Using Sigma's 2X's converter, results

Aussieroo · May 21, 2007

My trip out to the air show on Saturday was with one main purpose in mind; to test the 2X's tele-converter with the 70-200mm f2.8 Sigma lens.

I was pretty happy with the end result even though I deleted a good lot of photos. The results showed me that the converter gets pretty sharp results so long as you use it correctly. Plenty of light, a fast shutter speed and a smaller f stop. I tried to be around f8.0 or greater.

When used for panning shots I guess I was being a bit ambitious as it turned out hit and miss as to if I got a sharpish shot. Being the equivilant of 640mm in 35mm terms thinking I was going to hand hold, pan and shoot fast moving aircraft and end up with a sharp shot was not living in reality. Having said that there are some that turned out quite acceptable.

The following are not edited at all, straight as they came off the camera. Are not presented here a "Great or even good " shots but merely to show what the lens is capable of, for those who may be interested.

You can view others in full sized files and the EXIF info on all these shots at:

http://ozphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/2874999#154359627

This is at 400mm full zoom

ziggy53 · May 21, 2007

Ralph,

I love photos of aircraft. Thanks for sharing. Great stuff and good job with the 2x converter.

CatOne · May 21, 2007

Nice shots. I have Canon's 1.4x and 2x TCs and I am not too fond of the shots that come out of the 2x. Then again, sometimes you're faced with choices... the reach the 2x gives and some reduced quality, or a really tight crop and a loss of resolution. Often the 2x is better for this.

Still, I'd like to get a 300 f2.8L and a 400 f4L and stick to the 1.4x. But coming up with the $12K or whatever to buy those two lenses is a bit rich

Aussieroo · May 21, 2007

Thank you for both your replies. That was my intenton to show those who can't afford the longer more expensive lenses that the 2x's converter could be an option for them. Hence posting photos straight out of the camera unedited.
Thanks again for looking and commenting.

claudermilk · May 22, 2007

Nice results. You hit on the workable conditions: lots of light, stopped way down. In those primo conditons the shots turned out well.

Aussieroo · May 22, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

Nice results. You hit on the workable conditions: lots of light, stopped way down. In those primo conditons the shots turned out well.

Oh, I understand that. I know full well in low light and difficult situations there is little point in dragging out the converter. But for those of us budget restricted it is still nice to have the reach, all be it under limited circumstances.

sirsloop · May 22, 2007

400 f/5.6L is a reasonable alternative... and is a heck of a lot sharper than a 70-200/2.8 with a 2x on there

Aussieroo · May 23, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

400 f/5.6L is a reasonable alternative... and is a heck of a lot sharper than a 70-200/2.8 with a 2x on there

Yes but I still have the option of using the 70-200 f2.8 on it's own which makes the set up more versatile and beter value fo money than a prime 400mm HOrses for courses I guess. I agree with your comments of course and there is always the next best lens and the next longer lens but making do with what one can afford is something a lot of us have to contend ourselves with.

claudermilk · May 23, 2007

Aussieroo wrote:

Oh, I understand that. I know full well in low light and difficult situations there is little point in dragging out the converter. But for those of us budget restricted it is still nice to have the reach, all be it under limited circumstances.

My own attempt at using a 2X was under those less-than-ideal conditons. Turned me off the 70-200 + 2X combo; the results--to be nice--were less than optimal. So between my experience and your examples, that gives a very clear picture of the proper usage of a TC.

sirsloop · May 23, 2007

well there was mention of spending 12 grand or whatever on a 400/4DO... or something like that. Ok... if a grand is too rich for a 400mm tele...there's always the Sigma 400/5.6 for around half of the L's cost. It may be hard to find one thats been rechipped after all of those err99's on canon bodies tho...

CatOne · May 23, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

well there was mention of spending 12 grand or whatever on a 400/4DO... or something like that. Ok... if a grand is too rich for a 400mm tele...there's always the Sigma 400/5.6 for around half of the L's cost. It may be hard to find one thats been rechipped after all of those err99's on canon bodies tho...

It's like 4 grand if you pick it up used. 66% off!

Using Sigma's 2X's converter, results

Comments