Lens multipliers / convertors

[Phil S]

Are they any good? I am very pleased with my Tamron 28-75 and I have just noticed that Tamron make both 1.4x and 2x multipliers for this lens.

In general are multipliers a good idea to use or not? From what I can see it will slow the lens down a lot, is this really the case? Is it a better idea to put the money in the piggy bank towards a Canon 100-400 L lens insead?

Cheers

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

It's all about F-stops. If the lense was an F2.8, putting a 2x converter is going to make if F5.6 (I think, I've been down the pub ) which is ok. I bet it isn't F2.8 ever, which is going to make autofocus a bit hit and miss (usually miss).

[simpo two]

Phil S said:

Are they any good? I am very pleased with my Tamron 28-75 and I have just noticed that Tamron make both 1.4x and 2x multipliers for this lens.

It's not expensive to buy a lens to cover 56-150 properly. TCs certainly kill aperture, do nothing to image quality (more glass) and are just as fiddly to fit as changing lenses. If you were trying to get from 200 to 400 on a budget, that's different, but at the lengths you mention I think a longer lens is the best option.

[Bee_Jay]

I think that you would be better off going and spending £179 on a Canon 75-300. You will get better coverage and better quality images than you could get with converters on your lens.

[Phil S]

I already have a Canon 75-300 EF, but to be honest it's not exactly the best lens in the world

I figured the convertors may be a good idea to extend the use of my far superior Tamron lens, as people seem to use them on top of the line lenses, not just for cheapskates like me to avoid splashing out!

I now consider myself told otherwise anyway!

[te51cle]

I'd avoid teleconvertors too if possible.

[Bee_Jay]

People tend not to fit converters on the smaller lenses, only the long teles and zooms. The canon converters won't fit on most of their lenses including all of the small ones anyways...