Kenko Pro v Canon converter test Results (1 Viewer)

Kenko Pro arrived today so I have tried some quick tests to compare against my Canon Converter. All tests were done using a 30D camera and 400mm f5.6 Canon lens. The pics were all shot in RAW with no processing whatsoever except converting to jpeg and resizing in CS2. Both sets of shots were taken with a few minutes of each other. All shot were taken with spot metering and single shot AF mode selected and central focus point only. I realise this is not a technical test but hopefully it gives some indication.


AF Test
For this test I hand held the combo and from the same position tried focusing on about 20 different objects which were at a range of between 5 and 100 metres. For most of the objects the AF locked on very quickly. A few took a little while with some mild ‘hunting’ before AF was achieved and one object in particular (a pottery flower pot) would not AF at all. I found both converters to be identical in their AF ability, the objects that locked right on with one converter did the same on the other converter. Those object that took a little longer to lock-on with a little hunting was again the same for both converters and the couple of objects that would not AF with one converter did not AF with the other converter also.

Optical Quality
For this quick test I set-up a sturdy tripod and fired off three images of a chimney stack with each converter. Below is the best pic from the three for each tc but to be honest for each tc there was nothing to choose between the three pics.
The first set are full frame shots resized in CS2 and the second pair are 100% crops of those images. In both cases the Canon is the first image and Kenko the second.
I will leave you to judge which one is best but I reckon the Canon is noticeable better in the cropped shots.
P.S. I notice the Canon shot was 1/640 sec and the Kenko was 1/500 sec not sure what influence this would have had.

It should be noted that the Kenko pro is less than half the price of the Canon.
I paid £51 + £18 P& P for the Kenko (ordered on the web from Hong Kong on Sunday evening and arrived on my doorstep Thursday morning!).
There are two more 100% crops from the same images on the next post.

Here are a couple more 100% crops - again the first is the Canon and second the Kenko.

I know this test does not prove a thing and there are probably those that would dispute these results but this is how my images came out. I will do more test in the field pretty soon.

Yep, I'm seeing a difference too, Roy.

I reckon the chimney was moving when you took the Kenko shot!

Keith Reeder said:

Yep, I'm seeing a difference too, Roy.

I reckon the chimney was moving when you took the Kenko shot!

Click to expand...

Could explain the difference Keith ||
I still reckon the Kenko is a good tc - I snatched this shot this afernoon and it looks pretty good to me.

Roy C said:

Could explain the difference Keith ||
I still reckon the Kenko is a good tc - I snatched this shot this afernoon and it looks pretty good to me.

Click to expand...

Great pix Roy..he's a little stonker.

Jamie

Thanks for posting this Roy, not often you get a chance to see a direct comparison in real world, ordinary photographer terms.

You said the Canon shots were at 1/640, Kenko at 1/500. Did the light improve for the Canon ?

I wouldn't be surprised if that difference in shutter speed was enough to make that difference in the shots. If that difference is a fluke - the test is hard on the Kenko. If it is because the Canon transmits light a whole lot better, I wouldn't want a Kenko if the lens would take a Canon. We're all looking for as fast a shutter speed as possible. That difference is a lot cheaper than buying a faster lens esp. at birding focal lengths.

Evidence in favour of it being a fluke - you couldn't see any difference in AF performance. But how sophisticated were your metrics ? I'm not saying the test is no good, because I like tests that are more like what I actually do than a laboratory. All I mean is the difference in shutter speeds might be real without you being able to detect a difference in AF performance.

Mike.

Competing interests - I have a Canon 1.4 but not a Kenko ;-)

citrinella said:

Thanks for posting this Roy, not often you get a chance to see a direct comparison in real world, ordinary photographer terms.

You said the Canon shots were at 1/640, Kenko at 1/500. Did the light improve for the Canon ?

I wouldn't be surprised if that difference in shutter speed was enough to make that difference in the shots. If that difference is a fluke - the test is hard on the Kenko. If it is because the Canon transmits light a whole lot better, I wouldn't want a Kenko if the lens would take a Canon. We're all looking for as fast a shutter speed as possible. That difference is a lot cheaper than buying a faster lens esp. at birding focal lengths.

Evidence in favour of it being a fluke - you couldn't see any difference in AF performance. But how sophisticated were your metrics ? I'm not saying the test is no good, because I like tests that are more like what I actually do than a laboratory. All I mean is the difference in shutter speeds might be real without you being able to detect a difference in AF performance.

Mike.

Competing interests - I have a Canon 1.4 but not a Kenko ;-)

Click to expand...

Hi Mike, both sets of three were shot within a couple of minutes of each other and I certainly did not notice a change in light but I guess the light must have been slightly better for the Canon which is why I noted this in my report, I certainly intent to do some more tests.
I have read a lot about the lens not 'hunting' as much with the taped Kenko as the Canon which is why I bought the Kenko in the first place but as I say I found no difference what so ever in the two converters in this respect.
Might try the barcode test from about 10 metres today.

Hi Roy,
Very interesting reading.I myself have got a Kenko Pro 300 DG that I also got cheaply (Couldn't afford the Canon).

I taped the pins but the AF and the pics were disappointing when used with my 350D.I have now got a 30D and wonder if I can expect better results with this camera when I attach the tc.

Max.

senatore said:

I have now got a 30D and wonder if I can expect better results with this camera when I attach the tc.

Click to expand...

