DSLRUsers.com

I've been looking on the net at these Kenko Teleconverters.

Has anyone done a direct comparison between Kenko and Nikon teleconverters? Is the quality of the Kenko or Tamron (same teleconverter I believe, just badge engineering) acceptable?

It appears as though the Kenko are more compatible across more of the Nikon lens range than what the Nikon Teleconverters are, doesn't make sense but seems to be a well voiced fact.

I do realise that teleconverters trade off quality by the fact that it is a teleconverter, but acceptable quality especially in this forum is quite high, so I do value and trust input from here

I'd be interested to hear opinion from owners Kenko and in particular owners of both Kenko and Nikon as they will have a more direct and hands on opinion using the same gear for both units.


Regards

Tony

TonyH,
Kenko TC is with 1.4 and 2x, which one are you after?
2x is always not perfect match with the Nikkor 70-200VR, I'm not sure whether the Kenko 2x will support AF-S or not, and I never try it before.
Have a good glass, better have a good TC.

Tony, I don't have the Kenko, but worth mentioning what is your favoured range, as TC quality vary between multiplacation ranges. The Nikon all are AFS only without modification, the generally accepted view is that the Nikon 1.4 is extremely high quality, the 1.7 high quality and the 2 is a bit soft. I also have a manual Nikon 2X which is good quality but being manual is demanding in its use. I also have some other 2X which are very ordinary.

Tony, just saw Birddys post, if you have the 70-200 VR, don't muck around, get the 1.7 and be happy ever after

Hi Birddog,

prob looking at the 2x as really can't see the point of 1.4.

main lens use will be the 70-200VR and hopefully now and again with the kit lens.

Regards to AFS some say it works others say no. I think it may be down to the no people having an older model?

You were saying "Have a good glass, better have a good TC." I don't really understand what you are meaning here? Are you saying the Kenko are crap?

Regards

Tony btw I'm really wanting a 1.7 Nikon TC but they are a little hard to find at the moment it appears.

Thanks Glen,

I'm hoping to get a 1.7 Nikon TC, but looking at info on the Kenko as a fall back position.

Tony

TonyH wrote:Hi Birddog,

prob looking at the 2x as really can't see the point of 1.4.

main lens use will be the 70-200VR and hopefully now and again with the kit lens.

Kit lens won't match with TC

Regards to AFS some say it works others say no. I think it may be down to the no people having an older model?

Kenko TC works on 80-200 AF/ AF-D not AF-S and I never try, so I can't tell.

You were saying "Have a good glass, better have a good TC." I don't really understand what you are meaning here? Are you saying the Kenko are crap?

Never seen anyone has the Nikkor 70-200VR with Kenko TC attached and 2x is an disappointment with 70-200VR/ Kenko will be the same.

Why bother the kenko while you can afford the 70-200VR?

btw I'm really wanting a 1.7 Nikon TC but they are a little hard to find at the moment it appears.

Got four of them last week and last one gone out the door this morning. You never ask.

Tony, the TC will probably work on the 18-70 but dont bother. In the old days, TC's were only advised for fixed length primes, but the 70 -200 is of such quality a TC can go behind it. Nice idea to slip a TC in your pocket for extra reach with the kit lens, but the combo will fall well short of your 70-200.

The Nikon TC do seem to mate well with Nikon glass

I've got both the 1.4x and 2x Kenko (teleplus pro 300 DG) TC's. Both work fine with my 70-200 VR. Auto-focus and VR work correctly (albeit a bit slower as you would expect). I've tried the Nikon TC-20E II also and I struggle to see any real difference between the Nikon TC and the Kenko. But we're getting into pixel peeping territory here
Sure it's not as good as a real 400mm lens, but for the price you can't complain.

frink wrote:Sure it's not as good as a real 400mm lens, but for the price you can't complain.

On the other side the Nikon TC 1.7x works perfectly, tack sharp, fast focussing and in black colour, matching with the 70-200VR.
I'm not sure the Kenko TC is black or grey in colour

The Kenko's are black. Plastic-fantastic but black

My Kenko 1.4 DG 300 works on the kit lens (AF-S retained), 50/1.4 and any other lens teleconverters shouldn't be mounted on...

Of the shots using the 1.4 TC on kit lense - image quality was underwhelming at best. On the 80-200/2.8 it's fine, indistinguisable from no TC.

Onyx wrote:My Kenko 1.4 DG 300 works on the kit lens (AF-S retained), 50/1.4 and any other lens teleconverters shouldn't be mounted on...

Of the shots using the 1.4 TC on kit lense - image quality was underwhelming at best. On the 80-200/2.8 it's fine, indistinguisable from no TC.

How is about the kenko 2x on the 18-70 AF-S, which TonyH want to get?

It appears as though there are not too many members who own Kenko TCs.

Let's approach it in another manner....

Does the Nikon 1.7TC with a 70-200VR give you the results that you are after consistently, especially if it is mounted on a D70.

Thanks for the input.

