On 17 Jul 1998 12:23:14 GMT, lcdr1635@aol.com (LCDR1635) wrote:

>I'm getting back into serious photography after a number of years away and am
>completely re-equipping (CANON equipment). I've noticed a couple of comments
>in this NG regarding using 2x or 3x teleconverters rather than getting a zoom
>in the 300mm range.
>
>The conventional wisdom when I first got into photography 25 years ago was that
>teleconverters were not worth the money, and thus I ignored them. Have they
>gotten a lot better in the interim, such that I should give them another look?

3X converters have long been out of favor, and 2X converters (with rare exceptions, like the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 and 400mm f3.5 [plus other
similarly expensive glass] combined with the expensive matched 2X converters - which can be good even with the lens wide open) generally
require stopping down to f5.6-8 for good performance, even with well-matched combinations. The 1.4X converters give better results,
and are often good with the lens nearly wide open. BTW, one of the
best uses for converters is in macro work, where the small stops
often used for good DOF also gets the best out of the converter optics, and the increased magnification is useful.