Well telecoverters are something I have used, but not really been a fan of in only some fairly specific situations. They all have a quality loss with them, some more than others. My personal experience is the 1.4's cause less of a loss in quality than the 2.0 or greater. If its feasible though, Id recommend a longer lens and avoid the converter. Then again that isn't always practical.
One way I do sometimes use converters is behind a portrait type of lens. A 2x behind a 50 mm (assuming 35mm) will actually create a nice soft focus lens in many cases. Some combinations are just enough to hide blemishes, but it just depend on how the converter and lens work together.
--- On Sun, 6/8/08, Trevor Cunningham <tr_cunningham@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Trevor Cunningham <tr_cunningham@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Teleconverters
> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday, June 8, 2008, 10:35 PM
> Am looking at teleconverters for my D200. Looking at the
> BH catalog, a local shop pretty much matches the Nikon,
> Sigma, and Tamron products. But the Kenko Pro-300
> is about $50 less than BH charges, and I would have to
> wait for someone to bring it in their luggage. Is it
> worth pursuing? I haven't seen any
> negative reviews...
> "somewhere between zero and one...everything else is
> exaggeration" - Anonymous
