Testing new equipment question

Masonlaw1

I'm diving back into digital photography after a 15 year break from 35mm. I've shot with a 400D since my lovely wife bought it as a Xmas present. I'm somewhat gear crazy because in my college photojournalist days I was always too broke to buy much of anything. Anyway, enough boring background. However, after the purchase I received today, I plan on spending the spring on technique and being satisfied with what I have. :barb
After reading 1000's of posts and articles I decided on a third party lens, I bought the new sigma 70-200 2.8 hsm II just released. I ordered it and both sigma tele-converters, 1.4x and 2x. Just took the stuff out of the box from amazon. It's a rainy dreary Virginia day, so what can I do to give the stuff a basic workout to see if it functions properly. I've taken some basic shots with all three set-ups, lens, 1.4 and 2x. The focus seems to work okay and the camera recognizes the maximum aperture's for the two teleconverters. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty impressed with the whole set-up after shooting with the canon 70-300 intro lens my wife got talked into buying with the kit lens. (although the salesperson did throw in the IS version of the 18-55 rather than the normal kit lens that gets bashed so bad on this and many other sites)
Any other tricks to make sure everything is up to snuff? Thanks in advance for any help.

cmason

Check out this site, and download the pdf referenced at the bottom. Follow the instructions that come with it. It will help put your mind at ease: (ignore that is says 'Nikon")

http://focustestchart.com/chart.html

Masonlaw1

Thanks for the quick response Cmason, something I can do indoors with the new toy!

claudermilk

My quickest way to verify the gear: take it out and shoot with it like you normally would. If you like the images, keep shooting & don't worry about it. Too many people spend way too much time taking pictures of brick walls, their boxes, newspapers, test targets, etc. looking for flaws. Look long and hard enough and you will find somethingto not be happy about. It's a waste of time IMHO (now cue the contrary opinions... ).

To be bluntly honest, if you're happy with a 70-200 on a 2x TC, then you don't have anything to worry about. I personally recommend against those zooms on TCs as my experience has been less than satisfying.

cmason

claudermilk wrote:

My quickest way to verify the gear: take it out and shoot with it like you normally would. If you like the images, keep shooting & don't worry about it. Too many people spend way too much time taking pictures of brick walls, their boxes, newspapers, test targets, etc. looking for flaws. Look long and hard enough and you will find somethingto not be happy about. It's a waste of time IMHO (now cue the contrary opinions... ).

To be bluntly honest, if you're happy with a 70-200 on a 2x TC, then you don't have anything to worry about. I personally recommend against those zooms on TCs as my experience has been less than satisfying.

Agree completely. But sometimes, after reading too many posts by too many pixel peepers, one begins to think that he may have a 'bad copy' of his lens, so this test goes a long way to assume one that the lens is good. This of course, AFTER you are pleased with the results.

Masonlaw1

cmason wrote:

Agree completely. But sometimes, after reading too many posts by too many pixel peepers, one begins to think that he may have a 'bad copy' of his lens, so this test goes a long way to assume one that the lens is good. This of course, AFTER you are pleased with the results.

Despite Claudermilk's impressively condescending observation concerning the 2x teleconverter that I purchased to decide for myself how it works, he has a good point. I've shot for two days with it now and it appears to be working famously. But then again, to be blunt, with someone as unconcerned with image quality as I am apparently, it doesn't really matter.

claudermilk

My comment was not intended to be condescending. We all simply have differing demands in the end image. There are some on these fora with far higher demands than I have, while there are many people out there perfectly happy with what their cell phones produce. My comment was meant simply as what is there: if you are happy with what the combination produces then you're good. No value judgement there--if you are happy, who gives a rat's behind what I think.

For myself, I've tried a 70-200/2.8 IS + 1.4x TC and was very disappointed with it; to be fair I was pushing the limits of the gear's capability so I took it outside it's performance envelope. I have seen examples refuting my opinion, but they are in a narrow range of settings (perfectly-lit midday light, ISO 100, f8-11). It's an ongoing debate with the majority of pundits preferring not to use TCs on the zooms, while some get good results they are happy with.

Masonlaw1

claudermilk wrote:

My comment was not intended to be condescending. We all simply have differing demands in the end image. There are some on these fora with far higher demands than I have, while there are many people out there perfectly happy with what their cell phones produce. My comment was meant simply as what is there: if you are happy with what the combination produces then you're good. No value judgement there--if you are happy, who gives a rat's behind what I think.

For myself, I've tried a 70-200/2.8 IS + 1.4x TC and was very disappointed with it; to be fair I was pushing the limits of the gear's capability so I took it outside it's performance envelope. I have seen examples refuting my opinion, but they are in a narrow range of settings (perfectly-lit midday light, ISO 100, f8-11). It's an ongoing debate with the majority of pundits preferring not to use TCs on the zooms, while some get good results they are happy with.

Didn't mean to sound sensitive, it's just these boards can have some pretty crappy responses from folks, although I guess I contributed to that problem. Anyway, the 1.4 does great at f4, haven't done much with the 2x yet. The focus is a little slow at times but I'm not doing anything professional, just having fun taking pics. Thanks again.

claudermilk

No worries. It's hard to convey tone on a forum & some can get snippy--fortunately that's quite rear around here & gets quashed quickly. I try not to be part of the problem.

To put myself in the pickiness continuum, I have mainly L glass I shoot with (24-70 & 70-200/2.9)--but I am still happy using a 20D & run them hard in low light at f2.8 & ISO 3200. I consider the results perfectly usable. However I see posts from people who claim the 20D is barely usable at ISO 1600--obviously I disagree, but then their pickiness level is aparently higher than mine. By the same token there are many here who are quite happy with older Rebels & Canon's consumer-level lenses, which would probably simply leave me frustrated.

One thing to beware of is getting some of the best gear in your hands & seeing what it can do (e.g., 1Ds MkII with 300/2.8L IS...drool). It can skew your perception forever.

ziggy53

claudermilk wrote:

...

One thing to beware of is getting some of the best gear in your hands & seeing what it can do (e.g., 1Ds MkII with 300/2.8L IS...drool). It can skew your perception forever.

That can also skew your finances forever.