sigma 100-300f 4 + sigma 2x TC .. anyone using them? anyone withsample shots?

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by s, Jun 12, 2005.

  1. s

    s Guest

    I have the 100-300 and i'm contemplating getting the 2x TC, but would be
    interested to find out what image quality is like first.

    Anyone here have and shots taken with this combo?
     
    s, Jun 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. s

    Jeff R Guest

    In my experience, teleconverters are the "digital zoom" of the SLR set.
    I keep trying them, but am yet to find one that works any better than just
    enlarging the image.

    YMMV
     
    Jeff R, Jun 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. s

    s Guest

    I'm hoping i can see some examples before i commit. A google search
    didn't turn up much other than discussions.
     
    s, Jun 12, 2005
    #3
  4. s

    Mick Brown Guest

     
    Mick Brown, Jun 12, 2005
    #4
  5. s

    Henrik Tived Guest

    TC's are nice to have if you know their shortcommings and are willing to
    compromise, I don't have this specific combination that you are looking for,
    but the Canon 1.4xII and 2xII, well on some they work better then on others.
    I would not use the 2xII on my 70-200LIS 2.8 but it performs aceptable on a
    300f/2.8LIS and I have been told it does so on the longer primes.

    however they do at times come in handy :) sort of contradiction oneself
    here ;-)

    Henrik
     
    Henrik Tived, Jun 12, 2005
    #5
  6. s

    Ryadia@home Guest

    Is your lens a 100~300 f4.5 or f4.0?
    Generally 2x converters are designed for telephoto lenses, not zoom lenses.
    Henrik is right in what he sais about them. I wouldn't use a 2x converter on
    any lens under 300mm and certainly not on a zoom lens. Of course which lens
    you have is vital to what results you can expect.

    If you have the f4.5 lens and use it only at 300 mm (like a prime lens) then
    OK maybe the 2x converter will work with passable results. Keep in mind the
    auto focus on this lens is just average to start with so it will degrade big
    time with a 2x converter. I found on the one I had, I got best results from
    it locked at 300 mm and manually focusing it.:
    http://www.tecphoto.com.au/pelican.htm for some results.

    I didn't post the results from a 2x Sigma converter on the lens because
    frankly, they were pretty poor quality and I was after all trying to sell
    the lens! From 30 shots with a 2x converter, I got one usable and 29 either
    out of focus (birds moving too fast) or sever vignetting which is the most
    common problem when you use a 2x converter on a short lens. I returned the
    converter for a refund.

    The Sigma 2x is about $450 compared to under $300 for a kenko and over $600
    for a Canon. Oddly enough, there is not much difference in the results from
    all of them on short lenses but on a 400 or 500 prime, you'd kill the
    vignetting and get some reasonable results... IMO. Just don't expect
    exceptional results.

    Douglas
     
    Ryadia@home, Jun 12, 2005
    #6
  7. s

    s Guest

    f4.0 (as noted in the subject).
    If i could afford it, i'd go for a 300mm+ telephoto, but the price of a
    TC + zoom is < $2000 while super tele photo lens seem to be at least $2000.
     
    s, Jun 13, 2005
    #7
  8. s

    Ryadia@home Guest

    Considering the compexity of a Zoom lens... There must be a reason a simpler
    fixed length lens is more expensive. Hmmm. It might come to me in a moment!

    Douglas
     
    Ryadia@home, Jun 13, 2005
    #8
  9. s

    Jeff R Guest


    Demand-supply-quantity.

    Nothing to do with technical difficulty nor complexity.
     
    Jeff R, Jun 13, 2005
    #9
  10. s

    ww Guest

    buy it from hongkong
    got mine with a 1.4x convertor for $950US quite a saving
     
    ww, Jun 13, 2005
    #10
  11. s

    Henrik Tived Guest

    Hi Doug,

    don't be evil :) i can think of around 10.000 reasons :)

    Henrik
     
    Henrik Tived, Jun 13, 2005
    #11
  12. s

    Henrik Tived Guest

    Hi Jeff,

    what happend to Quality? isn't that an issue that could move the price
    point??

    Henrik
     
    Henrik Tived, Jun 13, 2005
    #12
  13. s

    Jeff R Guest


    Sure.
    Marginally, perhaps. The "Chinese-import" issue of the last 10 years or so
    has conclusively shown that the buying public is *much* more concerned with
    price than with quality.

    ....and while I'm ranting...

    I still (occasionally) use my Pentax Spotmatic. $119 in [I think] 1970. Its
    in perfect mechanical order (beaten up cosmetically, though.)

    I *love* my 2005 *1st, but I seriously doubt if it will still be working in
    2040.
    or 2030
    or 2020
    I *hope* it'll still work in 2010, 'though I'm not holding my breath.

    Its just as well its "disposable".

    </rant>

    --
    Jeff R.

     
    Jeff R, Jun 13, 2005
    #13
  14. s

    s Guest

    Presumably quality, but unless you're prepared to fund the purchases,
    i'm limited by my budget.

    Thanks anyway .. i'll do some investigating of my own ..
     
    s, Jun 13, 2005
    #14
  15. s

    Henrik Tived Guest

    Hi Jeff,

    there is nothing wrong with old - we both one day will get old too :), if
    we are lucky enough ;-)

    So, Australien! these days! At least IMHO! sad!

    Henrik
     
    Henrik Tived, Jun 14, 2005
    #15
  16. Nope. But I have used it with the 1.4x sigma: very good. No appreciable (ie.
    on-screen or in A4-A3 prints) degradation. I'd assume the same from most of
    the 1.4x TCs (except maybe the Tamron - interesting test on 4 TCs on the
    70-200f2.8IS
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13859754 ).

    Remember that with the 2x you'll be at f8, which is above the AF on all by
    the 1 series bodies. Sure you can beat the system but unless you're always
    outside in great light, AF will suffer a lot and hunt regularly (probably).
    I've had little/no problem with AF at the lens + 1.4x (= f5.6). IMHO putting
    the 2x on the lens turns it from a stellar performer (best in its category
    by a mile) into an average performer. Using the 1.4x though I think is worth
    the tradeoff since there seems little difference - the lens is *that* good.

    Robert
     
    Robert McArthur, Jun 14, 2005
    #16
  17. s

    s Guest

    Thanks, i might ponder the 1.4x. I'm aware of the loss of AF at F8, but
    not sure yet whether that will bother me. I'm guessing it will..
    I've been happy with mine so far, although i haven't much chance to use
    it. No complaints optically, not 100% sold on the ergonomics of the lens
    though .. zooming is a bit awkward.
     
    s, Jun 17, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.