Dunno if this helps Max, but all of my recent Gallery pictures have been taken with a 30D and a Kenko Pro DG 1.4x (with my trusty 100-400mm).

Works for me..!

Keith Reeder said:

Dunno if this helps Max, but all of my recent Gallery pictures have been taken with a 30D and a Kenko Pro DG 1.4x (with my trusty 100-400mm).

Works for me..!

Click to expand...

I'd settle for those Keith.

Of course I'd forgotten to mention in my post that I use the 400 f5.6 prime lens.When the weather gets a bit better I will have a go.Fingers crossed.

Max.

senatore said:

Hi Roy,
Very interesting reading.I myself have got a Kenko Pro 300 DG that I also got cheaply (Couldn't afford the Canon).

I taped the pins but the AF and the pics were disappointing when used with my 350D.I have now got a 30D and wonder if I can expect better results with this camera when I attach the tc.

Max.

Click to expand...

Max, I went from the 350D to the 30D.With the Canon 1.4 taped I certainly get better results from the 30D. I suspect the same will be true of the Kenko + 30D.

Yeah, I know you've got the prime, Max - that's why I mentioned mine.

You'll be able to do better than me!

I reckon expectations are sometimes to high when using a tc. I know when I first got a tc I thought I was going to be able to shoot birds from 100 metres - well it ain't like that, if the bird is a small blob in the middle of the frame with the bare lens then it is going to be a slightly larger blob with a 1.4 tc attached. You still need to get pretty near for decent bird shots.

Pre-digital everyone would have known this when they got their prints back but now with people doing their own processing the temptation is to crop very heavily for web pics, if you do this with a tc on board then results are not going to be very good (especially if you shot at a high ISO)

This ability to heavily crop an image for web display is one reason why it is very difficult to judge the merits of equipment from web shots ( because you never know how much a pic has been cropped). A shot from close range with a relatively cheap lens can easily look better than a shot with a top class lens which has been taken from,say, 50 metres and then very heavily cropped.

Just my thoughts B

Managed to give the 30D and the Kenko 1.4 a go with the 400 f5.6 prime this afternoon in the backgarden between the heavy showers.

You were right Roy and Keith the 30D preformed much better than my 350D with the tc attached (the pins were taped).The AF hardly hunted at all and only did so a little if there was little contrast on the subject.This was not the case when using the 350D which hunted a lot.

Didn't take many pics as there was only a Woodpigeon to aim at.Results not brilliant (800 ISO) but better than previously achieved and I take your point Roy that we shouldn't have our expections too high when using a tc.

Max.

senatore said:

Managed to give the 30D and the Kenko 1.4 a go with the 400 f5.6 prime this afternoon in the backgarden between the heavy showers.

You were right Roy and Keith the 30D preformed much better than my 350D with the tc attached (the pins were taped).The AF hardly hunted at all and only did so a little if there was little contrast on the subject.This was not the case when using the 350D which hunted a lot.

Didn't take many pics as there was only a Woodpigeon to aim at.Results not brilliant (800 ISO) but better than previously achieved and I take your point Roy that we shouldn't have our expections too high when using a tc.

Max.

Click to expand...

Nice one Max - I glad things are looking up on the tc front. I think there is no doubt that the 30D AF system is better than the 350D ( I had almost given up on a tc with the 350D).

P.S. Just done another test between the converters and things are looking a lot closer than my first test - will post the results this evening.

Just done another test between the two converters - this time the target was a detergent box from about 8 metres. Taken on a tripod with the built in timer and a bean bag on top of the lens to dampen the bounce.
The Canon is the first pic in both pairs.
I can see no appreciable difference between these shots and if anything I would say that the Kenko shades it on the first set.

Went down to my local patch this morning to try out the Kenko 1.4 tc attached to my 30D/400 f5.6 prime.

Weather was dull so I cranked up the ISO to 800 and picked a low f number.The AF with the pins taped worked very well and there were only a few times when I had to manual focus first.

As Roy said the AF worked far better on the 30D than on the 350D and I am now encouraged to use it whenever the situation arises.The only trouble I had was that some Reed and Sedge Warblers posed too close for me to get them in focus.

Here a some examples.They have been fiddled with a little bit but not much.The Little Owl was a long way off.The Oystercatcher and Redshank were about 10 metres away and the Dragonfly was as close as I could get.

The pics were all hand held.Any helpful advice would be appreciated.

Max.

Roy C said:

Just done another test between the two converters - this time the target was a detergent box from about 8 metres. Taken on a tripod with the built in timer and a bean bag on top of the lens to dampen the bounce.
The Canon is the first pic in both pairs.
I can see no appreciable difference between these shots and if anything I would say that the Kenko shades it on the first set.

Click to expand...

Interesting stuff Roy. To my eyes, viewing on a calibrated LCD monitor, the Canon tc shots are brighter with more contrast but not a lot more.

I would be interested to see comparisons of the convertors with a larger sensor like one of the 1 series bodies or 5D. I think they would show even more difference because they are using more of the tc's glass.

I agree Mark, there's a slight contrast/brightness difference, but nothing significant.

Sharpness is too close to call, really.

From what I've read, the Canon is better at the edges than the Kenko, though many tests give the nod to the Kenko at the centre - which suits me for bird photos.

Took these two with the Kenko - don't think there is a lot in it when shooting birds at the normal distances. Certainly excellent value for money when compared to the Canon.