In today's video, we're talking about extenders or converters and the pros and cons of using them. So let's look into this. I often get asked, it's one of the kind of common questions I get asked really is about converters and extenders because people know that sometimes I do shoot on one. I've shown one for about a year in quite a few different situations in scenarios. So I'm going to kind of give my feedback and my pros and cons of buying them and using them and whether or not you should kind of do the same. So let's dive into it. Pre-N-1, they increase the distance that you're shooting at in a pinch. So I have a 1.4 times telecom butter and I've used before because I hired one first of all, I hired a 2 times telecom butter. For me, the reason that I hired one and ended up buying one is because I didn't particularly need a 3 or 400 mil prime lens at the time but I did need to increase my range slightly for some fixtures and matches and bookings that I had at the time. And to increase that distance, to increase that range of my 7200, this was kind of like a really really good investment. So my 1.4 teleconvert takes my 200 mil to something like 300, boy, through 150 mils. On the crop sensor and stuff, it's something like 380, I think my math might not be right but you do gain quite a bit. And that is really useful. If you don't want to like a big 3 or 400 mil prime lens around, like a converter or an extender is actually a pretty decent way to go because it does give you that kind of distance. The problem 2 is that they are there for because they're a lot smaller, more than anything. They are pretty cost effective. A big 3 or 400 mil 2.8 prime lens is probably going to set you back even if you buy a second hand, like a couple of grand, that's an awful lot of money. Whereas I picked this 1.4 times telecom butter up. On eBay second hand, I think I paid about £100 or £150 for it. Obviously with second hand, I made sure it was pretty clean on both ends. Like I had a really really good look at it before I purchased it. But even if you buy them new, I think they're only a couple hundred quid. And I obviously went for the L series ones because I wanted it to work on my L series lenses that I have. So they are cost effective. The difference between 300 quid and 3 grand is remarkable. And if you only want a little bit of distance and you don't want to stump down a lot of money, this isn't a bad way to go. If you just want to try it out, if you need something that's a little bit longer, that's a pretty cost effective way to get to that focal length that you want to get to. Primal 3 is that they are far more portable than a 3 or a 400 mil or even bigger primal lens. Now I haven't got a 300 mil or 400 prime lens myself, but I do know they're big. I do know they're heavy. Like I have experience with them. It's not like I have never ever held one or used one. I've just never had one of my own. And the difference between like throwing this in a bag and like then putting a 300 into a bag is remarkable and carrying this round is just a whole world of difference. So I can swing this in a pouch. I've got a think time pouch that I worry about. I can swing that in a pouch if I need to. Like even want to put it onto my camera system. It's not a massive weight difference. If I fly, which I did. So when I took this, when I went to the World Beach Games at Guitar last autumn, like throwing this into the bag, I made no difference to the weight of the case. But had I put a 3 or 400 mil lens in instead, then I probably wouldn't be now to get my case into the overhead locker because it had been a bit too heavy for the plane. So it had to go in the hold and then you start introducing lots of different kind of annoying variables. So like they are way more portable than a massive big lens. So they are good in that respect. However, we do have some drawbacks. Con number one, they are not as nice as a proper super telephoto prime lens. Like I would love to sit here and say like get one of these, it's a magic bullet. You don't need a 3 or 400 mil 2.8. They'll just do the difference. Like they're amazing. They're not as good as a proper prime lens. Like they just aren't. It's the equivalent of taking a photo that's super sharp and really really nice and cropping really really tight into it. Like it's okay. You can get away with it, but it's not the same as having a telephoto lens that gets you to that distance in the first place. So like, whereas you might feel like these could be a magic bullet and really really helped you out. If you are looking for the same quality as a super telephoto 300, even a 600 mil prime lens, they're not the same. So like you need to just be aware of that. I would love a 300 mil prime lens in the bag. I don't have one currently, but this gets me out of the pinch in kind of the short term. But like I know that this isn't as nice as kind of the genuine article. It's just the way it is. Con number two. The eye found on the two. That's why