For you non photographers, stop reading. I have been looking for the last 3 years for a good comparison of tele vs. non-teleconverter for sharpness and have yet to find one that passes any reasonable test for scientific objectivity. Here's my personal experience. I have a Nikon 1.4 TC which is the best Nikon makes and have not been satisfied with the results. It loses 1/2 to 1 stop of light (and speed), it cuts down the field of view and produces images that are not as sharp as those without it. That having been said, I only formally tested it once in a semi-valid way. Three years ago I photographed a Short-eared Owl that was sitting on a tree stump 30 feet away (yes it does happen occasionally) with my Nikon 600mm lens and D300 at Rawlins Rd. with a photographer from Canada at the same distance who was shooting the exact same camera and lens I was using (including the same tripod) except he was using a 1.4 TC at one f/stop number larger. The light was good and the owl was sitting still. He later sent me a raw copy of his image which I compared with a raw copy of mine, cropped to the same size as his. Mine was noticeably sharper. This is not a real vaid test. I might have had better telephoto technique, my focus could have been better, etc. I have been looking for a study that actually takes pictures with the same camera, same settings, with and without the TC, under the same light conditions of a static subject, at the same distance, etc. and so far no one has produced one that came even close to covering the possible variables. I am very suspicious of TC's because they were developed when big lenses were too expensive for most amateurs and few photographers had the ability to crop their photos from the slides they usually shot. The TC gave them an easy and less expensive way to produce bigger images for showing and there was no easy way to compare them. If they worked as advertised, it would be very easy for the companies to produe good studies and include the T-C technology in their big lenses at relatively low cost and substantially increase their focal lengths with only a small increase in price. The only company that's come close to doing that seems to be Canon with it's 800mm (meaning no disrespect Gregg). For what it's worth, I have found that Canon shooters are more satisfied with their TC's than Nikon shooters which may say something about the quality of the Canon TC's or the lack of discrimination of Canon shooters (I know this is a cheap shot so ignore it). I guess the bottom line of all this is that if you like the results you get and can afford the extra $400-500, use it, if not, don't. However, you might want to borrow one first before you buy.


David Gluckman
811 22nd St.
Pt. Townsend, WA 98368
360 379-0360