Kenko 1.4 x convertors - what are they like?

[Fezant Pluckah]

No, I don't mean the coffee

What are Kenko convertors like? They're 40% less than a Nikon one...

Just wondering if anyone knew what they were like?

Ta in advance...

[Starfighter]

You get what you pay for. Expect to see an increase in CA and a loss of (edge) sharpness. You may find that you can do a digital crop and get a better image than you can with a 1.4x, you certainly will with a 2x and you won't pay the light penalty.

[Fezant Pluckah]

CA? Wossat?

And I don't understand the last sentence, as it seems to contradict itself. Or I'm being fik...

[Simpo Two]

CA is 'chromatic aberration' my submarine friend - purple/green fringing to you squire.

As to the last sentence, it's kind of written backwards

[Fezant Pluckah]

Ah, pesky chromatic aberration, eh? Does that mean all my lions and stuff will be a silly colour?

I guessed as much with the last sentence. I presume he's saying the quality is better with a 1.4 than a 2???

[S47]

2x convertor doesn't have to be worse than a 1.4x, What a 2x needs is careful matching to the chosen lens. whereas a 1.4x by virtue of it's lower magnification is less fussy in this respect.
Modern lenses don't suffer CA as badly as the older lenses, but for sure a convertor will emphasise any that is present.

[Simpo Two]

Fezant Pluckah said:

Ah, pesky chromatic aberration, eh? Does that mean all my lions and stuff will be a silly colour?

If you spray them in the complimentary colours of purple and green first, then view the result with 3-D specs, it should all shake out.

But essentially, the more air/glass interfaces you put in the way, the quality can only go one way - down. You just have to decide if the drop is acceptable - and a TC is much cheaper than a longer lens...

[Busa_Rush]

What's the difference between these and Canon's extension tubes ? I thought the tubes were just spacers with no lens ?

[bonsai]

Extension tubes allow you to focus closer than you otherwise would with just the lens. They're used for macro photography, definitely not what you want.

[Fezant Pluckah]

Nor me!!

[NewNameNeeded]

I personally saw no real drop off in quality (when it worked) using a Kenko 1.4 on a Nikon 80-200mm AF-S lens. What I did however find was that the speed and accuracy of the focus was quite badly affected to the point that I got better shots cropping an image without using the teleconverter, rather than struggling to get a shot in focus.

So perhaps for slow moving target they'd be ok, but for faster stuff (sports and air shows) the Kenko TC didn't work for me.

[Fezant Pluckah]

Thanks for that, NNN...

I have an 80-200 Nikon lens, but I am also hiring a 200-400 Nikon lens, as we're awf on safari, what! I think the convertor will be for taking close up piccies of a lion's eyeball from 30 miles away rather than action shots of said lion chasing after German tourists.

[Ledaig]

First off, if you're hiring the lens, why not hire some Nikon tele-cons as well?

Secondly, if you can wait for a few days I will post up some sample images with the 80-200 using it both with and without the 1.4 and 2.0 Kenko tele-cons, (once I've recovered the camera kit after moving house )

[Fezant Pluckah]

Cos a convertor is a minor financial investment in the grand scheme of things, and the difference in cost between hiring one and buying one is not large, compared with the difference in cost between hiring a 200-400mm lens and buying one!

[Simpo Two]

You'll never be able to swim with a 200-400mm lens; you'll go down like a minisub with jammed dive vanes...

[Fezant Pluckah]

You wanna bet?

[Simpo Two]

Game set and match to FP.

[Ledaig]

Fezant Pluckah said:

Cos a convertor is a minor financial investment in the grand scheme of things, and the difference in cost between hiring one and buying one is not large, compared with the difference in cost between hiring a 200-400mm lens and buying one!

Fair enough, if it's that minor an investment for you I'll leave it with you then.