A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > long range lens vs...

Featured Equipment Deals

Shooting Modes within the DSLR (Video Tutorial) Read More

Shooting Modes within the DSLR (Video Tutorial)

This video tutorial will introduce you to the various shooting modes from basic to advanced. It will explain what each mode does and when is best to use them so you can achieve your desired photo...

Latest Equipment Articles

The Olympus Air A01 Hands-On Review Read More

The Olympus Air A01 Hands-On Review

What if a photographic tool arrived that was the link between smartphones and good photography? That tool might just be the Olympus Air A01.

Latest Learning Articles

The October Monthly Project Read More

The October Monthly Project

This month's project with guest instructor Jackie DiBenedetto helps us practice our skills with nature as the backdrop. Add your best photo to the thread and enjoy the conversation!

long range lens vs teleconverter

Sutejo Kurniawan , Oct 09, 2005; 04:08 p.m.

Which one is more worth buying, 75-300mm or teleconverter mount? and probabbly why?



Jean-Baptiste Queru , Oct 09, 2005; 04:12 p.m.

It really depends what you want to mount the TC on. If you have a 200/1.8, you certainly should get a 1.4x. If you have a 135/2.8 and plan to get an off-brand 2x, maybe you should consider the zoom instead.

Andrew Carlson , Oct 09, 2005; 06:08 p.m.

Jean's right it all depends. Teleconverters double the minimum aperture of a lens so an f/5.6 becomes and f/11 and may not autofocus.

Neither is worth buying unless you know why you want it. What do you want to shoot. If I'm shooting sports I want a wide aperture so that I can freeze the action. If I'm shooting at night the same holds true. Sure I could boost my ISO but only within limits and personally I don't like the noise above ISO800 on my 20D. I wouldn't buy one just to have it in my kit. (Which I did long ago and I never use it)

If I'm shooting portraits I may want a fast aperture to get a very small/narrow depth of field. Prime lenses (a single focal length) are very popular in this crowd yet lack the flexibility of zooms. Primes offer a much sharper image though too.

I usually figure out what I want to shoot and whats the proper tool to shoot it with. As for ice hockey I use the 70-200f/2.8L IS lens. I've learned enough about shooting hockey I don't need the IS but I appreciate it. Soon I may buy an 85mm or 100mm prime also for sports but I'm still contemplating that.

Raymond Robertson , Oct 09, 2005; 07:35 p.m.

You should also bear in mind that, whilst a teleconverter can extend the reach of a lens, also making it one stop (1.4x) or 2 stops (2x) slower, it fundamentally gives you a lower quality lens of longer focal length. There's no free luch here.

The 70-200/2.8 IS zoom is a fine lens. Add a 2x converter and you can get a 400/5.6 IS. So why should anyone buy the Canon 100-400/5.6 IS zoom if you can get a 70-200/2.8 plus 2x converter giving you effectively a 70-400/2.8-5.6 IS zoom for little more than the cost of the 100-400/5.6?

Answer: Because the 70-200/2.8 with 2x extender is simply not as good a lens as the 100-400/5.6. Adding a teleconverter lowers the MTF response of a lens at all frequencies. Most of the advantages of using a teleconverter are offset by a number of disadvantages. The net improvement can range from small to zero depending on the contrast of the subject. For distant, and therefore slightly hazy subjects, the benefit can be zero. For relatively close and brightly lit subjects, the improvement in captured detail can be worthwhile.

James (Jim) Johnson , Oct 09, 2005; 11:39 p.m.

Don't find yourself buying that 75-300mm and then deciding it's not enough, and then get the idea of getting a teleconverter!

None of the Canon TC's are compatible, and I have no personal experience with the 3rd party type that may work! Although I have heard that some do.

I do have the EF 75-300 IS and almost fell into the same trap. But I had done my research before I handed over any money for a TC. It is a good consumer grade lens if it meets your desires.

I eventually ended up with the EF 100-400L IS with the 1.4TC. A great zoom lens, and combination!

As you can see, this is a good resource for advice and opinions which help us all from falling into those "traps."

Best wishes, Jim J.

Steve Dunn , Oct 10, 2005; 12:41 p.m.

Can you post more details about what lenses and bodies you currently use, what you shoot, etc.?

As others have suggested, using a cheap teleconverter is not a good idea; you get what you pay for. And any TC, even a top-quality one, results in some loss of optical quality, so you want to use it with a high-quality lens (which consumer 75-300 zooms are not). You're generally better off getting a good lens which covers the range you need, and using a TC only when necessary.

Sutejo Kurniawan , Oct 10, 2005; 01:44 p.m.

Thank you for the responses.

I'm currently using 300D with the 18-55 lens that came together with the camera. I've been shooting nature and events like BBQ party, sports, stage performance. I'm not an expert/proffesional tho. I just picked up photography early last year.

The other day a friend of mine lend me a 75-300 lens and i realised that action photography is so much easier and fun. and that makes me feel the "need" of one too..

W.B. Pratomo , Oct 11, 2005; 04:28 a.m.

Hallo pak sutejo

Pak Sutejo, kalo lensanya standar lebih baik beli ZOOM lens-nya aja. Karena lensa standar itu aja sudah "loyo" ketajaman detailnya. Kalo ditambah tele converter bisa bubar nggak karuan hasilnya. Ada beberapa pilihan yang cukup baik utk 75-300. Range 1 jt s/d 2 jt lebih dikit, saya recommend SIGMA, atau Tamron atau Canon. Di harga pasaran ini Lensa asli Canon kalah dibandingkan Sigma dan Tamron. Saya sudah coba kok.. Kalo Budget nya 6 jt-an, Nggak usah mikir lagi sikat aja Canon 70-200 f/4 L series, di jamin bapak melotot sambil bengong2 liat kualitasnya hasilnya. Mampir ke gallery saya dong pak..

Salam hormat

Back to top

Notify me of Responses