Is a teleconverter lens worth purchasing?

I have a Nikon DSLR camera and was considering purchasing a good telephoto lens. (Which can be very pricey) I found a teleconverter lens for a decent price and was wondering of its worth it? The lens I would use it with is as follows:

Nikon DX
AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 G
VR

Any recommendations would be helpful.

When you turn 55mm f5.6 to 110mm f11, it won't autofocus.

You need to do more research.

* teleconverters eat light, form one stop to two (1.4x or 2.0x)
* teleconverters can't auto-focus lenses that are slower than f/4
* teleconverters come in various levels of quality. Nikkor teleconverters cost from $400 to over $500 and are limited for use with very specific lenses… See source below.
* inexpensive teleconverters might fit your lens, but it may not do what you want.

I suggest that you just save your pennies until you can afford the Nikkor 55-200 mm lens and be done with it.

You will lose speed because of the smaller aperture you're going to have with those converters. It will affect you while shooting in low light. You should read the cons and pros before you go for that. It's not worth it if you are only going to use it with a kit lense like yours.

Well here we go again. Everybody should buy a DSLR camera without considering the cost of lenses. Well you are not alone. This site really does a disservice to those that think a 18-55mm lens that comes with most DSLR cameras is "all" they need! This site gives the novice the impression that a nice DSLR will solve all their photographic challenges. Even I was surprised that when I re-entered the inchangable lens type camera, that the digital cameras could not focus close enough to photograph a 5x7 area, like 35mm film camera were able to do. Be it a photograph to be copied or a flower. So a macro lens was a necessity for me to purchase.
Now back to the "meat" of your question: A tele-convertor lens is just a piece of junk, period. I hate to be unkind, but that is a fact. You do not buy a DSLR and sink about $600.00 into the body and the short zoom and then look for the cheapest lens you can attach to the camera.

My serious advice to you is either understand that a DSLR is a money pit of sorts and lenses are the items that make photography known to be very expensive. So your choice is to "save" for that special lens until you can afford it. Even I with 45 + years in professional photography and being retired find myself "saving" for my next lens.
Or at last resort sell your e DSLR and purchase a quality "bridge" camera like the Canon Powershot SX50 IS or the Pentax XG-1 which both sell in the neighborhood of $400.00 each. I have promoted good bridge cameras as their zoom lens is capable of quality 11x14 size prints and the zoom lens can handle everything from macro (close-ups of flowers and other small items) to distant scenics brought in close.
One interesting note, you can't tell if a small 4x6 print will make a quality 11x14, unless you try it. And many neighborhood places make great 11x14's for only about $4.00 each
The 55-to-200mm lens, recommended by "fhotoace" was also the first lens I purchased for my Pentax DSLR to expand my photographic possibilities. As it turned out I added a Tiffen Warm Soft/FX-3 filter and now have agreat portrait lens also!
Good Luck which ever way you go ( except teleconvertor lenses, of course)!

These days, teleconverters are not really the best choice. Considering you can buy a refurbished Nikon AF-S 55-200mm f/4~5.6G for under $120, there's really no reason to buy a teleconverter.

The lens will have double the focal length even a 2x converter would have, and vastly outperform your 18-55mm with teleconverter.

In fact, Nikon designed the 55-200mm lens to complement your 18-55mm lens.

Here is a source for such a refurbished lens:

http://robertscamera.com/refurbs/af-s-dx-vr-zoom-nikkor-55-200mm-f-4-5-6g-if-ed-refurbished.html

If you don't need VR, you can lower that cost to under $90:

http://robertscamera.com/refurbs/af-s-dx-zoom-nikkor-55-200mm-f-4-5-6g-ed-refurbished.html

I would not even hesitate to buy a refurbished lens, especially the 55-200mm VR version which is almost a 50% discount from retail. They are more or less new lenses, they just can't be sold as new. They have been looked over and repaired if necessary by Nikon. Of the 17 lenses I have, 4 or 5 of them were refurbished, and other than being in a plain brown box, you can't tell a refurbished lens from a new one.

I did have one dud refurbished lens once, but the dealer promptly exchanged it for a good one.

They also have a 90 day warranty from Nikon.

A refurbished lens is going to be your best/low cost solution.

Here is a review of that lens:

http://www.althephoto.com/lenses/con-telephoto.php