Canon teleconverter review 1.4

Overall, the handling change caused by the 1. The new color matches Canon's latest white L lenses. Like the 1. The Series III extenders include some durability improvements. The lens mount pin and lens mount stopper pin are improved for higher endurance and, as you can see below, there are now 7 instead of 4 screws holding the rear lens mount to the body.

The lens mount release switch received a cosmetic upgrade, but functions the same. At review time, the price differential between the still-available version II extenders and the version IIIs is rather high. If the prices were equal, there would be no question that the III is the extender version to get. But, saving money is one of the reasons to buy an extender instead of a lens with a longer native focal length. And I'm sure that not everyone can justify the cost difference to go with the 1.

Of course, to get an extender at all is the first decision to make. The image quality penalty of the 1. My advice is to use the Canon EF 1. Buy a lens with the native focal length you need for best results. Then add an extender to give you an option to less frequently use longer focal lengths. Said another way, you generally will get better results from a mm lens than with a mm lens plus the Canon EF 1.

Another good reason to use an extender is to create a longer focal length lens than is available natively. Buying an extender over a longer lens for financial reasons can also make sense. The very long focal length lenses are considerably more expensive than extenders.

What types of photography are extenders used for? Sports and wildlife are two of the most common photography pursuits utilizing extenders. Photojournalism, law enforcement and many other types of photography can also make good use of them. Bringing you this site is my full-time job typically hours per week. The optical quality of the Kenko is dead on awesome.

With my tests, both stills and video, there was no way to tell it was in use. Maybe this means I needed to test harder to see the difference that should be there.

I shot my tests with a Tamron 2. I have no question that using this unit is not doing any harm to your image sharpness that anyone will even see including the even the pixel peepers. Well that is to say unless all you do is shoot resolution charts all day long perfectly. My image chart tests revealed nothing, or should I say no noticeable loss when shooting with a 60D. Shooting some real world video on real shoots, the 1. The shots I got from it I could not tell were taken with the converter, it except I already new.

With some lenses, you may need to open them up a stop since not all lenses will talk to the camera body thru the converter correctly. Most of my lenses did ok. All the online reviews I read put this right up against the canon for image quality, except of course the canon costs a good deal more.

This is the slippery slope where it gets more interesting. This teleconverter provides exceptional optical performance that is at the same level as some of the best Super telephoto lenses by Canon.

Featuring an inbuilt microcomputer that facilitates the communication between the lens, teleconverter, and the camera body, the Canon EF 2. Additionally, it has a fluorine coating that ensures your lens remains clean and free of fingerprints and smears. The Canon EF 1. It is intended to increase the focal length of compatible lenses by a 1.

Unlike its counterpart the 2. With its chromatic aberration, to the bare minimum, and with redesigned optics, this teleconverter delivers remarkable optical performance that is unmatched. Additionally, photographers can accurately transfer imaging data between the camera body and lens thanks to the integrated processor that provides metering, ID information, and focusing information is available. I took about 20 shots with the TC off and then 20 more on, tweaking focus on every shot. I also tried higher shutter speeds, up to , which should be more than adequate since the bird was perched, no wind, and I had both image stabilization and a ledge for support.

The camera is entry level, a rebel T5. Can't say much about that but it's 18 megapixels. With a good lens and technique it's capable of beautiful sharp images. Here are the sharpest shots in each category, with some conservative processing: sharpness, 1 pixel radius for the teleconverter image, and. Very mild noise reduction Original shot, with very mild sharpening and noise reduction, no teleconverter.

Original shot with teleconverter. Similar processing and exposure. It's better than their There are two flavors of Tamron 1.

The pro version has more glass elements for better performance. The Canon 1. Haven't tried any others except the promasters, I thought the Tamron looks a tiny bit sharper in test shots. From what I've heard, 2x teleconverters are to be avoided, too much loss of sharpness. If you do the "exposure math", you'll find that using the TC does indeed cost one full stop of light.

After confirming this, I brightened both by 1 full stop just because it looks better and makes the differences clearer. No highlights were blown, the sky is not pure white. Sharpness - Obviously this is what everyone cares about when deciding whether to bother with any teleconverter. But you have to understand something. You will get more feather detail in your bird, or fur on your bear, or camel toe in your celebrity.

The other part of sharpness is contrast So why don't we all use teleconverters every time for maximum reach, then just sharpen in post to get longer lenses for cheap? Here's the long version: The minimum aperture of your lens is multiplied too. Autofocus works by comparing two versions of the same image that are coming from different angles into the lens. There's a glass element in every AF lens that has two autofocus targets, one near the top of the element and one near the bottom. The AF chip reads those two versions of the image, and moves the element around until the images overlap nicely.

When you close the aperture down to a tiny pinhole, light misses the edges of that glass element completely. Light only passes through the middle of it. So the autofocus chip has nothing to compare. Because temporarily, it opens up the aperture to acquire focus. Then when it's locked, it closes it again. If you use liveview, you can see this Using a teleconverter forces light into a smaller aperture, and there's no physical way the lens can open up that hole and get light to hit those autofocus targets.

So autofocus ability will be unreliably or just fail entirely. It will just hunt forever and never achieve lock. Now add a 1.