Equipment choice and Kenko Teleconverter confusion

kickstart

kickstart

Suspended / Banned
Messages
576
Edit My Images
Yes
I have trips planned to the Galapagos and Antartica over the next 2 years and I've already updated my equipment to the following:
Canon 5d MkIV
EF 24-105 F4 L IS USM
EF 70-300 F4.0-5.6 L IS USM
I also have a Canon 40D as a back up body (but might consider upgrading this as well to full frame)

I'm pretty comfortable with this set up (I just need to get out and use it more) it will be a mixture of wildlife and landscapes.
However I'm wondering if I might need a bit more reach on the telephoto end, I may not need it but is it worth having with me.
I know the Canon teleconverters have an issue with fitment (although I think the 1.4x can be used on longer lengths).

Hence I was considering a Kenko as a possible back up in my bag.
There seem to be 3 models though and I can seem to understand the differences and can't seem to find a comparison.

Option one
KENKO TELEPLUS PRO 300 DGX 1.4x
http://www.kenkoglobal.com/photo/lens_accessories/teleplus/teleplus_pro_300_af_14x_dgx.html
http://SPAM/yddvvo9e
£149

Option two
KENKO TELEPLUS HD DGX 1.4X
http://www.kenkoglobal.com/photo/lens_accessories/teleplus/teleplus_hd_dgx_14x_canon.html
https://SPAM/ybgzw5to
£139

Option three - More basic?
Kenko MC4 AF 1.4X DGX
http://www.kenkoglobal.com/photo/lens_accessories/teleplus_mc4_af_14x_dgx.html
https://SPAM/yceg74nr
£99

I'm assuming the PRO 300 would give the best quality?
Any perceived issues using it with the 70-300 Apart from the loss of a stop?

Finally I'd really like a good wide-angle landscape lens to complete the set, what suggestions would you make?
Maybe one of these:
EF 20mm f2.8
EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM
EF 17-40mm f/4L

I'd love a EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM but it's a bit rich for me...
Or would the 24-105 be fine for most things?
 
Last edited:
The pro 300 is more highly corrected (more elements/groups) so it should give better results, at least in demanding situations (i.e. less CA with backlighting). W./ the 70-300 you'll be at f/8 when zoomed out... at the very least you will loose a lot of focus points fuctionally if your camera is even capable of AF at f/8 max (I don't know). Also, the 70-300 isn't a particularly great lens; a TC not only magnifies the image, it also magnifies all of the lens' flaws.
 
Thanks, I'd also looked at the 70-200 f4.0 L IS USM as this was also in my budget range, but made my choice based on the reviews I read and I thought the 300mm was more useful to me overall.

At the end of the day IMHO I think it's easy to get hung up on quality, there's always a better lens you can buy! For me it's what you want from the lens, I'm only a keen amateur and not interested in creating giant prints or selling images.
 
Last edited:
The pro 300 is very good I used one on a Canon 300 f4 and 7d without any problem.
But as Steven says you will be at f8 and will probably loose AF except on the centre point and you will only gain 120mm.
Personally if I were doing those trips they would be once in a lifetime so I would buy a Canon 400mm f5.6 second hand ( MPB has them from £650-700) and sell it when I got back, you will loose less than the cost of the TC and get better pix, plus your 40D will not AF with the 70-300+TC.
As far as wide is concerned get the 17-40 its a lot cheaper than the 16-35
 
sk66 said:
Also, the 70-300 isn't a particularly great lens;
Click to expand...
It is the 'L' version the OP has Steven, so a lot, lot better than the cheaper 70 - 300.

Unlike the 100-400 Mark II the Canon extenders are not compatible with the 70 - 300L because of the intrusion into the lens body.

The Kenko Pro 300 is very good, I have a 2x that is better than a Canon Mk 1 2x, the 1.4 should work reasonably well on your lens but If it were me I would certainly like to try it out first. A general rule used to be to stop down at least one extra stop for a 1.4 extender, which probably means f11 to f16, so you will be looking at upping the ISO...

17 - 40 is a great lens for a great price, just remember to stop down a bit, f8 - f11 and mine is superb on Full Frame.
 
Last edited:
Wide-angle wise I must have a poor "copy" of the 17-40 L because the IQ is not very good. Plus it doesn't have IS. I only use it when I absolutely have to, so I would recommend the 16-35.

I would make sure I had one of the 150-600 zooms that are now on the market, as well. The Tamron G2 is much lighter than the more expensive Sigma and the IQ is roughly the same. That would be my choice.
 
The MK4 will AF at f8 at a number of focus points, not just the centre one, exactly how many and which ones is described in the manual and is lens/TC specific, so I would suggest you read it before hamstringing your camera by choosing the wrong TC just to save money. There is a 400 for sale in the classifieds.
Matt
 
You have a 5D4 and considering Galapagos and Antarctica - lots of money spent already and planned... yet scrimping over the cost of a TC....if budget is tight get a used 100-400mk2 with 1.4 extender and maybe 80D or 7D2.

