A good third party Teleconverter?

[ghaleon109]

Hey guys, I have a Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and I would like some more zoom but don't really want to drop the cash for the 70-200mm f/4L or 100-400mm f/4.5L because I don't believe I'm experienced enough to justify a purchase that pricy...

Anyways, I was just wondering if there was a good teleconverter out there for my lens. I would like a 2x but if that's not possible a 1.4x is kool too. Also, how badly is the image quality affected? And I believe the apature is also affected right?

Thanks for your time :D

[LightRules]

Not a good idea. Save up some $ and look into a good tele zoom or prime. IQ is not going to be too nice.

[ghaleon109]

Thanks, I was a little worried about IQ, It was going to be used mostly for close up shots of animals, and I'm pretty sure that even a slight reduction in IQ would really stand out.

Anyone have suggestions for a lens now though? I'm worried that the 70-200mm wont be enough zoom and the 100-400mm is pretty pricy. Although I was only looking at "L's" (had a little white lens envy) are there any other (non "L's") that are worth consitering?

[Ricko of Fla]

look on E-bay today there are about 3 70-200 L s at a good price I purchased a used one on e-bay for a $100. less than retail .A EF 1.4x is good A 2x is not recommended look in forums. I have a EF1.4x & 700-200L The EF 1.4x works great.

Good shopping.

[ghaleon109]

Kool! Ya, I kinda figured that the IQ must not be that bad for the Canon converters since they only fit the "L" lenses. I'll go check out ebay. :)

[ttmatsu]

With a 1.4X TC, a Kenko Pro 300 DG or Tamron SP (many suspect these are really the same TC) will give results that are arguably the same as the Canon. Posts I've seen are indistinguishable. But people do say that the Canon is ever so slightly better.

I have a 70-200 F2.8L and Kenko Pro 300 DG 2X TC (the 1.4 just didn't give me adequate "magnification" for sports). The result is definitely "softer" compared to the naked lens when pixel peeping but it cleans up very nicely in PS and the prints of the intended subject are very good. The difference between the printed results of the naked lens versus with TC is slightly less contrast and the bokeh is not pleasing. Also, the DOF is very compressed so I find I have to shoot f11 or greater to get adequate DOF while I could shoot f5.6 with the naked lens. The difference between the naked lens and lens plus TC on the monitor is much greater.

While my 70-200 delivers good results at f2.8, with a 2X tc, it delivers unacceptable results at f5.6 (wide open for a 2X tc). You really do have to stop down to f8 to get acceptable results and it gets better as you keep going - by f11, it's as sharp as it is going to get.

The result with the 2X TC is better than with my old Canon 100-300 f4.5-5.6 at 300. The intended subject has better detail. I think that if you look at the posting on the internet of 2X TC examples, you'll see some very good results. There are some postings with very poor results so YMMV.

The key to using a TC is the naked lens HAS to have very good image quality since the TC simply magnifies the original image.

Again, the printed result after post processing looks much better than what you see on the monitor when comparing naked lens versus plus TC. The two big drawbacks for me are the poor bokeh and compressed DOF.

[KevC]

Check out some of the third party 70-300 and the Canon 100-300USM. They give quite a bit of reach for the dollar, and I would imagine it be better than your 28-135 with a teleconverter.

The Sigma 70-300 APO seems to be awesome.

[ghaleon109]

Thank you soo much ttmatsu that's exactly what I was looking for in the explanation. I'm thinking now that if I do get a converter, it's definatly going to have to be on an "L" because I doubt the optics in my lens now will be able to produce good results when magnifyed.

Kool, thx KevC I'll go check out the sigma now.

[KevC]

No problem. Don't misunderstand me though, hehe. I am in NO WAY claiming that the 70-300 consumer zooms are anywhere near the quality of a good prime or L.

But they definitely are better than hyperzooms (28-300s) and stacked teleconverters on already not-so-great lenses.

Good luck!

[m3elmo]

just an idea...i sold my 28-135IS lens on ebay for 360ish, and then picked up a used 70-200 F4L for $460. For me the upgrade was more than worth it. Now just saving money to go 2.8L

Good Luck.
Danny

[ghaleon109]

Lol, don't worry I got that. I'm still kind of checking out my options.

[KevC]

just an idea...i sold my 28-135IS lens on ebay for 360ish, and then picked up a used 70-200 F4L for $460. For me the upgrade was more than worth it. Now just saving money to go 2.8L

Good Luck.
Danny

The 70-200/4L is an awesome lens, but I wouldn't want to lose the 28-70 range!

[FScott]

If you want to experiment, the "normal" tamron 1.4x TC is only like $80. I have one and use it on my 70-200 f4L and it works fine. It doesn't compromise the lens much although it does reduce the contrast a bit. I shot this with the 70-200 at 200 mm with the 1.4x TC:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050712.html

For $80 you get to experiment and see if you like the concept. If you hate it, you can sell it on ebay and put the money towards a longer lens.

-- Scott.

[Croasdail]

I use a 1.4tc all the time and other then slowing down focusing, the image quality on images up to 11.x14 is just fine. I would also suggest looking at the sigma 100-300. I just bought the 120-300 as a backup to my 300 2.8L, but was very tempted by the sigma 100-300, its raw data on the charts is just steller. There are a lot of options out there. Plus look at some of the primes from Canon ranging from 85, 135, or 200 - some of them L's that are very reasonably priced. Good luck with it!