alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

I made the following observation once before in another thread ...

A teleconverter is a MAGNIFYING LENS ... it will magnify ANY-AND-ALL flaws which are inherent in the lens which it is being used with ... a better PRIME lens will have less-or-no image degradation, per se ...

The difference between the earlier/-est (3-element) teleconverters and the 7-element teleconverters which were developed about 40 years ago is significant AND I have to believe that the people who are warning you against your TRYING one have never actually used one of the 7-element teleconverters on anything other than a ZOOM lens ...

… so, a (vintage) 3-element teleconverter + ZOOM lens == generally unsatisfactory results

… however, the results with a 3-element teleconverter certainly MIGHT have been more-than-acceptable on a projected slide if the photographer was aware of the limitations & took the necessary precautions (e.g., stopping the Prime lens to where its inherent capabilities are maximized).

YOU may-or-may-not be able to live with the limitations which a teleconverter may introduce to the final image quality …

… but, IF you can work with them, then the amount you spend on the teleconverter will be money well spent ...

And, while it is EASY for many people to spend someone else's money, I have to say that if you get a USED 7-element teleconverter AND use it with some "static" targets with various lenses @ different f/stops to test the limitations of the teleconverter-lens combination(s) which you have AND SUBSEQUENTLY decide that you don't like how it works with the lens(es) you have then you can probably re-sell it on eBay for about what you paid ... and then, pony up for a dedicated PRIME telephoto whose characteristics suit your needs.

BTW. As far as "sports" photography, understanding the sport AND situating yourself appropriately will go a long way to capturing the image you want based on the lens(es) which you have available … obviously, you cannot always locate yourself where you want to be.

BTW2. A TRIPOD may go a long way toward ensuring good image quality.

agillot

the KENKO 1.4 TC would be it , 2.0 gets a little too much maybe .

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Basically you are looking for a cheap solution that doesn't exist.

1. It makes no sense to use a teleconverter with your28-75mm lens... You already have a lens with 200mm focal length which gives you great reach without any teleconverter.

2. The EF-S 18-200mm is not usable with most teleconverters. Most simply cannot accommodate that lens' EF-S mount. Even if they could (I know Kenko makes an EF-S compatible TC), image quality will be bad, you'll have no auto focus and your viewfinder will be dim to try to focus manually. Especially with a 2X! That will make an f/5.6 lens an f/11... very dim and dark! 2X also "cost" considerably more image quality.

3. I wouldn't touch a Promaster teleconverter with a 10 foot pole! I bet it's pure junk. The Kenko 1.4X MC4 DGX is well respected... but I don't know about their stronger 2X MC7. Image quality drops significantly, going from a 1.4X to a 2X TC. Neither of those Kenko would be usable with an EF-S lens, though. I don't know about the image quality Tamron TC at all, but seriously doubt it can be used with EF-S lenses either.

Your best bet would be to start saving up toward purchasing a longer telephoto. Prime lenses work much better with teleconverters than zooms do. For example, I use the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM with Canon 1.4X II teleconverter and the results are excellent (I also have Canon 2X II and use it mostly with 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 lenses, but I have cameras that can autofocus the latter setup).

So, in effect, when I am carrying that combo I have an excellent, hand-holdable 300mm as well as a very good 420mm f/5.6 with IS that will autofocus on any Canon DSLR. Of course, they cost much more than what you are looking at. But I bought used and the total for both is far less than the cost of the EF 100-400mm L "II" that I also use (which is also a little bit larger and heavier).

Both these were shot with a Canon 300mm f/4L IS USM plus Canon 1.4X II teleconverter:



The coyote was photographed with that lens/TC combo on a Canon 7D (same sensor as your 60D).... The black tail mule deer was photographed with the combo on full frame Canon 5D Mark II. That lens is just as good or even better without any TC.

Alternatively, there's the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, which is super sharp and fast focusing. However, it doesn't have IS and with it you don't have the 300mm option. And, as an f/5.6 lens, should you add any teleconverter added to it there would be no autofocus on your 60D.

Another alternative, look for a used but not abused copy of the original "push/pull" zoom Canon EF 100-400mm IS USM. It's a very good lens (so long as you don't put any filter on it) and has come down in price considerably since the "II" version was introduced a couple years ago. I've even seen some of the original push/pull zooms still selling new, at big discount.

JimRPhoto Loc: Raleigh NC

I got mine used, "like new" at my local camera store. It cost under $200. If you have a place you can go to check out their used stock, you might luck out. I have had very good luck with used, but all bought locally where I could check the items out first. Hope you can find what you are looking for! JimR

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I have a Tamron 2X teleconverter, and it works well with my Tamrom 90mm macro and Canon 70-200 f/2.8. With the macro, what's helpful is it allows me to get a little farther away from bees and bugs. With my other zooms, photos are too soft. I'd suggest you consider getting a 1.4X instead of a 2X - results will be sharper.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Extender EF 1.4x and 2.0x Compatibility List

EF 135mm f/2L USM
EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
EF 200mm f/1.8L USM
EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 400mm f/4L DO IS USM
EF 400mm f/5.6L USM *
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM *
EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM *
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

