-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
New Sigma 150/600 contemporary (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Paul - Herts
- Start date
hosesbroadbill
Well-known member
So is it safe to assume that the close focus distance is 40% farther away with the 1.4 extender on? Or is there some other formula that I do not know?
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
No, the MFD does not change when using a converter. This is why folk sometimes use a 1.4x tc with a macro lens - at the MFD without the extender you get 1:1 but add an extender and you get 1.4:1
Last edited:
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
See my post above Isaac - converters do not effect the MFD
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Isaac, I have just been out in my garden trying the siggy hand held at 600mm with the 1.4x tc attached and it was auto focusing very well considering it is at f9. I tried switching from a near target to a far one and visa-verse and it latched onto to everything except the light coloured garden fence which had zero contrast (even the bare lens would have struggled with it). From an IQ point I suspect that my combo needs a bit of AFMA (similar to my 400/5.6 + the same converter which requires -7). I would never use this combo hand held as previously mentioned but thought I would give it a whirl just to see the AF performance. It is obviously slower than the bare lens but providing the AF is very roughly in the right area it AF'd surprisingly quickly.
I just had a thought, you were not using spot AF were you? you have to be careful with spot AF because sometimes the AF area is so small that it lacks contrast - using a 1.4x tc would make this even more critical.
I just had a thought, you were not using spot AF were you? you have to be careful with spot AF because sometimes the AF area is so small that it lacks contrast - using a 1.4x tc would make this even more critical.
Last edited:
the black fox
Well-known member
i have seen reports from elsewhere re the sigma 1.4 tc not working correctly while the canon ones are fine ,and that was on the sports lens .time will tell but it does seem there are issues with it
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
That could explain it then Jeff :t:
hosesbroadbill
Well-known member
I did you spot focus (1 focus point). So you suggest using zone? I will try that.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
No, not zone but just a single AF point. Spot AF and single point AF are two different things (the spot focus covers a lot smaller area so there is more chance of less contrast).
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Had the lens for a week now but still have not got anything decent from it yet. Not that it is necessarily anything to do with the lens but more to do with the shooting conditions (I hope!). I have either been hindered by not getting close enough or by poor lighting conditions (too bright, back lit, or side lit.....). I think I will need to get to the local duck pond or even to snap some captive stuff to test it out.
Attached couple of garden shots have shown me that the lens has promise at least!.
Attached couple of garden shots have shown me that the lens has promise at least!.
Attachments
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Some light at the end of the Tunnel at last B 
. I took some shots in the garden this more to try out shooting at less than 600mm. It was overcast so even light (although I had to use ISO 1600).
Chaffy at 516mm and Goldie at 500mm both f8 and cropped heavily (both just 24% of the original frame). Quite pleased with the detail.
. I took some shots in the garden this more to try out shooting at less than 600mm. It was overcast so even light (although I had to use ISO 1600). Chaffy at 516mm and Goldie at 500mm both f8 and cropped heavily (both just 24% of the original frame). Quite pleased with the detail.
Attachments
hosesbroadbill
Well-known member
Tried the 1.4x again in sun and plenty of contrast. Performance was very bad. I took it out of spot focus and still worked a very small percentage of the time. Have it packed up and being sent back to store for a refund. Will wait to see if others get any good results with it (maybe I got a bad copy) or with the Canon version. Mostly in theory I do not think I would use it. If it has to be on a tripod and is so moody then it is not something I would put to too much use anyway.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Very strange why the Sigma converter seems so poor against the Canon one. Having said that even with AF at f8 these days, f5.6 is still the magic number when it comes to really good IQ and fast AF with converters. So with a 1.4x tc a f4 (or faster) lens is really needed. With a 2x tc a f2.8 lens works really well.
Bearing in mind how slow the Siggy is f6.3 to start with I am amazed how well the lens AF's with a Canon converter (takes it to f9). I have not had a real try to see how the IQ is with a converter but I would expect it to take a big IQ hit although it could be useful for record shots of a distant rarity I guess.
Some f5.6 lenses like the 400/5.6 do take a converter reasonable well but there is a hit on IQ and AF speed for sure.
the black fox
Well-known member
To be honest Roy on the sports it doesn't slow it down or infringe on the I.q to much at all with the canon one ,but it does add to the weight pushing it just to far for comfort .that however is with my 1d3 ,how it would perform on a 7d2 is as yet unknown
hosesbroadbill
Well-known member
I could not get a single in focus shot with the converter. Either it was a bad copy or I have no clue how to use it properly. Maybe will try the Canon one day.
