Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Opinions On The Sigma 1.4x TC  
User currently offlineSleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2046 posts, RR: 22
Posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5161 times:

I'd rather save money on a 1.4x TC and get the Sigma rather than the Canon for my 70-200 f/4 L. Will I be just as satisfied with the Sigma?


II Cor. 4:17-18
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5105 times:

Have you tried one? I'm sure any reputable dealer will allow you to take a few test shots with both.

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5092 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  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
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


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders



Too cause even more laughter this one is very nice also and made with an Tamron 28-75/2.8 SP/XR-Di
http://www.aviodrome.nl/actueel/projecten/connies-comeback/update-16mei2004.asp
Pretty good too if you ask me although the white glass users would have done a lot better of course. hahaha  Laugh out loud

Regards,
Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5077 times:

Beautiful photos, Willem.

Thomas


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5070 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.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5063 times:

"Too cause even more laughter this one is very nice also and made with an Tamron 28-75/2.8 SP/XR-Di
"


Yes, those 500 x 340 pixels surely demonstrates the capability of your lens.

Staffan


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5059 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  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Regards,
Willem




The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5050 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.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5048 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  Laugh out loud 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
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5040 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.

Staffan


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5032 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
User currently offlineTWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4974 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?  Confused

Tim



Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4978 times:

I think some of Colin's recent SOU work features a 70-200 with a teleconverter. Have a look, and judge for yourself.


It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4967 times:

The 100-400mm L IS loses AF capabilities with either converter.

User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4939 times:

There is an interesting report on the combination of 70-200 with a 2x vs 100-400.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml

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.

Regards
Martin


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4946 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.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Besides why are we talking about Canon white glass in a Sigma thread anyway  Big thumbs up

Cheers,
Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"Albeit Sigma(gold)"

Since when are Sigma's gold? Smile

I think you meant to say Canon red Big grin

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4927 times:

Tim,

What Willem meant was Sigma EX lenses have gold lettering and a gold rim

Ben Pritchard


User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know Ben, that's why I what I meant by Canon red, since all l lenses have the red rim Big grin

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4919 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?  Big grin

Staffan


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4892 times:

You knew very well what I meant Tim........ haha  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
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.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy 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  Big thumbs up

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
User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4884 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Willem didn't know you worked on the connie. Would you have any idea when it will come out to schiphol east?

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4887 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  Smile/happy/getting dizzy )
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
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4885 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.

-Jeff


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4877 times:

I can't wait to see it..  Big grin

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
26 Post contains links and images Aviopic : Here it is Staffan ! View Large View MediumPhoto © Willem Honders Yeeh never thought I had to plug my own images Hee Jeff from an insider I have
27 Post contains images Timdegroot : Well I can only say I loved my IS this morning at 5.30 Tim
28 Post contains images LGW : I loved my warm bed at 5.30 this morning Ben Pritchard
29 Post contains images 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 Post contains images Aviopic : This is what you saw Staffan. Regards, Willem
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Info Help And Opinions On The 5 Engine! posted Fri Apr 28 2006 06:32:44 by NIKV69
My Thoughts On The Sigma 80-400mm OS Lens (Nikon). posted Tue Dec 13 2005 21:49:48 by Yanqui67
Opinions On The Following Photos? posted Sat Mar 26 2005 09:11:47 by CallMeCapt
Opinions On The Canon 28-300 L Is Lens posted Fri Jun 25 2004 11:46:36 by Paulianer
Opinions On The Upload Limit? posted Fri Apr 23 2004 06:06:13 by JeffM
Shutter Lag And Opinions On The Olympus 740? posted Thu Dec 4 2003 00:37:33 by Jasonwinn
Opinions On The LS443? posted Tue Jul 22 2003 20:37:11 by Flightlevel
Opinions On The Nikon Coolpix 5700 posted Mon Jul 7 2003 18:10:18 by Manzoori
Seeking Opinions On The Following Photos... posted Sat Aug 25 2001 23:52:09 by Brownphoto
Need Opinions On A Photo In The Que.... posted Fri Jan 6 2006 21:38:03 by Linco22