Sigma 70-200 And Teleconverters - Any Experience?

[CrazyCresties]

Well I'm contemplating selling my Tamron 70-300 VC zoom for the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM (I would love the Canon Mk II version of this but can't justify the extra $1000!)

However I do like wildlife/bird photography and feel I may miss the long end of the Tamron, so was wondering about a Kenko 2x Teleconverter? Does anyone use a teleconverter and how practical do you find it?

My Tamron has been great as a first upgrade from the kit zoom, but after a year I now feel like I would benefit from a faster lens with improved IQ, so if anyone here also has the Sigma lens I'd love to know how you are finding it too.

Cheers :D

[Guest Tess32]

I'm selling mine, so I can't say I like them, but I didn't find that it impacted sharpness.

[CrazyCresties]

What didn't you like about them Tess? I know the real solution is buy something like a prime 400mm, but one step at a time ;)

Oh and what are you selling and for how much? :)

[Guest Tess32]

I used it on the Canon 70-200 2.8 and I just found it a bit less...poppy. Lost a lot of light on it too. Then again, I'm one of the few who didn't enjoy that lens!

I think doing wildlife, you'd still need more than 200mm and a converter anyway.

I'm selling the Canon 1.4x II :)

[anniek]

I think Luke W uses them on his Canon 70 - 200

[kja]

Adding the 2x TC is a compromise. It works, but...

I'd personally just get the 100-400 and be done with it.

[Kirislin]

Adding the 2x TC is a compromise. It works, but...

I'd personally just get the 100-400 and be done with it.

Yes. Although I haven't used either, I considered it for a while but I've been told, and read that TCs also slow down auto focus, and you wouldn't want that for fast moving wildlife, or in my case, whippets.

[CrazyCresties]

Thanks for the responses guys, more consideration needed I fear! Too much choice, not enough cash :laugh:

[Guest Tess32]

I think the TCs are good to have as an extra, but I wouldn't buy a lens that you wouldn't want UNLESS you could get the reach using a TC. Get what I mean? They aren't good enough that they are the equivalent of buying the lens you want.

If you need 300mm, you're better off with any 300mm than a 70-200 with a TC, in my opinion.

[Kirislin]

I recall that Bec got an incredible deal for the Sigma 70-200, someone here told her who to contact. It was much cheaper than anywhere else even online sellers.

[Ripley]

You'll need a 300mm at least for bird photography, depending where you go. If you go to your local pond you can get much closer, same for backyard birds as they are used to humans. If you want to photograph the more skittish bush birds or wild birds of prey, you'll need longer than 200mm. I have the Canon 300mm f/4 prime and a Canon 1.4 teleconverter but I rarely use the teleconverter as it adds extra weight and I hand hold this lens (it has IS). The Canon 300mm prime is so sharp, I love it. If you get to know some field craft on getting closer to birds and wildlife, you will find a 300mm is perfect. I bought a neoprane cover for mine from Wildlife Watching Supplies in the UK (they also have tips on photographing different species on their website). I bought 'dry grass' here.

http://www.wildlifewatchingsupplies.co.uk/retail/acatalog/Neoprene_Lens_Covers_1.html

They look a bit wankerish but who cares as the cover actually works when approaching I've found and that's what matters. Plus they protect the lens and you can remove different sections so most times I just have half the bits on.

I find the cover helps as you aren't approaching wildlife with a big white thing that looks foreign to them (don't wear bright colours yourself either. You don't have to wear khaki but stands to reason you'd avoid wearing red for example).

If you want a less expensive option, I think Sigma do a 150-400 lens that has an optical stabiliser in it?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Ripley

[CrazyCresties]

I recall that Bec got an incredible deal for the Sigma 70-200, someone here told her who to contact. It was much cheaper than anywhere else even online sellers.

That was me :laugh: but thanks anyway :)

Thanks for the info Ripley, if I photograph birds it's usually ones that are fairly easy I guess, just opportunistic shots if they are around when I am out with my camera :laugh:

I'm currently leaning towards the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM, not as fast as the 70-200's but I've been seeing some cracking shots with it wide open at 300mm, and this is what I'm not getting with the Tamron, and the IQ seems superb. It seems a bit daft to spend $1000 extra to basically replace what I have with the same, but I like the fact it's also weather sealed (useful for when we head back to the uk!), lighter and more compact than the 70-200 and it would be nice to try a bit of 'L' glass :)

I looked at the 100-400, but it's been around for years now and sounds like a new version is due out soon? If I really get into wildlife photography then I'll maybe save up for a 400mm prime?

Thanks for all the info everyone :)

Edited April 29, 2012 by CrazyCresties

[kja]

There've been rumors of a new 100-400 around for a million years.

It may or may not happen. And, in fact, May is the rumored 2012 announcement (there's at least one rumor like this every year) so if you can wait, might as well :) But the original is still a cracker and you can't go wrong.

Personally, I'd still go the 100-400 over the 70-300. 300 is just not enough but you'll never miss the 30mm on the wide end.

[Guest Tess32]

I would marry my 100-400mm if it was legal, it is the best lens!