Canon 300mm II & Sigma 120-300mm OS (1 Viewer)

Well, that was somewhat inconclusive...

No birds around - or at any rate nothing worth pointing a camera at when the light was so bad that I sometimes struggled to get over 1/100 at 1250 ISO and f/2.8, but some early thoughts pending a proper trip out.

Build quality is stellar - no other way to put it. The lens hood is rather light plastic though, and given the price of a replacement (something like £150!), I'll be taking good care of it!

The image stablilisation is fantastic. I'm a big fan of IS/OS/VR, and although I've always been happy enough with the IS in the 100-400mm, the Siggy's is much, much better - I can completely believe it's 4 stops' worth.

The lens is hefty (at a bit over 6 lbs, twice the weight of the 100-400mm), but it's balanced on the 7D + grip, and definitely "doable" handheld, especially without a TC: it works nicely, suspended from my Op/Tech sling strap with neoprene shoulder pad, and comes to the eye quickly and without any problem. I don't see that using it like this for extended periods in the field will be problematic.

Sharp, sharp, sharp! It's unquestionably sharper than my 100-400mm (which most people seem to regard as a pretty good 'un) by a worthwhile amount: even at f/2.8, the stuff I shot instead of birds is grin-inducingly sharp. I'm very happy about the sharpness.

Contrast and colour are also really nice - definitely different to the 100-400mm, with a "quality" look to them. Liking this very much too.

It probably goes without saying that the bokeh at wider apertures is nice, but I'll say it anyway.

So all the IQ stuff is bang on, then.

AF is really fast and accurate at 300mm (without a TC): I didn't get the sense that it's going to get me umpteen images I wouldn't otherwise achieve, but it's better than the 100-400mm, as you'd expect. How much so is open to more testing.

Now then: there are a couple of things I need to come back to...

AF with a TC (I started with my non-reporting Kenko 1.5x, moving later to the reporting Kenko 1.4x) was good, and - I think - better at 450mm/420mm than the 100-400mm, but not night-and-day better (I didn't expect it to be massively better though, so this isn't a problem).

I did however get a couple of Error 01s (Lens/camera communication problem) with the Kenko TCs in the loop - both times when I was waving the lens about trying to keep up with ducking-and-diving gulls and pigeons - which makes me think that the heft of the lens is a bit much for these TCs when things are getting hectic.

No problems with just the camera and lens though, and I've tried to reproduce it back in the house with my Canon 1.4x, and it hasn't happened - I might think about picking up a Sigma 1.4x though. I'll also double check that all the screws on the Kenkos are good and tight, and that the contacts are good and clean.

The only other "revelation" of the day is that while the zoom dial is butter smooth, its placement on the lens (just where your hand is when shooting handheld) means it is very easy to zoom out without realising, and because the "throw" from 300mm down to 120mm is quite short (which is a good thing, of course) I did find unintentionally myself at the wider end once or twice. This isn't helped by the fact that the dial goes clockwise (as you look at it) from wide to full zoom.

I'll get used to it, but I might put an elastic band on the body to make this less likely.

All in all I think I've got a winner here, and I'll give it a proper shake-down at the weekend.

It sounds good so far, I'd be interested to see some real world shots with it.

I'd also be interested to see which 2X teleconverter you're going to get (I'm assuming you'll get one won't you?). The Sigma? The updated Kenko DGX? The Canon MK3?

I'm looking forward to seeing some bird shots from you with this lens Keith... though it does already sound promising.

Looking forward to seeing your early results Keith, although this thread has added a further dilema to my upgrade options!!!!

Richard

I'm really looking forward to getting out with it.

Processed (and with less than my usual amount of sharpening) the test shots I took are about the sharpest things I've ever seen. I took a snap of a church a couple of hundred yards away from where I was, in grotty, grotty light (handheld at 420 or 450mm, 1250 ISO and f/2.8 - and a lowish shutter speed) and with a little bit of Smart Sharpen I can't imagine how it could be sharper.

And as I suggest up-thread, the colour and contrast are noticeably different, and better than, the 100-400mm too.

Sigma 120 300 F2.8

Hi Keith
I am glad you are pleased with your lens I know I am with mine , having bought one at the bird fair . I use a Canon x2 converter on mine . the AF hunts a bit in poor light but have attached a few shots taken at 600mm .

John

John-those SE Owls are great especially the last one. Were they with a 7D?

I've just picked up a Siggy EX 1.4x from MPB Photographic (for half the new price).

It has occured to me that - maybe - the reason why my Canon TC didn't throw an Error 01 wobbler whereas both Kenkos did, is that the protruding front element on the Canon TC that butts into the recess at the base of the lens might provide additional rigidity and stability.

I have to assume it's there for some reason!



The Sigma TC has a similar (though shorter) protuberance, so - given the (marketing?) assurances Sigma give about the compatibility and function of their lenses withtheir TCs - I expect that this will sort out the Error 01 at 420mm.

If so, and if IQ holds up, I'll probably sell the Canon and Kenko 1.4x and 1.5x TCs to fund a Siggy or Canon 2x (whichever's cheaper).

I'm always of the opinion that when possible (ie if money permits) one should match like for like. So a Canon TC for a Canon lens and a Sigma TC for a Sigma lens. That way if anything untoward should happen then the powers that be can't make a convenient scapegoat out of a differently branded TC.

Adrian used a Sigma 2xTC with his Siggy prime happily for a good number of years so I believe optically they are sound. Otherwise Keith it'd be a Kenko 2x you'd be looking at for similar money to the Sigma.

john britten - are those owl shots cropped to any great degree?

