Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3307 times:
There have been a few topics on this subject.
Every time answered by me saying that I am very happy with my combination of Sigma 70-200/2.8EX(hsm) and 1.4 converter.
usually the Canon white glass users will follow with laughter
Just give it a go Sleekjet and you won't be disappointed what ever the white glass users my say about it.
Of course you can check out my results on A.net
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3285 times:
There is no doubt you will get good results with the Sigma. Equally there is no doubt that you will get excellent results (a lot of the time) with many 3rd party consumer lenses.
The reason for buying a L lens is to get the best possible result in the widest range of conditions. (Note - the same applies to Nikon pro glass).
"L" quality is a combination of factors - glass quality, lens design and lens coatings. A key point of the L range is that all the lenses are matched - ie. they give consistent colour and contrast (within the parameters of the lens design). The Canon convertors are built to the same "L" philosophy and are designed to match the "L" lenses. Sigmas aren't.
So, in practice, in many situations you will get very good results with the Sigma - in some cases these may be indistinguishable from the Canon. However, having paid for an L lens it seems to me to make sense to make sure you can take advantage of its full potential in all situations. "L" glass is about no compromises (including the price!) putting a Sigma convertor on it is effectively throwing away part of the value of the lens.
On a separate note, I'm always a little amused by the use of processed, down sized A.net shots to demonstrate the quality of this or that piece of equipment. Frankly, any old lens is capable of producing decent enough results at A.net resolution. While I've got no beef with people demonstrating what they've done with this or that lens, as a basis for comparision its pointless - and possibly misleading.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3274 times:
The Canon convertors are built to the same "L" philosophy and are designed to match the "L" lenses. Sigmas aren't.
Sorry Colin but this is not correct.
Maybe you are mixing up the Sigma consumer stuff with the EX range.
The EX is the professional line of Sigma, the Canon L competition so to say and does have a dedicated converter which will match with the EX only.
There for the difference in price isn't that big at all.
In case of the 70-200/2.8EX(hsm) you are looking at 200 Euro or so of course compared to the Canon 70-200/2.8L non IS.
I wasn't trying to say the white glass isn't good, it is very good but that doesn't mean something else is bad as you clearly understand.
Just could not resist the temptation to get back on some biased white glass users. hehe
Regards,
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3265 times:
Sorry I wasn't clear - yes, I realize Sigma produces a matched EX range - which are excellent ... indeed, I use a Sigma 14mm EX and think its terrific. However I believe Sleekjet was talking about matching up a Sigma convertor with a Canon 70-200, and I stand by my statement - Sigma convertors of ANY type are not matched to Canon lenses (I'm talking about lens design and coatings, not the mount).
But I dare say that a Sigma EX lens with a Sigma EX convertor might well outperform a Canon lens with an EX convertor.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3263 times:
Yes, those 500 x 340 pixels surely demonstrates the capability of your lens.
Staffan I sure hope you are not serious ? for you that is as it says more about your brain capacity then about the Tamron, sorry...... it came out before I realized it.
Colin you are right about that, a dedicated Sigma converter will not fit a Canon as a dedicated Canon converter will not fit a Sigma.
That's why they are both dedicated.
Thanks Thomas.
Regards,
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3255 times:
"Staffan I sure hope you are not serious ? for you that is as it says more about your brain capacity then about the Tamron, sorry...... it came out before I realized it."
I'm still trying to figure out what you meant with that sentence..
And no, I wasn't being serious. But you seemed so in your first post.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3247 times:
I am sorry Staffan, should not have said it.
Was in doubt already when I wrote it.
Colin and I both in our own way were trying help somebody asking a question and your post didn't add anything to help him or anybody else.
Please use a smiley or something to indicate you are not serious next time.
This way it's confusing people.
Regards,
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
TWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3189 times:
I'm curious about something, would it be better to have a 100-400L or a 70-200L/2.8 with a 1.4x or 2x converter? Would the converter slow the 2.8 lens down too much to where it would be better to go with the 100-400?
Tim
Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
I own a 70-200 f2.8 IS and would only combine this with a 1.4x extender. I find that the 2x does push the parameters a little. I now use a prime lens for the longer reach following the sale of my 100-400.
I recently upgraded to the above from a 700-200 f4 L where I frequently used the 1.4x extender. It gives excellent results without any obviously loss of quality. As Colin describes above, I think to do justice to your L series lens, you have to pay the extra and go for the Canon extender.
For information, the Canon MkII extenders also work on the Sigma EX lenses. I own a 300 f2.8 and it works well in combination.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3161 times:
I would go for the 70-200 with converters Tim.
In my view more flexible the a single 100-400 because on the 70-200 you will have 448mm/4.0 with the 1.4 and 640mm/5.6 with the 2.0 attached.(on Canon 10d)
Earlier in the thread you can see some of my results with a 70-200/2.8 combined with a 1.4 TC. Albeit Sigma(gold) instead of Canon(white).
There is no reason to believe the results with a Canon combo would be different as we all know it's not the lens but the hands in which it rests will make the difference.
Besides why are we talking about Canon white glass in a Sigma thread anyway
Cheers,
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3134 times:
"There is no reason to believe the results with a Canon combo would be different as we all know it's not the lens but the hands in which it rests will make the difference."
Bummer, if I knew that I would have bought that cheap 69 Euro Qnataray 100-300 lens and spent the money on something else. It wouldn't matter, right?
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3107 times:
You knew very well what I meant Tim........ haha
Does the 70-200/2.8L have a red rim ?
I know my old 17-35/2.8L had one as all other L but none white glass but I am not sure about the white Canon glass.
Will have a look at it next time I go shooting with my friend the Canon white glass owner.
Much better Staffan..... of course I was talking about the difference between Sigma gold and Canon Wh....... eh red. and did not make a comparison between those two and some 69,- buck Okinoki.
However given the right circumstances you can make decent shots with a beer bottle attached to the front of your cam......... if you emptied enough before that is
Which is what I am gonna do right now after a day of hard Constellation work.
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3102 times:
Oh... Staffan especially for you I uploaded the Lockheed Constellation image which was published on the Avidrome site.
Not in 500x340 but 1200x800 for you to examine the capabilities of the Tamron !
Of course I do not know if it will be accepted as I don't have "back hand deals" with one of the screeners(referring to another thread )
Anyway it will take some time because I have 500 photographers before me in queue.
Cheers,
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3100 times:
Tim,
One thing that has not been discussed is the possibility of using IS with the Sigma TC. If you upgrade to an IS lens in the future, will the Sigma allow the IS to function? While some seem to think the Sigma TC is just as good, there are others who believe the opposite. Don't skimp now and have to pay out more later to get what you wanted in the first place, and be stuck with the Sigma. Buy the Canon TC and be sure.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3092 times:
I can't wait to see it..
Staffan
25 Aviopic: "work" is in this case an understatement hehe every day after work in the evenings and on Saturday, even now when every body is sitting on there a.. f
27 Timdegroot: Well I can only say I loved my IS this morning at 5.30 Tim
28 LGW: I loved my warm bed at 5.30 this morning Ben Pritchard
29 Aviopic: haha me too Ben So I guess that makes IS developed for shaky old man and restless young man who can't sleep. Willem
30 Staffan: Thanks! Is it just me or does the (F50?) in the hangar in the background not have a windshield? Or is it a paintshop? Staffan
31 Aviopic: It is the former Fokker and now Qaps paintshop staffan, made some shots of the F50 which I will upload when I get home. Won't be before midnight thoug
32 Aviopic: This is what you saw Staffan. Regards, Willem
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2045 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
