Questions About Teleconverters

[wedgita]

Hi everyone,
I extremely new to photography, and I recently decided to buy a macro lens. I've narrowed it down to 2 choices: Nikon 60mm micro and Sigma 105 mm.
My question is: Should I go w/ the 60mm and invest in a teleconverter in order to be able to take marco pics from further away? What exactly is a teleconverter anyway and what are the pros and cons? I hear that a teleconverter will cut back the amount of light (ex. go from f/2.8 to like a f/5.6). Is this true...and is that bad?
Thanks!!

[Loupey]

Because you lose one whole stop (with a 1.4x TC) and two whole stops (with a 2x TC) and you're also going to lose some sharpness, you will be better off buying the longest macro you can afford.

Besides, a good teleconverter and the Nikon 60mm is probably more expensive than the 105mm anyway.

It's not that teleconverters are bad - they have their place - and I use them all the time. But they really shine when you make a 200mm a 400mm or a 300mm a 600mm and you know what a 400mm/600mm prime lens costs and weighs

[OldClicker]

Teleconverter vs. Extension Tube??? Is my thinking correct?

Teleconverter - Has glass and increases the (apparent) focal range of the lens. Trade off is lower light gathering ability and loss of IQ from the extra glass. Commonly used for longer distances.

Extension tube - No glass and decreases the distance at which the lens focuses. Trade off is a decrease in the sensor plane to focal plane distance. Commonly used for close-ups.

Both provide a larger image on the sensor, but with different compromises.

TF

[freygr]

I have a 55mm F3.5 supper sharp micro lens and a 180-300 micro telephoto lens. I do not use teleconverters as when I was shooting film at that time the drop in resolution and the loss of light was the reason I sold the thing. Now remember if you use extension tubes which do not pass through the lens signals you will have to use a light meter and you will need to adjust the exposure due to the magnification factor.