Lose a stop with all teleconverters?

Will you lose a stop or two regardless of what teleconverter you have? In other words is there a teleconverter that you WILL NOT lose any lens performance?

To my understanding yes, between a 1 and 2 stops depending on 1.4x, 1.7x or 2x

Alex wrote: To my understanding yes, between a 1 and 2 stops depending on 1.4x, 1.7x or 2x

Due to more glass elements for the light to pass through.

Here's a nice review on teleconverters.


Pros and Cons on teleconverters

Got with a 1.4 or 1.7, 1.7 is most popular from what I understand

Crammer wrote: Will you lose a stop or two regardless of what teleconverter you have? In other words is there a teleconverter that you WILL NOT lose any lens performance?

OK I will actually answer your questions....

1. Yes. (1.4 = 1 stop, x1.7 = 1.5stops, x2 = 2 stops)
2. No, it's just the way it is. But starting with the fastest lens you can helps.

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Crammer wrote: Will you lose a stop or two regardless of what teleconverter you have? In other words is there a teleconverter that you WILL NOT lose any lens performance?

OK I will actually answer your questions....

1. Yes. (1.4 = 1 stop, x1.7 = 1.5stops, x2 = 2 stops)
2. No, it's just the way it is. But starting with the fastest lens you can helps.

pretty much how these work

There seems to be some cons in having a teleconverter, so why do people have them? or why can't the companies make them better?

Joshwell wrote: There seems to be some cons in having a teleconverter, so why do people have them? or why can't the companies make them better?

I'm with you, I think there is only so much they can do with the glass? Who knows

Joshwell wrote: There seems to be some cons in having a teleconverter, so why do people have them? or why can't the companies make them better?

Well if you have long glass they give you more reach for less dollars spent. In good lighting conditions the 2 stop hit isnt that much really, and since now the High ISOs with digital cameras you can cancel that negative out. They can down grade image quality thoughm which is more true of the 2x. Why they cant make them any better is glass will only transmit so much light and when going through several elements you lose light. A 1.4 is really pretty good and doesnt do much image degradation as opposed to a 2x.

People have them because (with good glass) they don't degrade the image that much and it's much cheaper to buy a teleconverter than another lens.

x1.4 converter degrade the image so little it's hardly noticeable
x1.7 converters (nikon only) degrade it enough to notice, but with good glass (70-200 2.8 VRII for example) it's still very sharp.
x2 are worse than the other two.

I have a x1.7 and use it on my 70-200. It give me a 340mm f/4.5 lens Much cheaper than me buying a 300 f/4D. Sure it's not quite as sharp, but it's pretty darn good.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: People have them because (with good glass) they don't degrade the image that much and it's much cheaper to buy a teleconverter than another lens.

x1.4 converter degrade the image so little it's hardly noticeable
x1.7 converters (nikon only) degrade it enough to notice, but with good glass (70-200 2.8 VRII for example) it's still very sharp.
x2 are worse than the other two.

I have a x1.7 and use it on my 70-200. It give me a 340mm f/4.5 lens Much cheaper than me buying a 300 f/4D. Sure it's not quite as sharp, but it's pretty darn good.

I own a 1.4x and 1.7x and there is a time and place for these to be used.