Here are 2 more taken in the late day sun. Common birds but just to show details
A Northern Mockingbird
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17337288295/in/photostream/
An American Robin
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17335203912/in/photostream/
Here are 2 more taken in the late day sun. Common birds but just to show details
A Northern Mockingbird
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17337288295/in/photostream/
An American Robin
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/17335203912/in/photostream/
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Yep, I have also found that on the 'C' I was surprised just how good the AF was with the Canon 1.4x tc MkII considering it is at f9 .
I have still to test out the IQ with the set-up but as the 'C' is supposed to be optically the same as the 'S' I am hoping it could be usable (may well need some AFMA thought).
With the 'C' of course the extra weight is of little consequence but if I did start to use the tc I would almost certainly use it on a tripod anyway. I know a lot of folks hate using tripods but I am a great fan, especially with long lenses and could well end up using one at times even at 600mm.
Last edited:
Nick Leech
Well-known member
Roy - you say "the 'C' is supposed to be optically the same as the 'S'". Where have you seen that? Is that opinions of shooters on the net, or have Sigma actually said this?
I am reluctant to pay extra for the 'S' and put up with the extra weight if it is no better optically than the 'C'.
Looking on the net myself on this topic, the only remarks I can find on IQ comparisons 'S' versus 'C' seem to indicate that IQ in the edges of the frame are better on the 'S', but you wouldn't see this anyway on an APS-C camera.
I am reluctant to pay extra for the 'S' and put up with the extra weight if it is no better optically than the 'C'.
Looking on the net myself on this topic, the only remarks I can find on IQ comparisons 'S' versus 'C' seem to indicate that IQ in the edges of the frame are better on the 'S', but you wouldn't see this anyway on an APS-C camera.
the black fox
Well-known member
Nick and Roy , I think that with a aps.c camera as long as you keep your aperture smaller than f8 your not going to see much difference between the two models ,however with larger sensors and/or shooting at larger apertures then the sport will give better overall performance .as Nick saw last week I have no trouble personally using and hand holding the S. But I,m a big bloke .
Looking at some tests done earlier this week by another forum member using a 5d3-v- a 7d2 the I.q from the former shone through which makes me wonder about going full frame as well ,I have long been under the impression that the crop sensor format is purely a optical illusion and you in fact gain very little from it even after cropping ,and probably why I,m hesitant to use the 70d
Looking at some tests done earlier this week by another forum member using a 5d3-v- a 7d2 the I.q from the former shone through which makes me wonder about going full frame as well ,I have long been under the impression that the crop sensor format is purely a optical illusion and you in fact gain very little from it even after cropping ,and probably why I,m hesitant to use the 70d
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Nick, unless anyone has both lenses at their disposal, microadjusted to the same Camera and tested in controlled conditions the only way you can compare is by Sigma's own MTF charts which measure the optical performance.
Disregarding the 150mm end of the zoom (which for some unknown reason the C is best). The S is certainly better in the corners but for anyone using a crop Camera or if you use a FF and crop in processing it does not matter a lot as you know.
If you look at 600mm the charts for the centre zone shows that wide open there is hardly anything to choose between them. Both improve a lot at f8 but the S has a small advantage for sure.
With 600mm (especially on a crop Camera) a very small difference in atmospheric conditions or long lens technique can easily offset any small advantage that a lens has. If you compare say the relatively cheap S to a top notch lens like the 600/4 then it is not in the same ballpark given equal conditions but if you shoot the Siggy in good atmospheric conditions and the 600/4 is not so good conditions the Siggy could well out perform the much more expensive lens.
There is no doubt that the S has better build quality and is wethersealed, it also has a closer MFD, If I could manage the weight then I would certainly have gone for the Sport as I am prepared to pay more for the small IQ gain.
If money and the extra weight is of no concern and you want the absolute best optical performance then the S is the better lens and you should go for it.
hosesbroadbill
Well-known member
I think that is extremely well put Roy. The problem that I see between the 2 lenses is that I have yet to see really sharp shots coming from the optically better S. Only thing that makes sense to me is that it is due to the weight. And I know this is a very controversial issue here. But the proof is in the shots. The S shots are just not as sharp as they should be. I just did a flickr search as well and checked 2 groups of only S shots. One soft shot after another. The only other option that makes sense to me is that these are all shots from people new to using long and heavy zooms that go out to 600mm. Maybe with time their technique will improve and so will the shots.
Similar threads
