I've been researching TCs for this lens for birding photos. In the end, it came down to three in different price ranges--the Kenko 1.5 SHQ, the Kenko Pro-300, and the Canon 1.4. I've read many reviews on each of them and in each case the reviews were really mixed. So, I decided to start with the cheapest and move up if not satisfied.

On Wednesday, I received my Kenko 1.5 and began testing immediately. I shot the exact same scenes with my 28-135 and 100-400 first without the TC then with it. I found that a -.5 aperture adjustment with the TC pretty much nails a good histogram.

Then I tried a mix of shots using the TC both handheld and on a tripod, using both auto-focus and manual focus. It was a fairly bright day, and the auto-focus worked great. I captured a decent shot of a gull inflight about 250 feet away using auto-focus. I shoot in raw and process using RawShooter and CaptureOne. I could not find any abnormalities anywhere on the images. Clarity seemed to hold from center to the periphery of each.

My acid test will be tomorrow on a shore-bird count at Boca Chica Bay. If all goes well there, I'm definitely keeping this TC. With this level of quality, I cannot imagine that the Canon 1.4 would be worth the additional $200. Besides, the Canon TC turns off your auto-focus. While I don't mind manual focus, it is definitely nice to have it when you want it--and it works well on the Kenko 1.5. The IS system on both lenses also worked as normal. At the price of this TC, I sure do recommend it.

Bill

I've been researching TCs for this lens for birding photos. In the end, it came down to three in different price ranges--the Kenko 1.5 SHQ, the Kenko Pro-300, and the Canon 1.4. I've read many reviews on each of them and in each case the reviews were really mixed. So, I decided to start with the cheapest and move up if not satisfied.

On Wednesday, I received my Kenko 1.5 and began testing immediately. I shot the exact same scenes with my 28-135 and 100-400 first without the TC then with it. I found that a -.5 aperture adjustment with the TC pretty much nails a good histogram.

Then I tried a mix of shots using the TC both handheld and on a tripod, using both auto-focus and manual focus. It was a fairly bright day, and the auto-focus worked great. I captured a decent shot of a gull inflight about 250 feet away using auto-focus. I shoot in raw and process using RawShooter and CaptureOne. I could not find any abnormalities anywhere on the images. Clarity seemed to hold from center to the periphery of each.

My acid test will be tomorrow on a shore-bird count at Boca Chica Bay. If all goes well there, I'm definitely keeping this TC. With this level of quality, I cannot imagine that the Canon 1.4 would be worth the additional $200. Besides, the Canon TC turns off your auto-focus. While I don't mind manual focus, it is definitely nice to have it when you want it--and it works well on the Kenko 1.5. The IS system on both lenses also worked as normal. At the price of this TC, I sure do recommend it.

Bill

FWIW... At a George Lepp weekend seminar, he showed many fantastic examples of large images taken with the 100-400 L IS lens using two Canon 1.4 teleconverters at the same time. He had to add a thin spacer to make them fit. You should do extremely well with just one TC.

According to the Canon Lens book the AF and IS does indeed work on the EF1.4x TC and 100-400mm lens, but only on pro bodies such as the 1V, all 1D bodies and the EOS-3. The EF2x does not have AF but does have IS on the same bodies as above.

JS

Welcome to the site, Bill. Great first post! I have the old Canon 1.4x converter, but it's only good for L lenses. I've been considering getting another converter to add to my mountain biking kit. I want to squeeze more out of my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. The Kenko sounds like a good bet.

You say you're using RawShooter and Capture One. Why do you use both? I recently downloaded and installed the free version of RawShooter and I'm impressed. I haven't actually used it to do any conversions yet, but it certainly looks capable. I'm curious to see how it differes from what I use now - BreezeBrowser and Photoshop CS2. By the way, we could use reviews for both of those RAW conversion software titles. If you would be so kind, here's a link to the RAW Conversion software reviews: http://www.pcphotoreview.com/cat/digital-photography-software/raw-conversion-and-workflow/PLS_5645crx.aspx

Post some sample photos from the 100-400 / Kenko combo, please.

I've now had ample shots in different conditions to say that I am definitely keeping this little TC. Taking a hand-held shot of a gull in flight yielded an acceptable photo. I've taken many now using a tripod and hand release that, in my opinion, are great. I still use a .5 aperture adjustment, and that seems to work quite well in almost any situation. I recently shot a Ringed Kingfisher in fair light at about 300 feet. The clarity was very good, and the colors were bright and true. In most of my shooting so far, I am using auto-focus on the center point--it works great.

John--I primarily use CaptureOne for my processing work, and like it a lot. The RawShooter came with another general photo package I recently picked up, so I have not done as much yet with that package. I do like some of the features of RawShooter, but it seems that I have a bit more overall control with CaptureOne. After gaining some additional experience with RawShooter, I'll post on the other thread.

Bill