As for sigma teleconverters, the 1.4 is pretty much identical (in performance) to the canon 1.4MII - whilst the 2*TCs compare very similarly, but the sigma is closer to 1.95 than 2. This, however, really only shows up if you are comparing them side by side; in the field the difference is so slight as to be not worth worrying about.

As a general principle Adam you are right. The situation is slightly different when the lens and camera are not made by the same manufacturer.

I have used the Sigma 2x teleconverter and by a whisker it is sharper than my Kenko but my Sigma converter seems to be more hit and miss with IQ. On occasions there appears to be a slight flaring/bleaching in high contrast areas e.g. the head of a bird against a sky may bleach out a bit and other areas show chromatic aberation (CA). My old 2X Kenko seems to be more consistent and whilst by a whisker it is not quite as sharp it does sharpen up quite well and shows less CA. It could be that my Sigma converter has suffered as a result of being dropped a couple of times.

What would I do if I were in Kieths position? Well here is where I depart from the general principle. I would without hesitation go for the Canon 2XMkIII. The reason being, I know that others have tried the combination with success, I have seen full size images with the combination and I have tried the converter on my 300f2.8 prime. It is my belief it will deliver slightly sharper images with better contrast than any other converter and when I tried the converter in very low light the lens focused quickly (I'm guessing, not because of the electronics which are designed for Canon's new lenses but because the marginal difference in image quality and less chromatic aberation enabling a cleaner transmission of light). However this was not a measured teast so my perception may have been wrong. Having said that , If the Canon was out of my financial reach I'd get the cheapest and then not look over my shoulder once purchase made. Also I believe it is easier to clean the glass on the Canon converter.

Each image below taken with Kenko 2X Converter (which does not report focal length) Canon 40D Sigma 300f2.8EX =600mmFL.

1. Short eared owl taken on a very dull and foggy cold day , f5.6 ISO800, 1/320sec 70% crop or thereabouts
2. Short eared owl when light gone...strong evening breeze, f5.6 ISO640 , 1/100 sec full frame.
3. Peregrine falcon in flight , hand held f5.6 ISO800, 1/1000 sec 50% crop or thereabouts.
4. Dunnock f7.1 ISO500, 1200 sec 50% crop exact.

Processed by an idiot with Adobe Elements II.

Upshot, the Kenko does a pretty decent job even in low light. I took many shots of the owl down to 1/30th sec and they are sharp or more correctly they reveal sufficient detail. I'm sure a new Sigma will do the same.

The Canon Mk III 2x is too rich for my blood, Adrian - unless I win the lottery or something..!



(I'm certainly not complaining, but I "only" won enough this time round to fund the lens, I'm afraid).

Hi Keith

I've used Canon x2 mkII and mkIII TCs on my Siggy 120-300os and find there to be no great difference between the AF speed or images away from the extremes.

I tend not to be able to fill the frame anyway so often use centre point focussing and the Canon x2 mk II is very sharp in this region. That said, I could not justify keeping both and sold the Canon x2 mk II.

In short, you could do a lot worse than getting a used version of the Canon x2 mk II if funds do not stretch to the mk III.

Happy shooting.

Gary

Yeah, the Mk II 2x is most likely. Again, I'd rather fund it by offloading some other TCs, so I'll compare the Sigma 1.4x against the Canon Mk II 1.4x tomorrow, to see which one stays and which one - along with my Kenkos - goes.

It's funny though: although the idea of a 600mm f/5.6 appeals immensely, I'm happy enough with a 420mm f/4 for most of my photography, and as long as I can figure out the best 1.4x I'll be happy enough.

I had hoped that stacking two 1.4xs would do the job, but the Error 01s (given that I'd need to use at least one Kenko for this - don't think I can stack the Canon and Siggy TCs) seem to have put the kybosh on that option.

Dear Keith

Looking at your images, you obviously are more stealthy than me and get closer to your subjects. I tend to need the full 600 mm.

I doubt you will see any difference between the aforementioned x1.4 TCs. Look forward to your conclusion though.

Best wishes.

Gary

Aye, in pure IQ terms I'd be happy with any of 'em, Gary - even the non-reporting Kenko 1.5x has given me some cracking sharp stuff with my 100-400mm.

It's the Error 01 thing I want to put to bed, which is why at the moment my Canon 1.4x is sitting between lens and camera, and tomorrow will see the Siggy TC given a chance to prove itself.

Hmph!

The Sigma 1.4x doesn't work at all with any camera or lens I've got...

Ah well - the Canon TC is fine, so I'll be pointing the gear at some birds in anger tomorrow.

Hi Keith How old is the Sigma 1.4x ?

The Owl shots where taken with a 7D and cropped to about 50%. Here a a few shots taken in Spain at 600mm using a canon x2 MK II converter. I have used a Kenko 1.4 Pro 300 with no trouble.

John

Tectortony said:

Hi Keith How old is the Sigma 1.4x ?

Click to expand...

Dunno, Tony - it was bought used a couple of days ago from MPB Photographic.

Looks new though, and it's the later "EX" TC, so (I think) it should be compatible with the lens.

Not the end of the world though - I'll get a refund or a replacement from MPB and have another go.

I have to say that there's an obvious difference in build quality and materials between the Canon and Sigma TCs on the one hand and the Kenkos on the other: the former TCs are a lot more robust, so - assuming MPB can get a working Siggy to me - I reckon I'll be good to go.

John, I've not written off the Kenkos yet - in IQ terms I've got a lot of time for them - but the Error 01s have given me pause for thought. When I took a screwdriver to them though, all of the screws took at least another quarter-turn of tightening, so that might be enough to make the difference. They'll get another chance.