I have a Tamron 28-200mm for my Canon. Is something like this worth it, or should I just save my money for a true 300mm leans ?

Rich - I have something like this, but mine is a 1.75X tele converter. It is made by Canon for Canon lens. It screws onto the front of the lens and yes it does provide extra tele length. You can also purchase additional mounts to use on a point and shoot canon camera. I can use mine on my Canon A620. Is it worth the price? To be real honest, for my P&S yes it is worth it. But on the SLR it is a pain in the A to screw on the adapter when needed, and to have to carry around the extra gear, it would be much quicker to have the real lens. The lines produced at the 300mm range are OK there is a slight curve, but would not be good for pro quality work. If you wish to capture the mating habits of the June Bug in flight, get the real thing. If you just wish to just play, for $40 some dollars you will not be disappointed.

I don't know this telephoto, but I can say that this kind of lens often gives big distortions. Not the same with your 1.75x teleconverter, Jerry, in my opinion...

Pierre - yes your are right distortions with this type of lens. To use this 2.2X type of add on on a 200mm lens would create a spherical or a Horizontal distortion at the least. Using the 1.75X on a 30mm P&S camera like my Canon A620 produces some distortion, but it is not as noticeable. For a $40 price tag it is fun to play with. For serious photography I would buy the more expensive 200mm lens. Rereading my comment above, I guess I should edit my mistake of 300mm to 30mm. I plan on experimenting with the lens reversal adapter on this converter, but I think I will need a bellows extension and some cooperative bugs to experiment with.

Rich, Sigma makes 2 lenses you may want to consider. There's an image stabilized 120-400 4.5-5.6 for $850 and a non stabilized but better quality 100-300/f4 for $1200. A 300mm prime is a great lens but used mostly for stealthy bird shots and sports. A zoom is slightly lesser in quality, but far less expensive, and way more flexible in terms of shot selection.

Thanx everyone for the input...I guess that's kinda what I figured, but the cheapskate me in me was looking for a way around an entirely new lens!!

;-)

Rich

No biggie Rich. Maybe this thread can be of use to someone else in the future.