FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Kenko Mx-AF 1.5x Teleplus MC DG vs. SHQ

Author
Teemō View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 07 January 2020
Country: Australia
Status: Offline
Posts: 4
Post Options Post Options   Quote Teemō Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Kenko Mx-AF 1.5x Teleplus MC DG vs. SHQ
    Posted: 07 January 2020 at 15:34
Hello, I was hoping someone would know the difference between these models if anything? Firstly, is the image quality actually good with this teleconverter in comparison to the Kenko SHQ MC7? I have an old Kiron MC7 multi-coated (same as Kenko MC7 II) for Minolta MD that seemed to show no image degradation on a Panasonic GM1, but some reviews of the Kenko 1.5x SHQ on the Sony A7 series (which is notorious for its sensor stack causing corner issues) report poor results. If the AF teleconverters are anything like my old Kiron, then image quality should be no issue.

Now onto other bugging issues, all I could find was that the 'MC DG' model replaced the Teleplus SHQ, and that the only difference might be an updated coating on the rear element to reduce chromatic aberrations or reflections from a digital camera sensor?

I want to use these with a Sigma Apo 180/2.8 Zen (screwdrive) on a film Minolta Alpha 7. I understand the SHQ model does not double the focal length in the EXIF data, but what about the MC DG?

I couldn't help but notice that the MC DG comes with a different rear cap compared to the SHQ - it is larger and more closely resembles the original Minolta lens bayonet caps.

Assuming I get a digital camera down the track (or adapt the lens to a crop sensor), is the SHQ model going to create 'hot spot' reflections in the image?

Does either adapter have problems using SSM lenses? Is there any improvement in autofocus performance/speed with the MC DG teleconverter with screw-drive lenses over the older SHQ?

I just cannot find any company or official literature for these lenses. It seems there is even an SHQ DG model (https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/kenko/1.5x-teleplus-dg-af-shq/review/) that is different again.

Thank you in advance! Though I have a feeling my inquiry is very niche and there may not be a complete answer, any knowledge will be useful!
 



Back to Top
owenn01 View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group

Joined: 20 May 2008
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Kent
Status: Offline
Posts: 10448
Post Options Post Options   Quote owenn01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 January 2020 at 15:42
@ Teemō

Welcome to Dyxum!

Even though your enquiry may seem 'niche', I'm fairly sure someone on here will have an answer for you (there have been numerous discussions around TC's in the past).

Over to the Members!

Best regards, Neil
My Mantra: "Comment on other's work as you would wish to have yours commented upon". Go on - it's fun!
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 2684
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 January 2020 at 15:42
The DG models are generally pass through electrically. The DGX models have the IC chips and also work properly with SSM lenses.

The 1.4x and 1.5x use the same optics. The actual magnification is closer to 1.3x. I know Kenko released a 5 element 1.4x that they claim is much better, but I don't think it was ever offered for A-mount. I find the 2x MC7 optics much better than the 4 element models. These do vary copy-to-copy too.

Edited by QuietOC - 07 January 2020 at 15:52
Sony A7III A7II A77II A6000 LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MB-IV MC-11 EF-E II MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3442
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 January 2020 at 16:24
I haven't used the 1.5x TC, but I've used several of the other Kenko TCs. In my tests, both the MC4 4-element 2x converter and the 7-element prodcuded good images in the centre, but pixel-peeping with a very sharp lens (Tamrom 90mm macro) showed that the MC7 was sharp in the corners and the MC4 wasn't.

So far as I'm aware, the 1.4x and 1.5x TCs are mostly made in 4-element form because they don't change the Fl enough to make 7 elements worthwhile.

I have experienced compatibility issues with Kenko TCs on some lenses (particularly Sony SAM lenses, though the recent DGX worked with most of them) but with older screw-drive lenses I've had no problems.

Having said that, my Kenko 1.4x has been de-chipped so the camera doesn't know it's there => no compatibility problems at all!

On film cameras it *may* be a good idea to stick to 4-element TCs as you can't easily make up for the contrast loss with lots of elements*, but I guess if you have good light that won't be an issue.

