Hello everyone, I hope no one has asked this, but I'll ask anyway. I'm hesitating over buying the Sigma 300mm 2.8 and 2x converter to use on a Canon 350D. I have a Sigma 135-400 but it just aint long enough. If anyone else has or had my my dilemma, any pointers, or aternatives?
-
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.
Which lens? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter malc1
- Start date
mike from ebbw
Well-known member
hi there malc.a very warm welcome to the birdforum.why not just try a 1.5x converter on the sigma zoom.this will give you plenty of reach and providing it is f5.6 or less you will retain all lens functions.mike.
Hi Malc and welcome to BF
The Sigma 300 f2.8 is a very nice lens and works well with both 1.4x and 2x tcs (giving 420 F4 or 600 f5.6), though you will se a slight softening when using it with the 2x. Another option would be the Sigma 120-300 f2.8, this also works well with both tcs and give excellent image quality.
The Sigma 300 f2.8 is a very nice lens and works well with both 1.4x and 2x tcs (giving 420 F4 or 600 f5.6), though you will se a slight softening when using it with the 2x. Another option would be the Sigma 120-300 f2.8, this also works well with both tcs and give excellent image quality.
mike from ebbw
Well-known member
well i have the sigma 400mm 5.6 lens,which is a few years old now, and when using the converter i retain all functions.i am talking about the kenko 1.5x converter and not the pro version (no need to tape the pins).if you tried the 2x you will more than likely lose autofocus as it is 2 stops slower instead of 1 stop like the 1.5x (i have both).i have seen them go on ebay for £30-£40.a lot cheaper than shelling out for a new lens!is there any way of you trying one out in your local camera shop?
malc1 said:
I have tried using a TC on the Sigma 135-400 and it gives very disppointing results. In really good light it will AF, though it still hunts a bit, as soon as the light starts to go you'll hvae to MF... and the results out of the camera are soft. Personally I don't think it's worth putting a TC on this lens.
Sigma quandary
The Sigma 70-300 f2.8 zoom with 2x converter is a possibility and has the advantage of a filter thread to protect the front glass. I think the 300mm prime has a rear mounted filter holder. "We" go for the magic F5.6 to retain auto focus but maybe the 50-500 or 170-500 zoom is the better bet and manual focus, at least we choose what to focus on and I'd only be losing 100mm over the 300 + x2, then again, I'd only be gaining 100mm over the 135-400. Aaagghh!
Roy C said:
The Sigma 70-300 f2.8 zoom with 2x converter is a possibility and has the advantage of a filter thread to protect the front glass. I think the 300mm prime has a rear mounted filter holder. "We" go for the magic F5.6 to retain auto focus but maybe the 50-500 or 170-500 zoom is the better bet and manual focus, at least we choose what to focus on and I'd only be losing 100mm over the 300 + x2, then again, I'd only be gaining 100mm over the 135-400. Aaagghh!
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Never heard of a Sigma 70-300 f2.8 zoom!malc1 said:
A 300mm f2.8 prime should take a converter better than any of the zooms but of course they are a lot more expensive to buy - the Canon 300mm f2.8 comes in at around £3000 and the Sigma is about £1500.
If you do use a converter with the 50-500 or 170-500 you should be looking at a 1.4 tc not 2x Although I am not sure that either of these lenses are recommended to be used with a converter.
Last edited:
malc1 said:
Although both the 170-500 and the 50-500 are f6.3 at 500mm they report to the camera as f5.6 so will AF fine, though the AF on the 50-500 is significantly faster than the 170-500. Neither of these lenses are in the same class as the 120-300 f2.8 which is probably one of the best lenses Sigma make. The 120-300 should be sharper wide open then either of the x-500 zooms, even when used with 1.4x or 2x tcs.
The 170-500 will only give you extra reach over the 135-400, but will offer no other advantages. The 50-500 will AF faster than the 135-400 and in theory is a bit sharper (thought how much is open to debate). The 120-300 is a superiour quality lens, but is cost a lot more than the other two and is noticeably heavier. So it really would be a matter of working out the balance between weight, cost and quality.
Personally I think if you can afford it and don't mind the weight the 120-300 f2.8 with both tcs is the way to go. But I might not be the best to advice you as I am currently battling the urge to buy this very lens!
Roy C said:
I have read a number of reviews that suggest that the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is actually sharper wide open than the 300 f2.8 prime...
I have put both tcs on the 170-500 and not managed to get anything of worth with either... the 50-500 is listed as being able to take a tc but from what I've heard the results aren't great.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Must admit I am a bit confused on this one - Malc started off by quoting a Sigma 300 f2.8 which I assumed must be a prime, later on he quoted a 70-300 f2.8 but you are talking about a 120-300 f2.8 - Its getting late I must be missing something.postcardcv said:
Cheers
Roy
canonshooter4life
Member
malc1 said:
The increase from 400-500 = about a 54% increase in image size...and the increase from 400-600 is a 125% increase in image size... so the image would be more than double with the 600 all else the same... but its upt to you how much you would want to spend... I personally would go for the sigma 500 f4.5 if you're shooting birds exclusively, that is the lense I am saving for now...
Quick note if you add a 1.4 TC to any lens the image will be 96% larger and adding a 2 TC would result in the image being 300% larger...
Brandon
Last edited:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Sharper than the Canon 300mm f/2.8, Pete?postcardcv said:
The Canon is supposedly so sharp wide open that you should wear gloves when handling it - GYRob would agree, I'm sure!
D'you think you could provide some links to those reviews?
Hi there Brandon,
I'm a bit confused about your math(s) re: comparative image sizes.
What do you mean when you say 400 to 500mm is a 54% increase in image size? Care to provide the calculations?
Last edited:
canonshooter4life
Member
500/400 = 5^2 - 4^2 / 4^2 = 0.54 X 100 = 54 % This calculation is in Birds as art by arthur morris and I used the same process to figure out the increase from a 400 to 600 which would be 600 squared - 400 squared / 400 squared = 6^2 - 4^2 / 4^2 = 1.25 X 100 = 125%
I also did some shots with the increase between 200 to 300 of a square on the wall and calculated the area on a print out and the increase was as the calcualtions said... about a 125% increase...
So if you took an image of say a square at 400mm then stayed the same distance from the object and took it with a 500mm the image would be 54% larger in area from the 500mm lens...
Brandon
I also did some shots with the increase between 200 to 300 of a square on the wall and calculated the area on a print out and the increase was as the calcualtions said... about a 125% increase...
So if you took an image of say a square at 400mm then stayed the same distance from the object and took it with a 500mm the image would be 54% larger in area from the 500mm lens...
Brandon
paul goode
Well-known member
I think Peter's on about the Sigma. I don't know, you 'L' addicts, can't see past big white things with red lines on them. 8-P 8-PKeith Reeder said:
Paul (not addicted yet, but possibly well on the way)
Keith Reeder said:
Paul is of course right I was refering to the Sigma 300 f2.8 prime (which is basically the same price as the 120-300 f2.8). I know that the Canon 300 f2.8 is supposed to be one of the sharpest lenses out there (if only I could afford one).
