Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with Sigma 2x TC - Any good?

[Kermit power]

Most of the time, my Sigma 70-200 provides me with sufficient focal length for my needs, so much as I might like a Canon L 100-400 or something similar, I really can't justify the cost or the space in the bag.

There are, however, times when I would like a bit more reach - trying to capture the elusive bloody parakeets at the bottom of our road, for example.

I am therefore thinking of trying a Sigma 2x TC with it, but that's still going to cost a few quid, so I was wondering if anyone on here has experience of this combination? It's going on a Canon 450D if that makes a difference.

[Gemm]

It was good with 1.4x but I never tried it with 2x.

[VxDuncan]

Kermit power said:

Most of the time, my Sigma 70-200 provides me with sufficient focal length for my needs, so much as I might like a Canon L 100-400 or something similar, I really can't justify the cost or the space in the bag.

There are, however, times when I would like a bit more reach - trying to capture the elusive bloody parakeets at the bottom of our road, for example.

I am therefore thinking of trying a Sigma 2x TC with it, but that's still going to cost a few quid, so I was wondering if anyone on here has experience of this combination? It's going on a Canon 450D if that makes a difference.

Have with a Kenro/Kenko (?) PRO 300 DG 2x tele. Distinctly average. Really not very sharp at all, and that TC is supposed to be pretty good, although obviously not matched like the Sigma. Also AF is VERY unreliable (on the Nikon D300), though that maybe as it's a non-Sigma. I doubt the sigam TC would be as bad as it's pretty much not fit for purpose.

I may get a sigma 1.4x, but would go for a crop of the base lens than use a 2x. There's almost certainly more resolution with half the pixels an stock lens than the full sensor and the Kenro 2x.

[SamHH]

Have you read this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/4...

Obviously that's the Canon version with the Canon teleconverter but it gives you a rough idea.

[Kermit power]

SamHH said:

Have you read this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/4...

Obviously that's the Canon version with the Canon teleconverter but it gives you a rough idea.

I'm not expecting the quality to come close to the 100-400, but for the relatively few occasions I'll want to use it, there's the small matter of about £1,000 in price difference between the two.

[Stickers]

Kermit power said:

SamHH said:

Have you read this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/4...

Obviously that's the Canon version with the Canon teleconverter but it gives you a rough idea.

I'm not expecting the quality to come close to the 100-400, but for the relatively few occasions I'll want to use it, there's the small matter of about £1,000 in price difference between the two.

I often use a Canon x1.4 & a Sigma x2 with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 & I would seriously recommend this set up as opposed to adding more glass to your bag.

I lose approx 1 stop with the x1.4 & 1.5 - 2 stops with the x2..........I also carry a set of 3 Kenco extenders just in case.

[RobDickinson]

2003 vintage 70-200f2.8 EX HSM + EX 2.0TC

It gives a noticable drop in quality when shot at 400/f5.6 but you can get some good shots with it, you also need the shutter speed up more too (d'uh).

I find it adequate but I dont want to shoot at f5.6 if I can help it, I will be getting a 1.4TC at some point which I think will be more usable in general.

Heres a shot with the tc on at 400, probably f8 (no exif on this) , and a 100% no processing crop (350d).





Some other shots with the TC on:

[baz7175]

I've run this very combo for motorsport coverage destined for magazines over the years, never really had any issues until the light started fading later in the day or very overcast days.

• Run on a 20D and 400D over the time I've had it*

I've the 1.4x and 2x converters always in the case in the event of the 200mm not being long enough.

Obviously it's not going to give you a bang like the L series glass will, but I found it more than ok for what I used it for (and didn't get any editors complaining on quality either).

[Kermit power]

Those last two in particular are enough to convince me. Thanks guys!

[Kermit power]

I ended up getting a second hand (but clearly not used) TC off Ebay at a decent price, which arrived this morning.

I've not got time to put it properly to use at the moment, but the shot below was a quick snap out of the back window of my son's toy diggers in the garden.

This was taken hand-held, at 400mm and with the lens wide open at f/5.6, obviously with no thought for subject, composition or light. In other words, this is pretty much the worst I'll ever get out of it. OK, it's not maybe what you'd get out of a 100-400 L, but on the other hand, the lens and TC together only cost me about a third of the price, so I'm happy with it!