Canon Vs.Kenko extension tubes

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by lopezjohnston, Oct 9, 2015.

  1. I am planing to buy extension tubes for Canon EOS. I would like please to read reviews / opinions about the difference between the Canon and Kenko tubes regarding with durability, construction, overall quality of the equipment.
    I know Canon only has two "sizes" and Kenko has three (3). I know kenko less expensive... I have read some reviews stating that kenko are made "cheap" in construction and durability.

    Thank you in advance for your inputs

    Juan
     
  2. SCL

    SCL

    As a "rule of thumb", a high quality manufacturer of system cameras, seems to typically have tighter manufacturing processes, hence better fit, in the accessories for their cameras than aftermarket suppliers of similar accessories. However, sometimes the aftermarket designs are more versatile. My experience with Canon tubes (FD not EOS) is that they fit precisely and always performed as expected. The Kenko and Vivitar tubes I've had (not for Canon, but for other bodies) were acceptable, but not always as precise in their fitting. If the price differential was really significant, I usually tried the aftermarket products like extension tubes to see if they performed satisfactorily (most did), although they usually seemed a little more flimsy than the OEM ones.
     
  3. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    I have the Kenko SET of THREE, SECOND Series of the DG version: these tubes allow attachment of both EF and EF-S Lenses. These tubes can be identified by the WHITE EF-S Alignment Mark on the female end of each tube, shown in the right of the picture, here:
    [​IMG]
    I “shop tested” the Canon Extension Tube EF12 and EF25 and I noted at the time that both were slightly better constructed than the Kenko Tubes and they 'felt like' they would hold bigger and heavier lenses more securely.
    At the time I bought my Kenko Set, Canon had NOT released the MKII Extension tubes. The Canon MkII Tubes sport the indentifying EF-S White Alignment Mark and unlike the original Canon EF Tubes the MkII versions do allow the mounting of EF-S Lenses.
    Because I wanted the flexibility of using EF-S Lenses, Canon was not an option for me at the time of my purchase; further the Kenko set of three’s combination of lengths was/is more flexible, than just having a 12mm and 25mm tube.
    Unless you do NOT want to mount EF-S Lenses then the mention of ensuring you get the appropriate model of Extension Tube is not necessary – on the other hand if you only want to mount EF Lenses then maybe some money can be saved by buying the first model Canon Tubes if you choose to go with Canon.
    I compared the ORIGINAL Canon Tubes to the Kenko Series TWO, DG Version, but I expect the Canon MkII tubes are of the same high standard of manufacture as the first models that I tested.
    I have been satisfied with the set of Kenko Tubes and I have had them for about 8 years: the locking mechanism is still strong; the internal light baffles are excellent; and there is not much flex when the three are stacked:
    [​IMG]
    I don’t have the need to use my tubes often but I do carry them as a standard extra in my kit. I would usually use only one tube most of the time, usually the 12mm one.
    You might already know, but an extension tube is handy to allow a Canon Extender to sit behind a lens for which it is not designed:
    [​IMG]
    WW
     
  4. Stephen and William, THANK YOU SO MUCH for your inputs... both were really helpful.
    Greatly appreciated.
     

Share This Page