Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by MJW, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. MJW

    MJW Guest

    Hello all, I recently bought a Kenko Teleplus PRO
    300 DG 3x tele-converter. I thought I would share
    my experiments so far, to see what others think.

    I have a Canon 350D the 2 standard kit lenses + a
    few others. The 1st lens I stuck onto the
    converter was the kit 75-300. The results were
    pretty ordinary, although the test pic I took @
    100mm + converter had more detail & sharpness than
    the 75-300 @ 300mm without the converter.

    Today I decided to put my 100mm EF Macro lens on
    the tele-converter to see what would happen. Here
    are 3 pics, straight out of the camera, taken of
    different subjects. Composition is crap, cause I
    wasn't trying for keepers!

    I'm very interested in opinions, cause i'm gonna
    get my first "L" lens for Chrissie, & can't wait
    to try it out on the Kenko!

    MJW, Dec 9, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. MJW

    Pete D Guest

    Still at smaller sizes some advantage can be gained if you get it right.
    Personally I think anything above 1.5x is too much though.

    Pete D, Dec 9, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. MJW

    RichA Guest

    If a converter doesn't add a perceptable level of new detail over the
    non-converted lens, and/or doesn't maintain a specific level of
    quality, it has no purpose. Camera lenses, unfortunately, are not
    good enough to radically increase focal length on to gain new detail.
    You can do this with a diffraction limited optic, often gaining more
    detail all the way up to some pretty wild focal lengths, but not the
    average camera lens.
    RichA, Dec 9, 2008
  4. MJW

    Paul Furman Guest

    Teleconverters do increase subject detail (worth testing by enlarging a
    straight shot side by side in photoshop) but the image quality across
    the frame goes down so the resulting image is only good for a 4x6 print
    instead of 8x10 but if you already had to crop severely to enlarge a
    tiny bird in the middle of the frame, the teleconverter will improve
    your results.

    Here's a teleconverter test I did with various combinations scaled up to
    match (they were all shot wide open as I recall):

    The Tokina 300mm f/2.8 with stacked teleconverters won:
    with a 500mm f/4.5 plus stacked converters in second:

    However the 500 is better at 500, stopped down a bit, than the 300 with
    1.4 teleconverter at 420mm. Or... if I'm not sure of that, maybe I
    should dump the 500 but it seems to get the moon better with tc's.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Dec 9, 2008
  5. MJW

    Mark Thomas Guest

    To add to what Paul and others said, the acid test is exactly that - do
    you gain *significantly* by using the 3x, compared to a crop of an image
    taken without it? If so, then maybe it is worth it. You'll need to
    test that a bit more thoroughly, imo.

    I looked at your shots, and they do look a little soft but it's hard to
    tell if that is purely the converter. But I agree with Pete, that most
    lenses are already pushing their limits at the longer end, and going 3x
    is maybe too much. 1.5x to 2.0x is, I think, more reasonable.
    Mark Thomas, Dec 9, 2008
  6. MJW

    me Guest

    Full frame handheld Nikon D300 with 200-400m f/4 VR + TC2E-II, 800mm f/8,
    me, Dec 9, 2008
  7. MJW

    me Guest

    1/125 sec.
    1/80 sec.
    1/30 sec.
    Are these handheld or tripod supported shots at such slow shutter speeds
    for a non-sabilized lens.? Was autofocus used? Since the Kenko converter
    doesn't pass it's info to the camera it doesn't know the max aperture is
    above f/5.6 so AF shouldn't be disabled. However, that doesn't mean AF can
    properly function with a max aperture of f/8 as this combination results.
    I've never tried my old D70 at f/8, but the D200 was pretty iffy, while the
    D300 is decent in good light, as the bluebird shots I posted links to in
    another reply in this thread show.

    I do a lot of shooting with TCs given my interests. Remember, even the best
    will only magnify the faults of the lens in front of it, let alone
    introduce their own imperfections given their quality.
    me, Dec 9, 2008
  8. MJW

    M J Wyllie Guest

    M J Wyllie, Dec 10, 2008
  9. MJW

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Like Troy said, don't apologise -
    (Basil Fawlty voice)
    he's from Portugal..
    (end BF)

    Those images are actually quite good - better than I would have expected
    given my distrust of teleconverters over 1.5x, and judging by those
    shutter speeds, you have done well to get them anywhere near sharp..!
    Sturdy tripod I trust?
    Mark Thomas, Dec 10, 2008
  10. MJW

    M J Wyllie Guest

    Firstly,I am posting from a different news account
    cause optus'news-server is not letting any
    messages be read! The names slightly different,
    but its still me.

