Are lens extenders any good?

[Steve Smith]

Whilst you may get a drop in quality (along with reduced light) from using one of these, if the images are just being used for a cricket club's website rather than high quality prints then I suspect that they will be more than adequate.

It's probably better to fill the frame with an image using the extender rather than crop the image if taken with the lens without the extender (I have no evidence to support this theory though!).



Steve.

[2F/2F]

Whilst you may get a drop in quality (along with reduced light) from using one of these, if the images are just being used for a cricket club's website rather than high quality prints then I suspect that they will be more than adequate.

It's probably better to fill the frame with an image using the extender rather than crop the image if taken with the lens without the extender (I have no evidence to support this theory though!).



Steve.

Absolutely correct. Being there and getting the shot in the first place is 90% of what matters. No need to hem and haw about the microscopic technical minutiae unless they will really matter in the end. Location and timing is everything, and sharpness is highly overrated. Using a doubler helps with the location, while taking away some sharpness. Like everything everywhere all the time, nothing is ideal, and compromise is unavoidable.

[SilverGlow]

I've got the x2 Canon extender, mark II. I use it on my 100-400L tele zoom. It is okay, and often acceptable, but it is not remarkable. I've heard the x1.4 is better however. I don't think anyone makes a TC that is remarkable. A TC is for people that would rather not shell out big, big $ for a long reach tele, but the price one pays for a TC is IQ.