* No AF with 1.4x Only the f/2.8 lenses will AF with the 2.0x

DannyKaye Loc: Sheffield now but soon moving to Blanzay

I have the Kenko 1.4x and 2x that I use on my Nikon gear I also have Nikkor versions. The Nikkor ones are very specific to particular lenses, the Kenko are not. Adding any extra glass, especially cheap, badly designed/made glass in the light path will degrade the image. However, when you need them they are invaluable and I have never really regretted using the Kenko ones. I would start with the 1.4x Kenko ans see if you like them. However, resist the temptation to be this silly https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GbPhKfbQqUE

scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

E-bay. I just bought a sigma 150-500 for 375.00. 30 day guarantee. Very nice lense although slightly used. I'm in the same boat as you in the pocketbook. Good luck

TomV Loc: Annapolis, Maryland

I shoot Sony. With the Minolta 400 and 600 primes I could use my Minolta 1.4 matched TC and not notice a degradation with my 24 Mpix camera.
When I had my Sigma EX 300 and 500 primes with the matched Sigma 1.4 TC I had no degradation. When this TC was used on a Sigma zoom I had AF issues.
When I used a Kenko MC-4 DGX 1.4 TC on my Minoltas the photos were nearly as sharp, AF was still active, but the vignetting was more noticeable. The lens of the TC was further back than the matched TCs of the other brands.
I now have a Sony 500 mm f/4 with a matched 1.4 TC and it works as well as my other matched TCs.

With all that said, the loss of a stop may cause you no problem in good light but will cause AF issues with less. I have had best performance using only a matched set. Depending on my expected conditions, I make the use of a TC optional. I also am using a 42Mpix Full-frame camera so can crop more for the lower light conditions or when using a CP filter.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Kenko 1.4X "MC-4" teleconverter is quite sharp in the center, but a bit soft toward the corners. That's no problem on most crop sensor cameras, which only use the center of the image anyway. But for use on full frame, the slightly more expensive Kenko 1.4X "Pro-300" has better edge-to-edge, and corner sharpness, though it's not quite as sharp as the MC-4 in the center. I don't know how the 2X Kenko TCs compare.

HOWEVER NONE OF THIS MATTERS because the original poster is using a Canon EF-S 18-200mm lens which cannot even be mounted onto either of those teleconverters. That lens is also not usable on any of the Canon, Sigma or Tamron teleconverters.... probably not a Promaster, either. With only one exception I know of, teleconverters can only be used with Canon EF lenses... not with EF-S, which use a modified mount.

Kenko now makes "HD" teleconverters in both 1.4X and 2X strength... and their Canon versions CAN mount an EF-S lens. The Kenko "HD" are a little more expensive than their MC-4/MC-7 and Pro 300... but a lot less expensive than the Canon teleconverters (which are excellent, but wouldn't fit anyway).

HOWEVER... the EF-S 18-200mm is ALSO an f/5.6 lens.... so the original poster will lose autofocus with either 1.4X or, especially with 2X. The 18-200mm with a 1.4X would "become" a 25-280mm f/8 combo... or with a 2X it would "become" a 36-400mm f/11. The Canon 60D's AF is "f/5.6 limited", meaning it would not be able to autofocus either of those lens/teleconverter combos. Further, the viewfinder will be dimmed down, especially with the 2X and f/11 combo, making it near impossible to focus manually. (Might be able to use Live View with Exposure Simulation, though it will be slow.)

AND... image quality would also almost certainly suffer noticeably. 18-200mm are not a good type of lens to use with a teleconverter. Broadly speaking, most zooms simply don't work well with teleconverters... Especially wider ranging 10X and greater zooms like the 18-200mm. Prime lenses with less complex optical formulas work better with them. A few zooms are optimized to work with well them too (Canon's 70-200s and 100-400s, for example... there's even a Canon 200-400mm with a built in 1.4X... notice that the range of these zooms aere 3X, 4X and 2X, respectively).

When you want more than 250mm, there just aren't many "cheap" options.

whlsdn Loc: Colorado

Again, thanks everyone! You do keep displaying this group's readiness to help the ill-informed, AND some themes ring pretty consistently throughout the input. alfeng's reply was loaded with tips from the basic "use a tripod" to "look for a used 7-element TC, then resell if you decide to pony-up for a prime telephoto." Another succinct tip was stated well in amfoto1's last sentence quoted below.



Other repeated themes, I think:
> The 1.4x version TC is likely to be more satisfactory, photo quality-wise, than a 2x.
> If I decide to try a TC, the Canon may be the best product, but it will require some other lens than I have in my bag now. robertjerl provided a helpful lens compatibility list that I should have been able to find, but had not.
> With the right lens, Tamron TC can work, according to DWU2's and cmaxi's experience.
> Several happily use Kenko TCs with Canon camera and various appropriate lenses, including TomV, jerryC41, DannyK, and agillot. amfoto1 mentioned Kenko as the one brand that has a TC model that works for EF-S lenses.
> Prime lenses are a much better choice to use with a TC! Or just save up for quality big zoom....an L?
> Shop the used market for good condition TC...or quality zooms or primes. The TCs are durable, and good ones are resellable, should you decide on a different direction. Many happy buyers of used gear here, I think, including myself: Notorious T.O.D., alfeng, amfoto1, JimRPhoto, scooter1. Some, like JimRPhoto prefer to buy used locally in order to inspect personally. I've done that as well as trusted ratings from KEH, BH, and Adorama.
> TomV suggests that TC+lens matched sets work great.

I hope I'm not skipping too many contributors; all comments have been enlightening and appreciated. I"m sure I haven't summarized all useful points. Perhaps the one most concise comment, though, might be amfoto1's To exceed "250mm there aren't many cheap options." - relevant to my specific inquiry.