*The older the lens, the worse the coatings and the lower the contrast. Film-era zooms and film-era TCs with film cameras are not a good combo on dull days
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
Teemō View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 07 January 2020
Country: Australia
Status: Offline
Posts: 4
Post Options Post Options   Quote Teemō Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 January 2020 at 08:50
Originally posted by owenn01 owenn01 wrote:

@ Teemō

Welcome to Dyxum!

Even though your enquiry may seem 'niche', I'm fairly sure someone on here will have an answer for you (there have been numerous discussions around TC's in the past).

Over to the Members!

Best regards, Neil


Thank you for the welcome! Long-time Dyxum browser, first-time AF user haha.

Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

The DG models are generally pass through electrically. The DGX models have the IC chips and also work properly with SSM lenses.

The 1.4x and 1.5x use the same optics. The actual magnification is closer to 1.3x. I know Kenko released a 5 element 1.4x that they claim is much better, but I don't think it was ever offered for A-mount. I find the 2x MC7 optics much better than the 4 element models. These do vary copy-to-copy too.


Yeah the 1.5x is a 4 element converter. A brochure I came across claims the MC DG version has a 'digital gate array IC'. As you indicated and from what I've seen on other posts, only the 2x models are correctly passing the EXIF information. The brochure states for the MC7 DG: "This means that not only the converters own data but all data sent from the camera body provide full exposure metering and electronic flash photography."

It doesn't repeat that sentence on the 1.5x Teleplus MC DG below. As some readers may not know, the Minolta A7 records focal length into EXIF which can be viewed or exported with an additional accessory, so it would be nice to have the correct data but otherwise a minor inconvenience.

Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

I haven't used the 1.5x TC, but I've used several of the other Kenko TCs. In my tests, both the MC4 4-element 2x converter and the 7-element prodcuded good images in the centre, but pixel-peeping with a very sharp lens (Tamrom 90mm macro) showed that the MC7 was sharp in the corners and the MC4 wasn't.

So far as I'm aware, the 1.4x and 1.5x TCs are mostly made in 4-element form because they don't change the Fl enough to make 7 elements worthwhile.

I have experienced compatibility issues with Kenko TCs on some lenses (particularly Sony SAM lenses, though the recent DGX worked with most of them) but with older screw-drive lenses I've had no problems.

Having said that, my Kenko 1.4x has been de-chipped so the camera doesn't know it's there => no compatibility problems at all!

On film cameras it *may* be a good idea to stick to 4-element TCs as you can't easily make up for the contrast loss with lots of elements*, but I guess if you have good light that won't be an issue.

*The older the lens, the worse the coatings and the lower the contrast. Film-era zooms and film-era TCs with film cameras are not a good combo on dull days


Yes you're right, the MC7 is pretty good for a generic adapter. I have a Sigma APO 2x EX as well but I didn't realise it's only for a few lenses. In hindsight, it would have been easy for me to see by the mount that it wouldn't have the clearance for my 180mm, which has its rear-element sit outside of the mount.

The total transmission loss/reflectance over 6 multi-coated surfaces only amounts to around 3%. The Sigma lenses already have a lower contrast than native Minolta glass but the actual reflection/flare suppression is better than their reputation at the time would lead one to believe.
It's definitely going to be crap shooting into the sun or a backlit subject with the converter, compared to without, but it's all I've got if I want to get decent images of aircraft. The combination should still be much better than my 1969 Minolta MC 300/4.5, and I have to say I was already happy with the images I got from that without a TC.
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3442
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 January 2020 at 13:28
You're taking pics of aircraft in flight, on film?
Wow!

My hit rate is so low with long tele lenses I wouldn't dream of using film for that.
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
 



Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14253
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 January 2020 at 15:34
Originally posted by Teemō Teemō wrote:

Hello, I was hoping someone would know the difference between these models if anything? Firstly, is the image quality actually good with this teleconverter in comparison to the Kenko SHQ MC7?

