[jmdeegan]

A teleconverter + 50-135, or the 50-300?

I have been wanting longer glass for a while. Not bigma long, but longer than 200mm allows. When I was at my local shop a few months back, they suggested the TC, since even though I'd lose some stops, the da* is damn sharp, and would be likely as sharp as any budget friendly long glass.

So....would you opt for one of the Kenko TCs (they seem to be recommended a lot)...or would you spend 3 or 4 times as much and add a whole seperate lens to the bag?

I like the idea of spending less and burning less space....even if it means I am not getting quite the same distance.

Curious to hear some thoughts

[NeverSatisfied]

I have the 50-135 and use it with a Tamron 1.4 TC. Image quality is degraded very little but the AF can sometimes be a little slow to lock on, or sometimes the lens works quite hard trying to lock focus. For most subjects it's fine but when using that combo for my son's soccer game it was problematic.
Anyway if using a 1.4 TC or 1.5 you're at about ~190mm. I was really wishing for a 70-200/2.8 for the soccer. Looking forward to the Sigma or Tamron to become available. But as for birds / wildlife, I had tried the Sigma 100-300/f4 and at times even that wasn't long enough for birding. Although the image quality was quite good. BUT, that is one helluva big heavy lens. You'll appreciate at least a monopod with that one. Don't know if any of that helps but good luck with your choice.

[thePiRaTE!!]

Just a thought that with the DA* and TC your starting to get up there in size and weight and still really haven't got much reach. I only ever thought of getting a TC to extend long teles to extremes where size and cost are extreme to match. If it were me, I'd get the 50-135 and the DA* 300 for the long shots Keep your speed up & size down while maintaining maximum IQ.

OTOH, what I really did was get a Voigtlander 180/4. Its tiny, sharp, comparatively inexpensive and close-focus too. Depends on what you need it for I guess.

[ftpaddict]

Hard call. I'd probably go for the 50-135. When you don't need the reach, you've got top-notch quality AND constant f/2.8!

The 55-300 is nothing to sneeze at though.

[Buddha Jones]

Def the 55-300mm since you are wanting 200+ in your reach. The IQ from the posted images is really nice and the TC on the 50-135mm isnt going to get you where you want to be, it would be just an appetizer for what you really want.

[zx-m]

Actually, I would choose neither. I would go with two or three primes.

[jmdeegan]

well to clarify, I do already have the 50-135.

Was just trying to figure if I could add one TC to get what I wanted, or better adding a lens.

Sounds like the lens is the way to go, and the 50-300 looks gorgeous, sounds like its a similar footprint as the 50-200...hard to beat.