Tele-converter test shot.

ColinB · 18th October 2007, 09:40

On another thread tele-converters were mentioned with mixed opinions. I have just bought a second hand Kenko pro 1.4 to use occasionally with my Canon 70-300 IS lens. Just tried it and I have to say I am pleased with the results.
What do you think? I know the second shot is a little crooked but they were taken handheld and are jpegs straight from the camera. No PP, just shrunk for the web.

1. Without the T/C at 300mm

2. With the T/C at 420mm

JohnDotCom · 18th October 2007, 09:50

Well done for Posting to back up your Opinion.
Still think the Non Tele-Converter Pictures are Sharper and more Crisp, Colin.
That is just IMHO I'm biased though.

Obviously a Cheaper option for occasional use though.
If you shoot in RAW it gives you more oportunities for Post Editing though.

ColinB · 18th October 2007, 09:56

I usually do shoot RAW, John but used full auto today for quickness and to show the results with no extra processing. As you say good for the odd time more reach is required and alot cheaper than a new lens.

The Bear · 18th October 2007, 10:20

Hi Colin what was the cost of the converter, and also your source if you could be so helpfull.I have recently purchased a Canon 70-300 IS USM lens from ebay and am in the process of looking for either a 1.4 of 2.0 lense to use with the 70-300 attached to a canon 350D.

ColinB · 18th October 2007, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

Hi Colin what was the cost of the converter, and also your source if you could be so helpfull.I have recently purchased a Canon 70-300 IS USM lens from ebay and am in the process of looking for either a 1.4 of 2.0 lense to use with the 70-300 attached to a canon 350D.

Hi Bear, I got it on ebay for £58 including P&P. I would go for the 1.4 as the 2.0X cuts down more light making it harder for the autofocus to work.

Raistlin · 19th October 2007, 06:54

Colin

I can't see a great deal of difference between the two photos on this thread.

Marked difference to others I have seen using the Canon X2 though. Even then, it seems the X2 and the X1.4 are different again.

Can you still use autofocus and IS with that telecon and the 70-300?

ColinB · 19th October 2007, 07:26

Hi Paul, IS works fine and AF works a bit slower (hunts a bit). Quality wise I'm pleased with it.

Raistlin · 19th October 2007, 19:02

Hmm

After what has been said regarding the Canon 1.4 I might well be tempted.
I wonder what effect it'll have in the 400mm?

ColinB · 19th October 2007, 19:38

Paul here's a link to a thread about the100-400 with 1.4x T/C. Several photos with the Kenko pro attached.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...-400+kenko+1.4

Regards, Colin

18th October 2007, 09:40	#1
ColinB Posted a thing or two Rover 75 Tourer 1.8T Club SE Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Croydon, Surrey Posts: 1,141 Thanks: 3 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Tele-converter test shot. On another thread tele-converters were mentioned with mixed opinions. I have just bought a second hand Kenko pro 1.4 to use occasionally with my Canon 70-300 IS lens. Just tried it and I have to say I am pleased with the results. What do you think? I know the second shot is a little crooked but they were taken handheld and are jpegs straight from the camera. No PP, just shrunk for the web. 1. Without the T/C at 300mm 2. With the T/C at 420mm

18th October 2007, 09:50	#2
JohnDotCom * Rover 75 FaceLift Tourer CDTi 170BHP Auto ConnSE 2005 Model Starlight Silver Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Abergele Posts: 28,735 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Well done for Posting to back up your Opinion. Still think the Non Tele-Converter Pictures are Sharper and more Crisp, Colin. That is just IMHO I'm biased though. Obviously a Cheaper option for occasional use though. If you shoot in RAW it gives you more oportunities for Post Editing though.

18th October 2007, 09:56	#3
ColinB Posted a thing or two Rover 75 Tourer 1.8T Club SE Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Croydon, Surrey Posts: 1,141 Thanks: 3 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I usually do shoot RAW, John but used full auto today for quickness and to show the results with no extra processing. As you say good for the odd time more reach is required and alot cheaper than a new lens.

18th October 2007, 10:20	#4
The Bear Loves to post MG ZT 190+ Commision No 000297 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Stoke-On-Trent Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hi Colin what was the cost of the converter, and also your source if you could be so helpfull.I have recently purchased a Canon 70-300 IS USM lens from ebay and am in the process of looking for either a 1.4 of 2.0 lense to use with the 70-300 attached to a canon 350D.

19th October 2007, 06:54	#6
Raistlin Banned 75 CDT Connoisseur SE Auto Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Wolverhampton Posts: 8,450 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Colin I can't see a great deal of difference between the two photos on this thread. Marked difference to others I have seen using the Canon X2 though. Even then, it seems the X2 and the X1.4 are different again. Can you still use autofocus and IS with that telecon and the 70-300?

19th October 2007, 07:26	#7
ColinB Posted a thing or two Rover 75 Tourer 1.8T Club SE Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Croydon, Surrey Posts: 1,141 Thanks: 3 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hi Paul, IS works fine and AF works a bit slower (hunts a bit). Quality wise I'm pleased with it.

19th October 2007, 19:02	#8
Raistlin Banned 75 CDT Connoisseur SE Auto Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Wolverhampton Posts: 8,450 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Hmm After what has been said regarding the Canon 1.4 I might well be tempted. I wonder what effect it'll have in the 400mm?

19th October 2007, 19:38	#9
ColinB Posted a thing or two Rover 75 Tourer 1.8T Club SE Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Croydon, Surrey Posts: 1,141 Thanks: 3 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Paul here's a link to a thread about the100-400 with 1.4x T/C. Several photos with the Kenko pro attached. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...-400+kenko+1.4 Regards, Colin