Tony

If you're considering a Kenko, make sure it's one of the Pro300 models. Kenko also make the cheaper Teleplus models which you should avoid.
I used to own a Kenko Pro300 1.4x (Canon mount) which I was very happy with.

Quite apart from the issues of lower optical quality with the 2x than the 1.4x (referring to the quality of the resulting lens+TC, not necessarily of the TC by itself) the point of a 1.4x is that you're only losing one stop of light. But if you're starting with a f/2.8 lens that isn't so much of a compelling argument...

I have seen reviews of the Kenko Pro TCs that compare favourably with Canon TCs; I can't imagine Nikon being dramatically different.

That 1.7 Nikon is very nice, pity Canon doesn't have anything similar.

Ive got the Kenko 2x (TeleplusPro 300 DG model).
This is has a black body and retains both AFS and VR on my 70-200VR. It also reports correct fstop and focal length information into the camera and thus into the EXIF data (eg 400mm @ f5.6). Focus IS slower in low light than with the lens by itself, but thats normal with a 2x TC.

I actually got the Kenko because I knew it had reviewed well and was immediately available to me in NZ right when I needed. The Nikon 1.7 is a 'down the track' purchase for me from overseas when I have some spare money, whereas I could pay for/get the Kenko immediately and without blinking at the price.

For me, with the occasional use I put it to, its a worthwhile purchase. If you would like, I'll post you some 100% crops from the 70-200VR with and without the TC and you can make your own decision. However, I personally dont see enough difference to make me go out and buy a 80-400 as well, given the amount of use it gets.

Rob.

TonyH, the 1.7 works consistently well when used on the 70-200, of course realising you are now using a 340mm 4.8, not a 200mm 2.8. Is it as good as a prime or the original 70-200? No it is not, but a cheap alternative. Mine now lives on the end of my 300/4 to provide a 510mm 6.8 and provides decent results within those parameters.


Here is a shot taken from about 50 metres away with 1.7 and 300/4, exif says 7.1 @ 1/160 which is almost wide open and I don't believe any sharpening was applied. The wisps of hair on the girls head are clearly visible, I have no doubt with some PP they would come up more.

For me, there is only a couple of hundred bucks difference, I would get the best, then when the image doesn't come out you know it is either not possible or down to technique. The 1.7 in Nikon has proven to be a good match to the 70-200, the jury is still out on the Kenko. If you purchase the Nikon you will be happy, if you purchase the Kenko you can look at guys with the Nikon and think you saved a couple of hundred bucks or possibly resent spending the money you did on it and always be making excuses for it. Good luck, these choices are never easy.

Thanks Glen and Robboh, I'm off on Suday to HK. If I come across a 1.7 Nikon I'll prob buy it. If there's no such luck, I'll get the Kenko. If the Kenko is no good, then off to Ebay with it!!

Robboh, I'd be interested to see your shots, I'll pm my email for you to send when you get the chance.

Cheers

Tony

I have always believed that teleconverters (TCs) were meant to be used on long lenses and are intentionally designed to be so. A general rule of thumb might go something like this:
-Test a lens with its intended TC before you buy if you can
-Match manufacturer's TCs to their lenses where possible
-TCs work better with long primes than zooms
-200mm + - TCs are OK
-100mm-200mm - TCs are not recommended but may function properly and provide satisfactory images
-Below 100mm - TCs are not recommended
-Below 50mm - TCs can be counterproductive

That said, my current understanding (and some experience) with Nikon, Kenko/Tamron, and Sigma converters is this:
-The Nikkor TC-14e and TC-17e do not AF properly on AF-S VR lenses but are both outstanding used manually.
-The Nikkor TC-14e II and TC-17e II are also superb and will work on Nikkor AF-S and VR lenses. They can be modified to work in AF mode on other AF lenses.
- No Nikkor 2X TC is particularly good, but a few of the older manual ones did get some good responses. Search the web for them, the 301 comes to mind.
-The Kenko Pro 300 series is Kenko's best, do not get others from Kenko. The 1.4 is excellent and will work on many AF, AF-S (HSM) lenses. It will also AF on slower f5.6 lenses. The 2.0 TC is not very good.
-The Tamron SP series TCs are the same as the Kenko Pro 300 series, shop price.
-The Sigma EX APO teleconverters are available in 1.4 and 2.0 versions and both are quite excellent. I think the 2.0 is the best 2X out there right now.
-Sigma TCs were made to match with just the Sigma EX series 300/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 120-300/2.8, and 300-800/5.6. They do work with other Sigma lenses but do not play well with non-Sigma lenses. They are chipped differently.
-I use the Sigma 1.4 on my 70-200/2.8 and 150 macro; the Sigma 2.0 on my 70-200/2.8; the Kenko 1.4 on my Sigma 400/5.6 telemacro; and the Nikkor 17e II on my 300/4 AF-S.

Mike an excellent summary, also thanks for letting me know the difference between the 'e' and 'e II' Nikons

Does Nikon has a TC1.7e, I thought it's only eII AF-S
Only 1.4 & 2.0 with e

What about the Nikon TC-16a, is it any good and is there any compatibility problems with it?

