Canon EF 1.4X II 1.4 Extender v Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4 Extender, whats the difference ?

S

Subaru_WRC

Suspended / Banned
Messages
166
Edit My Images
Yes
Is their any noticeable difference between a Canon EF 1.4X II 1.4 Extender and a Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4 Extender ?

The price is around double for the Canon extender yet you hear such good things about the Kenko version, is the extra money for the Canon version money well spent or is the Canon one priced on its name and the Kenko one just as good at half the price ?
 
I have just bought the Kenko 1.4 Pro 300 and I must say I'm very impressed with it, I haven't used the Canon version but at £100 the difference would have to vast to entice me to spend double. I've used it on my 400 f5.6 L, 70-200 f4 L and the mp-e 65 without problems.
 
Ajophotog said:
I have just bought the Kenko 1.4 Pro 300 and I must say I'm very impressed with it, I haven't used the Canon version but at £100 the difference would have to vast to entice me to spend double. I've used it on my 400 f5.6 L, 70-200 f4 L and the mp-e 65 without problems.
Click to expand...

Thanks, ive also read some good reports about the Kenko 1.4 Pro 300. I`m just wondering if the Canon one is virtually twice the price because the price is based mainly on the brand name of Canon rather than being far superior optically.
 
Kenko are Hoya so I'm led to believe and their optics aren't too shabby either. I'm very happy with the results from it. This shot was taken with it on my 400 f5.6 L lens : Linky also the little egrets shots posted in the same forum.
 
I have had both and the Kenko was sharper than the Canon 1.4xtc both were new, unfortunately I sold the Kenko and bought the Canon, So I would go for the Kenko without a doubt.
 
When I compared the two, on a Canon 100-400mm L, the Canon was better, but the difference was very small indeed. I bought the Kenko Pro 1.4x and have been very happy with it. Because the front doesn't protrude like the Canon, it fits more lenses, too, like the Canon 100mm Macro.

What lens are you planning to use it with? I'm guessing here, but I think the design of the Canon (Nikon is similar) may better suit shorter focal lengths. It is well known that extenders work better with longer lenses and at smaller apertures, because the cone of light they have to accept is narrower. Basically what I'm saying is, my theory is that with longer lenses there will be nothing to choose between the two. But at shorter focal lengths, maybe the design of the Canon would shine through.

It would be interesting to put this to the test but having said that, who really cares what the extender is like at short focal lengths when, obviously, what it's like at the long end is the only thing that really matters. But whatever, this is all hypothesis. I have the Kenko and it's very good. Sigma is similar quality, too. Both these two are very well made, but it's only fair to note that the Canon is L class, and I think weather-sealed etc.
 
Anyone care to throw the Tamron 1.4 into the mix?

Rarer than either the Canon or Kenko but cheaper, supposedly better at attempting to use AF than both, better quality than the Kenko (again supposedly)
 
If you have long Canon primes and shoot in the rain then the weathersealing of the Canon wuld probably be of use. If not, the lower price and the facility to use the Kenko on more lenses would probably make it the better bet. (The Canon will only fit certain Canon lenses and no aftermarket ones).
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
Anyone care to throw the Tamron 1.4 into the mix?

Rarer than either the Canon or Kenko but cheaper, supposedly better at attempting to use AF than both, better quality than the Kenko (again supposedly)
Click to expand...

The ability to AF is a function of the diameter of the aperture, as seen by the AF module, and this is reduced by the magnification factor - it's the f/number that counts and all extenders are the same in this respect.

Most cameras will officially AF to f/5.6, like my 40D. It will also get by at f/6.3, but at f/8 it's useless.
 
The tamron doesn't send any info to the camera that there is a TC on so it still thinks it is at f4 instead of f5.6 (for example)
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
The tamron doesn't send any info to the camera that there is a TC on so it still thinks it is at f4 instead of f5.6 (for example)
Click to expand...

Sorry Rick, I wasn't being clear. What I mean is, it is the effective diameter of the aperture that matters in phase-detect AF, so it doesn't make any difference what the lens tells the camera, the aperture is still reduced in size. So the 'taped pins' trick doesn't work either.

On my 40D, the official cut-off figure is f/5.6, and no Canon lens has a darker maximum aperture than that, but I have found it works okay most of the time at f/6.3. Interestingly, Sigma and Tamron makes lenses that are f/6.3 at the long end so they are taking advantage of this little bit of extra headroom. But when you get to f/8, my 40D won't AF at all. Hopeless. As far as I know the same applies to all other cameras except the 1-Series Canons and Nikon pro models which will AF at f/8 no problem.
 
I've got a Canon MkII 2x extender which unfortunately doesn't fit any of my lenses! So I bought a Kenko 1.4x one instead and that's just fine!

Anyone want a Canon 2x never used extender?
 
Thanks for all the input on here, its really helped :thumbs:

I think i will hunt down a Kenko 1.4X Pro 300 as double the price for a Canon one doesn`t seem justified when their appears to be very little between the 2 in image quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top