• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Extender - Kenko or Canon (1 Viewer)

R

recreationalbirding

Well-known member
Hi!

I am thinking of getting a couple of extenders in order to reduce MFD. Can I safely go ahead and order Kenko extenders, or should I go for Canon? Seems to me an extender isnt much more than a little ring, with no glass in it... so Kenko gear should do the trick or?

Kindly,
Eric
 
I had the Kenko ones which I later sold . They work perfectly but I didn't realise that the MFD is reduced to a very narrow window and I just couldn't get on with them with the lenses I own.
 
I use Kenko. Hard to go wrong with an empty tube in terms of IQ. However, might the Canon tubes maintain weatherproof sealing, if that's important? I have no idea, but it might be something to check if it matters.
 
I have a Kenko set which work for me!

I did have a Jessops set at one time, but you need to check to see that the electrical connections work and transmit between the extenders and the lens - On the Jessops ones I had only the short tube had connectivity - The Kenko ones do the job though.
Cheers

Graham
 
The Kenko extension tubes work very well, with the proviso of the focus limitations.
My main use for extension tubes is to reduce the minimum focus distance of my Canon 800mm F5.6 L IS (6 meters!) and I have a cheapie set that work perfectly. For my lighter lenses, and pinhole lens, I use an even cheaper set (7.50 pounds but plastic mount) that work equally well.
My expensive set now cost 15-20 pounds and are great for Super Tele lenses, the Kenko's are excellent - but expensive and don't do anything more for the extra money - the Canon ones are just a ripoff!
You won't go wrong with the Kenko tubes but there are cheaper alternatives that are just as good - after all they are just a piece of plastic with some contacts and a (hopefully) metal mount.
 
Hi John,
Perhaps you would be good enough to share how you use the extenders and how you cope with the limited field of focus. Unless you know exactly where you are likely to focus on I found I was moving my tripod backwards and forwards to try and find the focus point if a subject, usually a bug, landed somewhere I wasn't expecting. With a macro lens being hand held I can see that it might be useful but for a tripod mounted telephoto lens I didn't see the point. I might as well get a shorter lens with a smaller MFD. If you use them on your 800mm tell me where I went wrong!
cheers Dave
 
Vespobuteo said:
Extension rings drive you crazy,you loose focus on longer distance, buy a true macro lens instead, 150mm at least
Click to expand...

That's the conclusion I came to but it comes with a price. I decided I wasn't too bothered about macro after all! Mind you there are times when bugs and butterflies are more abundant than birds and there is a whole new world out there waiting to be discovered. I think that will come when I'm no longer able to manage heavy gear.
 
Vespobuteo said:
Extension rings drive you crazy,you loose focus on longer distance, buy a true macro lens instead, 150mm at least
Click to expand...

I dont need the extensions rings for "normal" macro. I have the 100/2.8 IS macro and love it for bugs, flowers and similar.

I want to experiment with extension rings for my 600/4. Sometimes (even though its not very often) I could really have used a lens with less MFD, when the 4-5 meters from the tele is just too much.
 
recreationalbirding said:
I dont need the extensions rings for "normal" macro. I have the 100/2.8 IS macro and love it for bugs, flowers and similar.

I want to experiment with extension rings for my 600/4. Sometimes (even though its not very often) I could really have used a lens with less MFD, when the 4-5 meters from the tele is just too much.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping John will come back to answer the question I posted earlier. I found them impossible to use with the 500mm because it was very tricky to get the right distance from the subject to be able to focus.I was constantly moving the tripod back and forth and hand holding is not easy on a small distant subject like a butterfly.
The disadvantage of a pure macro lens is, I imagine, butterflies often fly if you get too close and even 150mm doesn't allow you to be too far away to maintain detail... or does it?
 
recreationalbirding said:
I dont need the extensions rings for "normal" macro. I have the 100/2.8 IS macro and love it for bugs, flowers and similar.

I want to experiment with extension rings for my 600/4. Sometimes (even though its not very often) I could really have used a lens with less MFD, when the 4-5 meters from the tele is just too much.
Click to expand...

http://www.digitalbirdphotography.com/3.4.html

"Note that some third-party extension tubes have a reputation for spontaneously disconnecting from either the camera or the lens. With a tripod-mounted setup, this can result in your camera falling off the lens and possibly sustaining damage when it hits the ground. "

just promise to be careful out there…
;)
 
Hi Dave!
As you know the minimum focus distance of my Canon 800 is quite long at 6 meters. At a couple of hides that I use some of the birds are a bit closer than that so I use either a 13mm or 21mm extension tube. These don't reduce my MFD by much but just enough to get shots that would otherwise be unobtainable. So far I have only used them for small birds and (unsuccessfully) Dragonflies. I haven't really measured the maximum focus distance but it is far enough away that I wouldn't bother photographing a small bird anyway. My "Guestimates" are that the 13 and 21 mm extensions limit me to 18-20 meters and 22-25 meters respectively.They only knock a few centimeters off the MFD but even this small amount brings several branches within reach.
I have also used them with my 100mm Macro and they can be a bit frustrating! They do help however.

Hope some of the above helps.
 
Vespobuteo said:
http://www.digitalbirdphotography.com/3.4.html

"Note that some third-party extension tubes have a reputation for spontaneously disconnecting from either the camera or the lens. With a tripod-mounted setup, this can result in your camera falling off the lens and possibly sustaining damage when it hits the ground. "

just promise to be careful out there…
;)
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard of that but It is something that I am cautious about. I have 2 sets of extension tubes - one metal mount and one plastic. The plastic ones are used for my 100 Macro and my Pin Hole lens. They are very handy with the pin hole lens as they change the focal length so I can change my framing/perspective. Naturally they are not that strong but more than sufficient for a Canon 100 Macro. For the 800mm I have a set of metal mount tubes which are quite robust. However here they are only supporting the camera - but with the weight of the 1DX I am glad of the security!

Glad you made the point though - something to be considered!
 
johnf3f said:
Hi Dave!
As you know the minimum focus distance of my Canon 800 is quite long at 6 meters. At a couple of hides that I use some of the birds are a bit closer than that so I use either a 13mm or 21mm extension tube. These don't reduce my MFD by much but just enough to get shots that would otherwise be unobtainable. So far I have only used them for small birds and (unsuccessfully) Dragonflies. I haven't really measured the maximum focus distance but it is far enough away that I wouldn't bother photographing a small bird anyway. My "Guestimates" are that the 13 and 21 mm extensions limit me to 18-20 meters and 22-25 meters respectively.They only knock a few centimeters off the MFD but even this small amount brings several branches within reach.
I have also used them with my 100mm Macro and they can be a bit frustrating! They do help however.

Hope some of the above helps.
Click to expand...

I'm just as confused John but that's normal for me! Don't you mean feet not metres in your reply but that increases the MFD of 6m with the 21mm extender. It also means, and is what I found frustrating, the narrow band where the bird has to land to be able to focus dictates that anything outside and beyond is no good.However, if I read it correctly you are saying if they are that far away they are not worth photographing as they are too small in the frame?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

BenjiS
Budget Canon lens
Replies
8
Views
1K
nikitasius
N
M
Canon 1300D
Replies
0
Views
419
MattG
M
P
Benro Mach 3 - 4 legs vs 3 legs?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Andy Hurley
Andy Hurley
J
New birder in GA trying to figure out where to buy binoculars where I can try them out.
Replies
11
Views
501
Trinovid
T
E
Celestron Spotting Scope advice please?
Replies
10
Views
328
Jkloz
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top