ( 588mm equivalent) and maybe a little bit better than cropping. If nothing else it helps finding the bird looking through the EVF.
With the 70-400mm I still get a slightly better image cropping but again it could be fun because of the extra reach on the camera.
So... well , probably not worth the money on digital (because it is so easy to crop) maybe a lot more useful for film users not doing their own printing.
But I think I will have some fun playing with the 2 converters on the other lenses.
A quick hand held shot from the 30mm with both converters on :
I already had a 1.5x SHQ.
Both work with all of my 3 tele lenses on AF.
The 1.5 is a waste of time as far as image quality , I get much better results cropping. (it was bought to take the optics out and turn it into an ex tube)
The Pro 300 does not take my 30mm macro nor the 17-50mm BUT I can use it with the 1.4x by mounting the 1.4x first, then the 1.5 on it and then the lens.
Really weird but the results are not bad at all.
With the 55-300mm the Pro 200 might be a go because it gives me a very light 420mm ( 588mm equivalent) and maybe a little bit better than cropping. If nothing else it helps finding the bird looking through the EVF.
With the 70-400mm I still get a slightly better image cropping but again it could be fun because of the extra reach on the camera.
So... well , probably not worth the money on digital (because it is so easy to crop) maybe a lot more useful for film users not doing their own printing.
But I think I will have some fun playing with the 2 converters on the other lenses.
A quick hand held shot from the 30mm with both converters on :
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum