A WARNING to All Photographers: DON’T BUY A TELECONVERTER!!!

FROPACK3 is HERE with 15 all-new custom Lightroom presets!!! Check it out

The reason I made this video is so you don't make the same mistake I made when purchasing a teleconverter as a beginner photographer. I couldn't afford another lens but though I could spend $125 and double my focal length without a problem, and get the same quality. I was dead wrong. I show you in this video why it may be better to crop, vs using a converter.

Want to send us gifts, swag, letters...here's our P.O. BOX
PO Box 3715 Philadelphia, PA 19125

Gear I USE
My Go To Mirrorless Camera for Stills
Our go to Cameras for Recording Videos at FroKnowsPhoto

Follow me

Please help us continue to make FREE content
by purchasing one or all of the FroKnowsPhoto
Educational guides. To check out previews of
each guide click here.

#FroKnowsPhoto #JaredPolin #Photographer

[froknowsphoto]

I think the samples I showed make it pretty clear. Have you run into issues with converters before? Or have a similar story to mine?

[soak]

My photos are not for National Geographic and I can't invest in 600mm or 800mm prime lenses. TCs give me the reach I need without spending the money, or dealing with the weight of primes. I am satisfied with the results that come out of using TCs, and so are the few people who follow my work. Not ALL of us fall in the same category.

[PhilDuggs]

For anyone watching this I would say to take this with a grain of salt and consider the usage case.

Jared says get closer, nature photographer's will tell you the opposite. If you are shooting birds the closer you get the higher chance you spook it and then it flies away. Shot gone. Safety also comes into play, if you are shooting a safari trip for example getting closer to the animal could potentially put the animal and your life in danger. I can safely say I would rather a loss of light rather than losing a limb if things went wrong by getting closer.

Also consider this advice comes from the person, who until recently, advocated for you to never crop your photos. I enjoy Jared's content but get your information/advice from more than one source before applying to yourself. P. S. I am not a nature photographer and of course take what I say with a grain of salt too.

[theredtechengineer]

Guess I'll just walk closer to the moon then.

[erikswenson]

I have been using 1.4 and 2x teleconverters for decades with success, so I would not be so fast to dismiss them entirely. However, you do raise 2 key points aperture and pixel count. My Sigma 70-200 f 2.8 and dedicated 2x extender worked well with my original Canon Rebel at f8 because the camera had a bare minimum of pixels before cropping. So, I was comparing tele shots with cropping that caused the picture to pixelate. With me R5, I have more than 3 times as many pixels to start with (in 1.6 crop mode for apples to apples comparison), so I can afford to throw away some pixels and avoid the loss of sharpness and light in lieu of using the tele to get a bigger image size. In short, faster lenses and fewer pixels work better with converters than slower lens and high pixel sensors. So, results vary.

[KevinNordstrom]

I'm happy with a 1.4x on a zoom followed by cleaning up in LR and Topaz. Especially for wildlife.
If you aren't printing massive prints, save yourself $10, 000 for the 600f4 or 2.8....and buy a 1.4x and use software in post.

[JoelRiveraMD]

Summary of the video: button line: it’s ok to crop ! Jared crops his pictures now !

[alanm.]

I've been using teleconverters... very selectively... for st least 35 years. Some combos work well, while many others don't.
My first good experience with a TC was using a 1.5X on a 300mm f/4.5 lens. I had to try about a half dozen different converters to find a pairing that worked really well.
Now many years later I have both 1.4X and 2X in my Canon system. I only use the 2X on 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 lenses. I've used the 1.4X on those, too, plus: 100mm macro, 135mm f/2, 180mm macro, 300mm f/4 and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom. It works very well on all of those.
You started out saying "don't use teleconverters", but later qualified that saying limit their use to very high quality lenses and especially avoid using a TC on mist zoom lenses. I agree with where you ended up... But not with where you started.
Not everyone has a 45MP or higher camera that allows them to crop the way you suggest. A teleconverter may be some peoples' best solution and make images that meet their needs, though some slight post processing might be needed.
Like everything else in life, you get what you pay for. Don't expect much from a $100 teleconverter on a $400 zoom lens... But a $400 TC on a $1500 prime or $2500 zoom might be worth a try.