OH managed with a 24-105 on a 300D/20D in 2006. either 16-35/4 or 17-40/4 will be ideal but the 24-105/100-400 was the most used combination.

Guessing you might be spending time in Quito on the way - that's where the wide-angle zoom will be in its element. A 24-105 on the 5D4 will be good for 99% of situations.
 
Wide-angle is the obvious gap, and 16-35/4L IS the obvious choice. It could be your most used lens for landscape.

The wildlife question is more difficult and needs research. 70-300L is an excellent lens (Steven must be thinking of another version) and 300mm might be enough, or it could be way too short. In which case, on a 5D4 I'd guess that a bit of cropping would be just as good an option as a 1.4x tele-con. If you need more, 100-400L Mk2 is a really good option, plus a bit of cropping potential there too, but if you find you really need 600mm then you'll need to reconsider.

Thinking out loud, and just guessing at what you might need, a 5D4, 16-35, 24-105 and 100-400, plus a 7D2 for extra reach and as a back-up, sounds like a very capable outfit and reasonably manageable while trekking around, though you'll need to think carefully about a 'carrying solution'. Separate question really, but you'll soon get fed up with that lot in a regular shoulder bag.
 
Just to add some advice, if you buy a Canon Extender make sure it's a version III especially if using a 5D4 or 7D2.

As well as Canon 1.4x and 2x Extenders I also have the Kenko PRO 300 DGX (bought used on here) but only use the Kenko on my Canon Macro lens due to physical fit.

Whether you are amateur or professional (earning money from photography) simply doesn't matter if you are serious about your photography. Don't spoil a ship for a halfpenny worth of tar!
 
Thanks for all the replies.
Hoppy made a good point, I'm pretty confident the 300mm will be OK for most wildlife (with cropping) and there is less weight to carry compared with the 100-400L. I'm keen not to overload myself with too much equipment.
I'll keep my eyes open for a reasonably priced 16-35 and S/H 7dMK11 or older 5D Mk11 or 111

Whilst photography is an important part of the trip actually experiencing the landscapes, wildlife and natural wonder is very much our reason for going, (and you can't always do that peering through a camera viewfinder!)
 
kickstart said:
I'm pretty confident the 300mm will be OK for most wildlife (with cropping) and there is less weight to carry compared with the 100-400L. I'm keen not to overload myself with too much equipment.
Click to expand...

....I sold both my Canon 300mm and 400mm prime lenses because I found the MFD (Minimum Focus Distance) restrictive. The 100-400mm L II is far more flexible. But for wildlife (I don't shoot anything else) you need reach and so a Canon 400mm F/5.6L would be better than a 300mm F/4L. I have owned all three lenses.

If you are going to go for the 300mm, consider the 300mm F/4L IS and the full frame 5D body rather than the 7D2 crop body if you are going to enlarge a lot < Again, I have both 7D2 and 5D4 bodies and the full-frame has the edge. The 7D2 ain't shabby though!

There's no such thing as the perfect camera or lens and it's all about Horses-for-Courses and what you feel most comfortable physically using and can afford.

Enjoy your trip!
 
I've missed out on a couple of the Kenko teleconverters.
I have bought a 16-35 L F4 IS so my wide is covered.

I'm probably going to get a 70D as my back up body.
Reasonable cost, quality and technical solution for my needs.
 
kickstart said:
I'm probably going to get a 70D as my back up body.
Reasonable cost, quality and technical solution for my needs.
Click to expand...

....I went from using a Canon 70D to a 7D Mark II and can still strongly recommend the 70D.
 
Interested to know your thoughts on the change from the 70D to the 7D Mk11, was it worth doing?
My other option would be a S/H Mk11 but it feels like with one full frame the 70D should be a good compromise.
 
Does the Kenko report the correct aperture, focal length etc when fitted to the 70-300? The 70-300 is misssing the extra three pins that convert the focal length and aperture that gets reported to the camera and reduces the AF drive speed.
 
kickstart said:
Interested to know your thoughts on the change from the 70D to the 7D Mk11, was it worth doing?
My other option would be a S/H Mk11 but it feels like with one full frame the 70D should be a good compromise.
Click to expand...

....For me as someone who almost exclusively (95%) shoots wildlife, moving fron the 70D to the 7D2 was definitely worth doing even at the then higher cost.

The Canon Dual-pixel sensor is virtually the same and so is the noise performance at higher ISO. I made this Pros and Cons list at the time :

" Following are the 7D Mark II and 70D pros and cons versus each other but please understand that these are only from the perspective of how I personally use a camera and that's for almost exclusively wildlife. I never use any video so cannot comment on those features at all. They each have much in common such as Canon's excellent ergonomics and surprisingly effective built-in flash. They both suffer from the topside buttons being too small, in my opinion.

