2X teleconverters - are they worth the money?
Apr 02 '02
The Bottom Line Do your lens research with regard to zoom power and optional teleconverters, keeping in mind price vs. quality.
In the ever pricey land of photographic equipment, one can spend thousands of dollars to be outfitted with quality equipment to accommodate every photo opportunity. For those of us who are not professional photographers, and not financially independent, we can only dream of having such hardware.
So, what is the economical choice to be made, while getting the best bang for the buck? Do you spend more on the body and less on the lens, or vice-versa? And how about those teleconverters than can double your zoom power at far below the cost of a second lens? Are they worth getting?
I did some research on this, because teleconverters seemed to me too good to be true. And what I found is that this is somewhat correct. The advantage of using a teleconverter is that you retain the full range of focus from up-close to infinity. However, the disadvantage is the loss of quality in image sharpness. If you are picky about the sharpness of your photographs, you will be disappointed in the result of using a 2X teleconverter (some other reviewers have stated this as well). Many professionals don't even think about using them, preferring to switch to the appropriate lens for the job. That's because you lose 2 f-stops with a 2X and 1 f-stop with a 1.4X.
There is one "saving grace", however. Although I don't personally have experience with this, I have been told by more than one professional photographer that an amateur photographer could get away with using a 1.4X converter and still be pleased with the results. Apparently there is little loss of clarity, except if you do significant enlargements. The only trick is finding one that is compatible with your camera and the lens you plan to use it with. Some auto-focus lenses will not function with a teleconverter by a different brand.
I think the obvious question at hand is, do I get a longer range zoom lens or go for a shorter range zoom lens along with a teleconverter? From what I've been told by photographers in my experience, the majority of photographs taken will not be at the longest zoom setting. A longer range zoom lens will not have the same overall sharpness as a shorter zoom lens, based on brand and relative price. So, you're better off with the shorter zoom lens (e.g. 28-200 would be better than 28-300). The teleconverter will help you achieve that extra zoom power when really needed.
By the way, if you're looking to use a converter for close-ups (macro) instead of peering into greater distances, you're probably better off with either a diopter or an extension tube. Although you will lose infinity focusing, they will give you great clarity for close-ups.
So, in the final analysis for most amateur photographers, 2X converters are out and 1.4X converters are plausible. The advantage they bring is the ability to increase your zoom factor by about 40%, without having to buy a more expensive full lens that you'd have to lug around. I would definitely recommend getting one made by a reputable lens manufacturer. AND most of all, make sure it is compatible with your existing equipment!
If by some chance I have made any technical errors in this write-up, please contact me so that I can make appropriate edits. Thanks!
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
kline
|
|
Location: Connecticut, USA
Reviews written: 11
Trusted by: 2 members
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.