[roccorodriguez]

TBH I was quite pleased with my $50 teleconverter. I use it like you said with a 300m 5.6 (worst rated canon lens) and a canon sl1 crop sensor. It was a small investment and a great learning experience. I wasn’t expecting anything spectacular or super sharp images. I guess I’m still in the amateur realm of photography where I just like to shoot whatever I find interesting.

[dr_squirrel]

I am happy with the RF100-500 and my 1.4 x extender. It does degrade the image quality slightly but it is still acceptable and in the real world nobody looks at two images side by side zoomed in all the way to pixel-peep and spot the difference.

[gschweiger]

"Portrait/event photographer tells wildlife photographers what gear to use."

Tools, all gear are tools. You use what tool works best for the result that you want. While fully understanding the benefits and trade-offs of those tools.

[tyler.]

Here's something that I did recently where I used a teleconverter;

70-200 is a great sports lens. However, when you are stationed in an arena in the last row of the Loge (lower) sections shooting a hockey game, a 70-200 is nothing. 300mm became standard for hockey photos. There's no need to crop for photos, you get clean images straight out of camera at 2.8. Now me, not having $6k to spend on a lens and having a 300 2.8 rental cost put me in the minus for profit for the shoot, I brought a 1.4x teleconverter turning it into something more like 100-280 f4. This allowed me to get images that are ready straight out of camera, and although it was F4, the depth wasn't noticably different considering the subjects are so far away and it is being shot aerially with the ice being the background. The arena lighting was good, and I had no issues. I was able to get full-res images that I would otherwise have to crop substantially on an 18MP camera like the 1DX which looks way worse than the lack of sharpness it may give.

Point is, don't buy a teleconverter thinking it's god's gift to budget photographers. Do buy a teleconverter if you need to provide timely full-res photos from long distance and don't have the equipment for it. It's not about providing top notch photos and getting more out of your lens, but being able to get that range can make you a versatile photographer and can allow you to provide editorial photos quickly without needing a 300 2.8.

[blakeparry]

"A warning to photographers using budget zoom lenses: Dont buy a teleconverter"

I use a 1.4x (generally dont bother with the 2x) on my telephoto primes and it works well.
They have their place, especially for lower MP bodies where you dont have 50+MP to crop with

[sagetheowlfatfeathery]

Man who “never crops” crops. Oooookay.

[tomschulte]

Good to hear someone who took the time to dish it 'straight'. My Nikon 2.0 crapped out - and what a relief. It was a disappointment from frame 1. Shame on Nikon for neglecting to discuss the trade-off of a teleconverter. Call it 'one and done.

[victorbanerjee]

I photograph birfs and use both 1.4x and 2x iii with my 500 f4 ii and never have any autofocus or image quality issue with R6. However will not use my 400 mm 5.6 with 2x as I noticed focus speed drastically reduced. 1.4 is fine with the 400 no issues.

[imagesbyrina]

I only half agree. I never use teleconverters on zooms - that's a waste of time. Ha! I only use teleconverters on my 600mm f/4. And even then it's usually the 1.4x which still looks perfectly tack sharp. You may lose a bit of speed there but the image does not looks like garbage. The 2x shows some quality degradation (and you likely cannot crop) and is noticeably slower, so I seldom use. But that is dependent on the camera body. Using a tele is worth it in certain situations and with certain camera/lens combos. Totally fine/helpful and looks great.

[joca]

Papperazzis be like: "I use five 2x teleconverters on my 600mm lens. All scandal photos are blurry anyway."

[leewrd]

Thanks Jared. I just purchased a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 lens and WAS thinking about adding a 2X teleconverter for additional reach. You saved me money, I appreciate it.

[EdelmanAri]

Granted, whoever sold you the lens should have been upfront about the f-stop. But my X2 teleconvereter works great with my 70-200 2.8; I get sharp images and the autofocus is fast enough to catch moving animals. It'd be more ideal to have a longer lens sure, but for now when I want that extra zoom, X2 teleconvereter will get me what I need.