70D PROS (not in any order of importance):

(-) Relatively compact but still very easy to handle with the heavier telephoto L lenses mounted.

(-) The flip screen, being fully articulated, can be closed so that the LCD display is completely protected.

(-) Easier and faster to navigate and resize the review of images after capture due to touchscreen but also the alternative buttons are better positioned for faster use.

(-) Simpler to use and easier learning curve.

(-) Wi-Fi if that is useful to you (it isn't to me).


7D Mark II CONS (not in any order of importance):

(-) No articulated flip screen - Useful for low down and high up shots. I don't miss the touchscreen as it just gets greasy.

(-) Much more elaborate Autofocus system to learn but it promises to deliver a higher rate of 'keepers' when mastered.

(-) A steeper learning curve due to offering more control options and much more customisation generally.

(-) Very heavy on battery juice and that's without activating GPS. I soon bought a battery grip and this also improves handling.

(-) No Wi-Fi without an expensive accessory (but I don't need Wi-Fi on a camera).


70D CONS (not in any order of importance):

(-) The rear control dial is smaller and it's inner selections are often awkward to control.

(-) Easier to accidentally engage the overall settings LOCK slider (I was in the middle of a critical shot when I first did it without knowing and thought the camera had completely failed!).

(-) Tiny and also badly positioned, and therefore utterly useless, DoF Preview button. What were you thinking, Canon!!? Possibly my biggest gripe.

(-) Hinged battery cover isn't sprung and so can sometimes obstruct if you are in a hurry.

(-) Not as weatherproof. I got caught out by a very heavy shower and it caused temporary and uncontrollable LCD display racing when viewing images after capture. It lasted a couple of hours and I was ready to contact my supplier.


7D Mark II PROS (not in any order of importance):

(-) A more sophisticated Autofocus system.

(-) Much more customisable throughout and also so that you can change/select more settings while still looking through the viewfinder.

(-) Much more valuable information can be displayed in the viewfinder (which is bigger).

(-) A higher frame-per-second rate of 10 fps, hence potentially securing more choice of best image. This is worth a lot!

(-) More weatherproof and lots of rugged rubber.

(-) Grippier to hold but it is a larger and slightly heavier body. Rugged rubber again! Even better with Canon Battery Grip.

(-) Probably smoother ISO performance at higher ISO settings but not significant at lower settings.

(-) I no longer lose autofocus if I mount a Canon 1.4x Extender on my 400mm F/5.6L. But I rarely do so anyway because I don't like the results so far. It’s a great match with the Canon 100-400mm L II (since purchased and my 400mm prime sold).

(-) Offers a more enabling camera to grow your potential than the 70D and that is probably the most important consideration of all. "

I was very happy indeed with my 70D and in some ways prefer its simpler way with fewer autofocus options. I also sometimes miss the flip screen of the 70D for low ground level shots. If considering the 70D I would also consider the 80D which is the latest version of the 70D < I have no direct experience of it but have seen excellent results published.

I hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
I have a 7DII and the missus an 80D. Both solid performers IMHO.

I'd be happy with an 80D, which does have some advantages over the 7DII (flip out screen, more f/8 compatible focus points, newer sensor, WiFi control from iPhone). However I prefer using the 7DII. Not much in it for image quality, though if anything the 80D just edges the 7DII and has a few more pixels.

On a recent trip to Zambia, I took an EFS 15-85mm, EF 100-400mm II and EF 1.4x III. These covered pretty much everything I wanted.

Mrs took an EFS 18-135mm USM Nano and an EFS 55-250mm USM (now replaced with an EF 70-300mm IS II USM Nano). Again, did a decent job overall.

We have been considering Antarctica for 2019, and missus would like to go back to Galapagos (with me this time!).
Enjoy your trip(s)
 
I found my 400mm prime to be very useful indeed in the Galapagos. Essential? No. But useful.

Pro tip. Beware of the tight luggage restrictions on the flight from the mainland to the islands. Plan to carry-on ALL your photography gear, even if it means you or your travelling partner(s) checking other things that you or they would normally carry-on.
 
Thanks for the updates, very helpful
I always carry on all my gear.
I'm probably going to have to take my laptop (Macbook Pro) as I want to be able to download and back up files, I've looked a 'smart WiFi drives' but not convinced I can find the right sort of thing to do the job.
 
kickstart said:
Thanks for the updates, very helpful
I always carry on all my gear.
I'm probably going to have to take my laptop (Macbook Pro) as I want to be able to download and back up files, I've looked a 'smart WiFi drives' but not convinced I can find the right sort of thing to do the job.
Click to expand...
On our internal flight in Zambia, the carry on allowance was only 5kg.

My total carry on kit was a pair of 8x42 binoculars, EOS 7DII, 15-85mm, 100-400mm, 1.4x TC, two spare batteries, spare memory cards all in a Lowepro Hatchback. Total weight was just over 5kg. Could not have included a laptop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top