I hired a two times teleconverter back in end of summer last year for some hockey stuff that I did because I wanted to try teleconverter out. And then obviously I bought this one as well. They I found on both of those that the focus is ever so slightly soft. It's like shooting in a kind of a noisy environment like they're just a little bit softer not super tacked tacked sharp all the way through the image like you'd expect it to be. And so like you are going through more layers of glass to get to the end of the lens. So it does soften it just ever so slightly. It's not the end of the world like you can get away with it if you're just shooting local sports teams kind of like local events like it's not really like a huge amount of difference. And commercially editorial that's when it starts to kind of like fall down. I found this. But like I've shot some really good stuff using a teleconverter and the focus is a little soft but it's not too bad. But I wouldn't want to rely on it all the time because like I say that focus is a touch on the soft side. And finally con number three is with a standard prime 2.8 lens be it three four six hundred mill or five hundred mill depends what you're for. And the you're not losing stops of light it's 2.8 like for the duration of that lens like it's it's 2.8 for that lens. That's what it is. Whereas if you add one of these on to a 70 to 200 for example like I do 2.8 that then becomes F4. So you're losing a couple of stops of light to finally. Yeah, you're losing like three stops and that isn't necessarily the end of the world if you're shooting in the middle of the day in really really good sunlight. And you know you haven't got lighting issues. However, if you're starting to shoot in an evening or into nighttime and you're shooting under kind of like stadium lights or anything like that. So you're losing a couple of stops of light actually then gets really really difficult because you then start to trade off between your shot speed which you don't want to be too low because then you're going to get the emotion blur and you don't really want to wrap your eyes so up too loud because it's going to get that image quite noisy so like it's a battle at that point. Obviously if you go to like two times howling and vera I think it takes you from a 2.8 to 5.6 don't quote me on that I'm not great with my receptacles. But you know it's something to bear in mind it's you're not shooting at 2.8 you're shooting at F4 or 5.6. So where is a super telephoto lens will have you at 2.8 the whole time you are going to lose stops of light. If you're shooting daytime like sunda leaf at all you know down the local park with your mates then actually it's not going to make a huge deal of difference. However if you are shooting commercially editorial for agency whatever losing a couple of stops is going to start to make a difference especially when the daylight goes and the stadium lights go up. So you need to kind of bear that stuff in mind. I think overall I would say that they are a really good investment. Late next year when I have a super telephoto in the bag and it's probably a 300 mil I think I think for the work that I do and stuff 300 is going to probably be the better option for me to go rather than 400. I'll still keep this in the bag like I'm not going to get rid of this because like they're actually pretty useful. But being professional, being like a commercial photographer you know now working for agency which I've started doing like it's just not as reliable as it could be if I had a dedicated to telephoto lens. So like I say if you're an amateur sports photographer or kind of like you're just starting out on getting the longer stuff like a teleconvert is not a bad way to go. They're not particularly expensive in the grand scheme of things they do increase your distance. But if you're really going to be at that kind of like high end level and that high end of work then probably a teleconvert is not the answer for you. You see you need to kind of bear that stuff in mind. But if you are watching this and you've got a teleconverter whether it's a 1.4 or a 2 and you're you know you've had success with it or you've had bad times with it. You know leave a comment and stuff below because I've been to see people's thoughts like I use mine a fair bit when I get a super telephoto probably in the next couple of months. Like obviously I won't use it great deal but it will still be around. So like I don't think they're bad pieces of kit. I just don't think they're a magic bullet and I think if you're looking for you know getting to 3 for 500 mil with your work. A teleconverter is probably not the way to go if you're going to want to do that week in week out. Hope you find that interesting. Like I say if you've got any comments on the link below and I'll try and answer them as best I can. Yeah. Have a great rest of the day. Have a great rest of your week and I will see you again hopefully back on the channel very very soon.