Birddog114 wrote:Does Nikon has a TC1.7e, I thought it's only eII AF-S
Only 1.4 & 2.0 with e

I think you might be right Birdy ... I used too many eee's

Cameraguy,

Excellent summary! Thank you!

Tony

Philip, I have a 16A, works well with long primes, wouldn't sit it behind a zoom of its era, it is AF so not compatible with an AFS lens whilst retaining AF, so haven't used it on 70-200

Glen wrote:Mine now lives on the end of my 300/4 to provide a 510mm 6.8 and provides decent results within those parameters.

Interesting. I've been meaning to ask you this for ages: is AF still useable with this combo? I may head down the same track in the future, as the 300 2.8 is too much moolah at this point in time.

MCWB wrote:

Glen wrote:Mine now lives on the end of my 300/4 to provide a 510mm 6.8 and provides decent results within those parameters.

Interesting. I've been meaning to ask you this for ages: is AF still useable with this combo? I may head down the same track in the future, as the 300 2.8 is too much moolah at this point in time.

Trent,
It's the one nice combo but has to be with the good lighting!
It retains fast AF, silent and lighter.
The 300 or 300VR is in difference league, get it once you achieved the baby bonus

Glen wrote:Philip, I have a 16A, works well with long primes, wouldn't sit it behind a zoom of its era, it is AF so not compatible with an AFS lens whilst retaining AF, so haven't used it on 70-200

Thanks Glen,
What's a 16a worth these days?

Trent, you better have twins to get the new 300 2.8 AFS VRII

AF is very useable as Birddy says, for the money I don't think you can go past this combo, it teams very nicely with your 70-200, the three pieces together provide a very versatile piece of kit (70-200/2.8, 1.7TC & 300/4). I would throw a monopod into the package, you will still be under $2k for 300/4 + 1.7TC + monopod). Also handy is you can buy these pieces one at a time and each is useful now without requiring the other pieces.

The 300/4 I believe is one of those lenses which delivers close to pro performance at a consumer price. Not necessarily the handiest focal length for all, but a great performer which is light and pretty sharp wide open.

Disadvantages are speed, either f4 as a 300 or f6.8 (and the TC combo works better stopped down) which is obvious, plus two others. The AFS is not as quick as your 70-200, I would rate it similar to AF, not bad but not a 70-200. I have not tried it on a D2 body. Second, the tripod collar has come into a lot of flack, not a problem for me as I tend to mount this combo on a monopod, so the idiot holding the monopod is the weakest link, but a RRS collar is available.

If I had the money I think one would have room for this and a 300 2.8 VRII in the kit, unfortunately my wallet is not that big. The light weight and size is handy, it is about the size of your 70-200.

You know where to look for reviews, I would suggest Bjorn and Thom. You are more than welcome to borrow my combo for a few days during the break to see if you like any of the components. You can even borrow a monopod unless you have one, as I really consider that essential with the combo unless it is a really sunny day.

Philip, not sure, like most things Nikon probably more than it should be worth, try looking at Camera Clinic or similar, will have a quick look in Photo Trader or similar. They have a slight premium over the manual only TC as they are AF with some lenses and even turn some manual lenses AF. I would be happy to sell mine at a fair price to both parties as it doesn't see the use it once got.

Glen you have PM

Philip, this may be of interest to you or others about the 16A TC (plus other Nikon gear)

Glen wrote:Philip, this may be of interest to you or others about the 16A TC (plus other Nikon gear)

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/co ... /index.htm

Thanks Glen, I found that link as well. Doesn't sound as though it's a good idea to use it with current cameras / lenses. Although I'm on the lookout for a longish MF prime so the TC may still be an option.

Philip, I agree. I will try it behind my manual 400/5.6 and tell you how it goes. The idea of it was to turn MF into AF, so this should be the appropriate lens to mount it on

Glen wrote:Philip, I agree. I will try it behind my manual 400/5.6 and tell you how it goes. The idea of it was to turn MF into AF, so this should be the appropriate lens to mount it on

And VR III

TonyH wrote:Thanks Glen and Robboh, I'm off on Suday to HK. If I come across a 1.7 Nikon I'll prob buy it. If there's no such luck, I'll get the Kenko. If the Kenko is no good, then off to Ebay with it!!
Robboh, I'd be interested to see your shots, I'll pm my email for you to send when you get the chance.

No worries Tony. I was having a look through some of my shots last night from a trip to the zoo, but none of them were really good enough to post here IMHO
I'll set up the tripod at home tonight and take some test pics for ya.
Rob.

Glen wrote:Trent, you better have twins to get the new 300 2.8 AFS VRII

 ROFL. Tell me about it, long lens lust gets expensive very fast!

Thanks for your post, very informative! I already have a monopod and the TC17EII, so that's taken care of, but thanks for the offer! I don't think I've disliked a photo taken with the AF-S 300 f/4, but extra speed of a f/2.8 lens never goes astray I suppose. As you say Birdy, with the TC17EII and f/4 lens it'll be great on a sunny day, but not so great in sub-optimal light. Price is right though! Hmm, more thought required on my part I think.