Which teleconverter: Kenko Pro 300 1.4X or Sigma 1.4 EX

Raphy

I would love some guidance on this from ppl using TCs... For $150 I have a choice of the following:

- Kenko Pro 300 1.4X TC
- Sigma 1.4X EX TC

I'd like to use this with AF-S 70-300VR 4.5-5.6 and AF 80-200 2.8

please shine some light on this ! :dunno

thanks !!!

Raphy

Raphy wrote:

I would love some guidance on this from ppl using TCs... For $150 I have a choice of the following:

- Kenko Pro 300 1.4X TC
- Sigma 1.4X EX TC

I'd like to use this with AF-S 70-300VR 4.5-5.6 and AF 80-200 2.8

please shine some light on this !

thanks !!!

Noone has these ??? (yes, i tried the search function )

geospatial_junkie

Are you shooting fx or dx? Either way, I would chose the 1.7x instead of the 1.4x. There is not enough of a dropoff in light to justify staying with the 1.4x.

I would also recommend the nikon 1.7TE II. I've tried this one in the past with a 70-200 VR and it is exceptional for IQ and sharpness. You'll pay more, but it may be worth it.

Raphy

geospatial_junkie wrote:

Are you shooting fx or dx? Either way, I would chose the 1.7x instead of the 1.4x. There is not enough of a dropoff in light to justify staying with the 1.4x.

I would also recommend the nikon 1.7TE II. I've tried this one in the past with a 70-200 VR and it is exceptional for IQ and sharpness. You'll pay more, but it may be worth it.

Thanks for the reply - I am shooting dx. I have heard good things about the kenko 1.4 and not so good things about the 2x... I'll look into the 1.7s, its just that i have a chance to grab the kenko or sigma 1.4x for $150 locally and i'm torn... lol

Again, thanks for the input

Cameron

Raphy wrote:

I would love some guidance on this from ppl using TCs... For $150 I have a choice of the following:

- Kenko Pro 300 1.4X TC
- Sigma 1.4X EX TC

I'd like to use this with AF-S 70-300VR 4.5-5.6 and AF 80-200 2.8

please shine some light on this !

thanks !!!

I have the Kenko Pro 1.4x TC for the Canon mount and really like it. I also briefly owned the Canon version (much more expensive). I found the Kenko version to be as sharp (or sharper) than the Canon one and I couldn't justify the price difference. I can't speak for the Sigma 1.4x, but the Kenko one is great.

dangin

i have the Tamron (rebadged kenko pro) 2x TC and can say that overall it works well. there's a little bit of IQ loss in the form of softness but it works well for what i use it for. i personally wouldn't buy Sigma anything; have heard too many horror stories from photographers i've met along the way.

Raphy

Thanks guys, looks like i'll be going after the Kenko 1.4 for now.

batts

I also have the Kenko 300 1.4, often us it on my 70-200f2.8 VR, works great. Couldn't see a real reason to deal with Nikon's almost double price, and doesn't support as many lenses.

Ladybugie

Ive had the Sigma 2x and now I have the Kenko 1.4x.
The Sigma is a dedicated TC, take a look at sigma's site and find out if your lenses are compatible.

Id go with the Kenko for its versatility, but Ive heard Sigma gives you better images, because its a dedicated TC. I dont think it would be too much of a difference, but I cant really tell, since I only had the Sigma 2x.

jonh68

I don't think you will get good results using a converter on the 70-300.

Also, I don't think the sigma will give you AF on the 80-200. If you can get the converters locally, see if you can try them out first.

Art Scott

Go to the sigma site and it will tell you what the converters will do with what lenses.....
One advantage of a proprietary tc over a non proprietary, like Kenko is faster focus speeds....the proprietary ones seem to focus faster with matched glass.

there is image degradation with all tc's and it does seem to be somewhat worse with a zoom lens......I have shot my siggy 70-210 f2.8 with a 2x tc and i was unable to get a good frame whilst hand holding in our normal KS wind....but on a good solid tripod.... I got nice clear images and since I knew the edges were going to take a hit I just framed with that in mind and cropped it out......normally I would not want to do that as I normally do all of my cropping in camera....so that what I shoot is what will be printed out for myself or a discerning client.

BigAl

dangin wrote:

i personally wouldn't buy Sigma anything; have heard too many horror stories from photographers i've met along the way.

There are some of us here who only use Sigma...

davidweaver

...
I've got a 8mm Sigma I love for panos. Heck, I suppose if an Olympic photographer uses it then it still makes Sigma bad? I'm about to plop down a few car payments on a fast 120-300 2.8 sigma, then I'll probably sell a Niikon lens.

BigAl wrote:

There are some of us here who only use Sigma...

jonh68

+1

I look at things from a bang for the buck perspective. For me, the perceived IQ difference between my 120-300 2.8 and a prime 300 2.8 Nikon is not worth the extra money. The only ones who could tell a difference are other pros who would not be buying my pictures anyway. There's a big difference between IQ of consumer lenses and pro lenses, but the IQ of the pro offerings comes down to individual lenses themselves and the intended purposes.