Sigma 300f2.8 EX plus Canon 2X teleconverter MkIII (1 Viewer)

I visited a shop in Manchester yesterday and tried out the new Canon 2X teleconverter on my Sigma 300f2.8 EX. Yes it fits!

Was I impressed?

I had dull light and took several hand held shots of a feral pigeon from the doorway. I actually got one shot sharp at 1/200th second. The detail I got was very impressive. I will have another visit on a brighter day and check it out for backlit subjects and chromatic aberration etc. I do not think I will be disappointed, but we will see.

Sounds very promising. Awaiting your further test results! Any pics of that feral pigeon for us to see? :t:

See below.

First image Full frame Canon 50D shot in jpeg ISO400 ,Manual exposure, 1/200sec ,f8. Sharpened minimally to equate with appearance before compressing at same viewing size.

It was windy so this will effect some of the feather detail.

Second image is a 100% crop. No sharpening or other processing applied other than border. In camera setting contrast -1.

Great shots in difficult conditions, not least hand-holding an almost 3kg setup without IS. I wonder how this measures up to the Canon 300mm 2.8 II when both are mounted on tripods. At about half the price of the Canon Mk II, I don't think anyone can complain about the Sigma though.

I think and would expect the Canon to be the winner but at pixel level we are talking about small margins in the real world. If the 120-300 zoom renders the same IQ as my prime I would sacrifice that bit of IQ for the OS (up to 4 light stops) and the benefits of zoom.

Just think for those emergency shots when the bird comes near you have the opportunity to recompose without having to take off the converter (if done hurridly may scare the bird off). You can get those initial shots in the bag then slip off the converter when and if convenient. When I did the red-throated diver at Fleetwood the Sigma 120-300 would have been perfect.

Then again, the OS can't be used on a tripod. With both lenses and TCs weighing 3kg or more, it will be down to pure optical quality. The versatility of the zoom will be handy though.

I just don't see any particular need for IS/OS on a tripod (caveat being you need a good tripod and head). I have used my 500 lens with a 2X converter at very low shutter speeds and obtained excellent results without IS/OS. I am aware that you might have mirror slap etc when using a lens at ridiculously low shutter speeds but these low shutter speeds were more of a problem in the film days when using ISO 100/200. Digital has moved the goal posts and the chances are you will not want to shoot at such low shutter speeds and if you did you wou would have to increase luminance in processing your the image to be able to see it! Having said that if you did need to combat mirror slap you can use mirror lock up and where the shutter speed is just slow you can use a cable release.

I have taken a black grouse pictures where there was no light and next to no light. I did not have image stabilisation.

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=363444

And another

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=363245

Another in early morning light

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=363858


A black redstart using Sigma 500f4.5 plus 2X non reporting Kenko converter...1000mm FL shutter speed 1/60th Sec.

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=327417

Same with peregrine the pictures are cropped too.

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=209170

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=205957


Image stabilisation is useful but it is not all it is cracked up to be. You can demonstrate mathematically that you are better off with it but I can assure you it is not necessary. Hand holding is another matter.

Hor Kee said:

The versatility of the zoom will be handy though.

Click to expand...

:t::t::t:

I wished I had the zoom when I took this shot

Can you post pictures on how the Canon Mk III 2x teleconverter looks fitted to the Sigma lens?

Hor Kee

The only picture I have of the MkIII converter is the one above which was attached to my Sigma 300f2.8 EX. I will try out the converter again on a more sunny day but really it should not be necessary. In fact my lens is pruducing acceptable images with the Kenko. I am more interested in how the Sigma 120-300 performs with the Canon 2X converter.

I recently purchased the Canon 7D and took a few test shots of turnstone in dreadful light using the Kenko 2X converter attached to the Sigma 300 using ISO1600. In fact I was happy with the results and wonder if the purchase of the new Canon converter is really worth the additional expense.

I think he means what does a Canon TC fitted to a Sigma lens actually look like mate.

I think the price of the MKIII 2x still has a couple of drops left in it before it's finally bottomed out, maybe next year £400ish. Your Kenko may hold it's own with the sharpness but does it handle the other things as well? For your own benefit you might think about going back with your Kenko and try both on the Sigma zoom to see how they compare, especially if the AF speed and accuracy with the canon is noticeably quicker as that's surely a factor that may just tip the scales given the lack of a focus limiter on the lens.

Forgive my mistake and thanks Adam for pointing it out. No, I cannot post pictures but I can tell you it looks a little odd and certainly interesting! I imagine it may attract questions by other photographers when seen in the field. On my short test of the Canon converter it did seem more responsive but having said that the Kenko isn't bad either and it could be that the effect was placebo in regard to the Canon.