I have the Mx-AF 1.5x Teleplus SHQ, but I don't know about comparisons because I've never owned the other one.

Assuming I get a digital camera down the track (or adapt the lens to a crop sensor), is the SHQ model going to create 'hot spot' reflections in the image?

I haven't noticed that, but I can test something using my A77 if you provide a set of parameters. I have a selection of Minolta/Sony full frame and APS-C lenses.

Does either adapter have problems using SSM lenses?

I have SAM lenses, but not SSM. The SAMs work okay.
Back to Top
Teemō View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 07 January 2020
Country: Australia
Status: Offline
Posts: 4
Post Options Post Options   Quote Teemō Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2020 at 17:16
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

You're taking pics of aircraft in flight, on film?
Wow!

My hit rate is so low with long tele lenses I wouldn't dream of using film for that.


It's difficult, but I'm working my way up to birds in flight so by contrast it's quite easy. Here are some examples.

It's a long wait to get practice as special events are only held every few years here, so these are only from my first experience really. I have plenty of aircraft on ground shots of much higher quality with the same equipment, a Minolta XD, without motorwinder (I couldn't find a cheap one that functioned in time) with MC 300/4.5. Because it was my first attempt, I only used one roll of Ektar, and the rest was expired film. I would have got similar shots of a P-51 to the Spitfire but those images were shot on the expired film, and so they looks pretty underexposed and grainy. With this I really needed to overexpose by 2 stops as the meter balanced for the sky, and I already compensated 1 stop.

Manual focus is quite difficult at the height these fly at - definitely not "infinity" with a 300mm lens. In the end I pretty much gave up all hope and just stuck the camera on shutter priority and pre-focused some distance out and closed the aperture, and rather hoped they would fly into it.
The originals are somewhere on an external HDD so here are the previews. The Red Baron and what might be a Bristol F2 was a mock dogfight, so I was lucky that the 300mm just fit them both into one (horizontal) frame.

So, yeah, here I am preparing for this year's show with upgraded equipment and hopefully much better results.

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:


I have the Mx-AF 1.5x Teleplus SHQ, but I don't know about comparisons because I've never owned the other one.


Could you confirm whether or not it corrects the focal length in the EXIF?

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:


I haven't noticed that, but I can test something using my A77 if you provide a set of parameters. I have a selection of Minolta/Sony full frame and APS-C lenses.


If you say it's not a problem, I'll trust you. The only lens I've ever had a problem with a hotspot is an Industar-61 on a Micro Four Thirds camera, some cameras are more sensitive than others.

Originally posted by sybersitizen sybersitizen wrote:


I have SAM lenses, but not SSM. The SAMs work okay.


Thanks, SSM should work then since, I believe they're just different grades of motor.
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14253
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 January 2020 at 21:00
Originally posted by Teemō Teemō wrote:

Could you confirm whether or not it corrects the focal length in the EXIF?

The Mx-AF 1.5x Teleplus SHQ does not correct focal length or aperture.

If you say [a center hot spot's] not a problem, I'll trust you. The only lens I've ever had a problem with a hotspot is an Industar-61 on a Micro Four Thirds camera, some cameras are more sensitive than others.

If there is any kind of problem with that it can only be a rare one that I haven't observed. I think true hot spots (sensor reflections) are usually attributable to lenses rather than well regarded TCs like the ones from Kenko.
Back to Top
Teemō View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 07 January 2020
Country: Australia
Status: Offline
Posts: 4
Post Options Post Options   Quote Teemō Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 January 2020 at 10:11
I agree. These adapters are generic so they need to work with many different sensors and lenses without issues.
Thanks for all the help! I've bought a 2x MC7 and went with the MC DG 1.5x because it was a bit cheaper and 'newer'. I'll update the thread when they arrive, to see if the latter provides EXIF correction on my Alpha 7.
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14253
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 January 2020 at 16:14
Originally posted by Teemō Teemō wrote:

I've bought a 2x MC7 ...

I also have that one!
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > Adapters and converters

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.