1.4 Teleconverters

[Chad Griggs]

I'm just curious about everyones take on teleconverters. I've heard that you should only buy the Nikon/Canon brand teleconverters, although I see Kenko mixed in with pretty high end gear. I'm a Nikon shooter and just wondering if $400+ is what I need to spend on a teleconverter or if there is a cheaper alternative.

Thanks.

[Fabs Forns]

While I don't mind using third party extension tubes because there is no glass involved, I wouldn't mess with teleconverters. Autofocus may suffer, plus the quality of glass.
Getting a used one is an alternative.

[Marina Scarr]

I totally agree with Fabs. My extension tubes are Kenko, but my 1.4 is a Canon. As it is, any 1.4 will slow down your auto focus. However an off brand 1.4 will slow the AF down even more. I would recommend paying a little extra money and staying with a brand name. I purchased mine used off of e-bay and it has been working without issue. Good luck

[James Shadle]

I have the TC14E and Kenko Pro 300 series 1.4.
Both deliver very images.

Some of the images my son captured with the Kenko Pro and Nikon 80-400 were silly sharp.

While both teleconverters are sharp, there is no comparison in build quality.
The Nikon has much better construction. I dropped my TC14E on the metal base of the pay station binoculars at the Alligator Farm about 8 years ago. It's dented, I picked it up and put it on my lens.
It worked then and I am still using it.
James

[joel quenneville]

I use Sigma TCs and have never tried the Nikons. The 1.4 delivers exceptional sharpness and detail, I find that I loose barely (if any) sharpness due to the TC. Autofocus is a slower but not significantly.

However, it's a different story with the 2x. Autofucus is significantly slower making flight shots extremely hard. Although it can deliver extremely sharp images, it is not as consitant as the 1.4x.

[Robert Amoruso]

My vote for the OEM TC. After spending $7200 on a 600mm I feel obliged to maintain the best quality I can using the Canon TC's.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

I agree with Robert. When you spend so much money on long lenses, the TC is insignificant in comparision. Initially I was using Sigma TC but found the quality to be lower. Have used Kenko and Tokina as well, ofcourse that was some seven or eight years back. I completely shifted over to Canon due to quality reasons. I use both the 1.4xII and 2xII TCs of Canon. Buying second hand is also a good suggestion.

[Roger Clark]

I have both 1.4x and 2x Kenko Pro 300 TCs and Canon TCs (newer type). The Kenkos are very good. My impression is that the Canon's are a tad sharper, but I really haven't done a side by side on the same subject. The Kenko 2x on my 500 f/4 seems to give a little more chromatic aberration than the Canon 2X, but that is mostly corrected in the raw converter. I really should do a test now with the full frame 5DII. --When I get some time. But the price difference between a Kenko pro 300 and the canon/mikon TCs aren't that much different, at least when factoring in the high cost of the big telephotos.

[Doug Brown]

I'm with Robert. When I spend $5,000 to $10,000 on a lens, I'm not going to try to save a few bucks on a TC. The Canon TCs are optically excellent and bulletproof.

[Paul Lagasi]

I've learned my lesson in the past..whether you use Nikon or Canon...I'll never buy a 3rd party anything..I just spent quite a bit of money on a Nikon 300 2.8 vr lens...I agree with Doug, no sense trying to save a hundred bucks on TC...paul

[Chad Griggs]

Ok, thanks for all the replies. Along with what everyone has already said, I'm thinking that my teleconverter is something that I'll likely not replace, unless something dramatically different comes out. Therefore, it might be wise just to get the best one and hold on to it. Thanks again!