    I'm curious, Pete, as to why you think the 2+
    converters are too much? Will there always be
    softness at the top-end?

    I bought the 3x cause there was only a few bucks
    difference between it & the 1.5 & 2, and figured
    that coupled with the 70-200 lens i'm getting, it
    would give me the extra length for a few thousand
    bucks less! I realise that the image quality isn't
    going to be equal to that of its equivalent prime,
    eg: 400mm, 500 or 600, but thought it cant be too
    shabby either!

    M J Wyllie, Dec 10, 2008
  11. MJW

    M J Wyllie Guest

    Well, I did notice this when I tried the 75-300
    'kit'lens on the converter. The pic taken at 100mm
    + converer was more detailed than the same pic
    shot at 300mm lens only. I figured that was
    because the kit lens is not real good.
    Well I like the look of those shots, so theres
    hope for me yet!
    M J Wyllie, Dec 10, 2008
  12. MJW

    M J Wyllie Guest

    Haha, yeah I don't think the 100mm Macro is meant
    for teleconverters. This is why I threw the pics
    out here as I was a bit surprised by the results!
    As for the softness, well they were just random
    shots, handheld & on landscape mode, so there was
    not a lot of effort put into them. Plus with the
    Macro lens its hard to hold focus at the best of

    M J Wyllie, Dec 10, 2008
  13. MJW

    M J Wyllie Guest

    Sorry, I put this line on the wrong post! I meant
    to reply to 's bluebird post. Apologies....
    M J Wyllie, Dec 10, 2008
  14. MJW

    M J Wyllie Guest

    M J Wyllie, Dec 10, 2008
  15. MJW

    M J Wyllie Guest

    Hi, these were handheld with no image stabilzation
    on the lens. It was manual focus + shot in
    'landscape' mode. I didn't put a lot of effort
    into the tests cause I didn't think the 100mm
    Macro would fare too well. If these were shots of
    something interesting, i'm pretty sure I could
    tidy them up to look acceptable!

    M J Wyllie, Dec 10, 2008
  16. MJW

    M J Wyllie Guest

    Thanks Troy, the sorry was actually a hint of
    sarcasm directed at the op, cause like you said,
    this is exactly what I was hoping for!

    I know you have this lens, so I know you know the
    difficulties in keeping the thing 'in-focus', when
    hand-held. Add the converter to the mix & the fun

    Was just a bit of fun chucking it on the
    converter, & I was surprised with the results!

    M J Wyllie, Dec 10, 2008
  17. MJW

    M J Wyllie Guest

    Thanks Mark, see my last post to Troy!

    M J Wyllie, Dec 10, 2008
  18. MJW

    Pete D Guest

    Reduction in light, paticularly with longer slower lenses this will cause
    autofocus to stop working, not a killer but certainly a factor.

    Reduction in focusing ability, see above. For moving objects this can be a
    bigger problem.

    If you spend big and get the best money can buy then the 2x units can be
    pretty damn good, a mate uses a D2x with a 2x Nikon converter with a Nikon
    70-200 F2.8 lens and gets stunning results, the D2x does have a superior
    focusing system though.
    Pete D, Dec 10, 2008
  19. MJW

    Paul Furman Guest

    That's a nice lens :)

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Dec 10, 2008
  20. MJW

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Your curt reply made him feel like he should give one, even if it was
    said somewhat tongue-in-cheek. What should that tell you?
    Well, that's certainly fascinating. You only *live* in Portugal. I'm
    sorry I got it so wrong. (O:
    Sigh. Have you ever seen the comedy series 'Fawlty Towers'? Perhaps if
    you had searched on "Basil Fawlty" you might have realised where the
    amended quote came from.

    "He's from Barcelona" was a frequent line used in that comedy series,
    when 'Manuel' did not comprehend something, due to language
    difficulties/translation/cultural differences... It reflected more upon
    Basil Fawlty's poor communication, than on the person he was making
    excuses for.

    In this situation, my attempt at humour was directed to your curt and
    rather unhelpful reply, and I was hoping it was just a cross-cultural

    Anway, feel free to lament that *I* come from Australia - we tend to be
    fairly direct also, but you'll notice I and others have elaborated
    somewhat - and I notice that you haven't yet done so.. Have you
    anything further to add ontopic?
    Mark Thomas, Dec 10, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.