If 2x TC so bad, is it worse than Sigma 135-400 or others?

I'm looking at getting a decent (not necessarily L quality) 400mm lens for outdoor use in good light. I had originally thought I would use my 70-200L f4 with a 2x converter (Yes, I know about the MF and the 2x stops loss...like I said, I only need the range in good light). If that is the case, is the picture quality of the 2x on a zoom worse than just getting a 400mm zoom such as the Sigma 135-400mm lens? People say that you will be disappointed with the 2x, but compared to what?

I would appreciate any input.

-Ken

Your results will vary on the 2x based on what lens you put it on. You're stressing the lens more than the teleconverter. Remember you've now got a .5crop of a .6 crop on the lens.

For instance, as people have showed here a couple times, putting the 2x telephoto on a 200f/2.8 hurts the image quality much more than a 70-200f/2.8.

Specific you your lens, there are samples of that combo around, such as this:

http://www.geocities.com/keithlommel/lenscomparison1.htm

jason

Ken T said:

I'm looking at getting a decent (not necessarily L quality) 400mm
lens for outdoor use in good light. I had originally thought I
would use my 70-200L f4 with a 2x converter (Yes, I know about the
MF and the 2x stops loss...like I said, I only need the range in
good light). If that is the case, is the picture quality of the 2x
on a zoom worse than just getting a 400mm zoom such as the Sigma
135-400mm lens? People say that you will be disappointed with the
2x, but compared to what?

I would appreciate any input.

-Ken

Click to expand...

Ken, I had to make that same decision, and didn't have many $$$.

I went with the Sigma 70-200 2.8EX and the Sigma 2X converter.

I then went out to shoot in overcast conditions...these are all at the 400mm, and f5.6 AND many are almost at the minimum focussing distance. I wanted to see just how soft it would get. Anyway here they are for what it is worth...all handheld and no flash. Reduced and compressed for posting.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/robert.ganz/sigma/

You can see the shallow DOF, and some aberration close to the edges.

Cheers,

Robert

Jason Hutchinson said:

For instance, as people have showed here a couple times, putting
the 2x telephoto on a 200f/2.8 hurts the image quality much more
than a 70-200f/2.8.

Specific you your lens, there are samples of that combo around,
such as this:

http://www.geocities.com/keithlommel/lenscomparison1.htm

jason

Ken T said:

I'm looking at getting a decent (not necessarily L quality) 400mm
lens for outdoor use in good light. I had originally thought I
would use my 70-200L f4 with a 2x converter (Yes, I know about the
MF and the 2x stops loss...like I said, I only need the range in
good light). If that is the case, is the picture quality of the 2x
on a zoom worse than just getting a 400mm zoom such as the Sigma
135-400mm lens? People say that you will be disappointed with the
2x, but compared to what?

I would appreciate any input.

-Ken

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The Sigma 135-400 has a Photodo rating of 2.6 which is getting kind of low. Even at F8 its charts don't look that great, but it might be similar to a bit worse than the 70-200F4 plus a 2X converter (which will also be at F8 -- but I don't know exactly how the translate the chart with a teleconverter). I believe that with a 2X converter it will be worse at F8 than it is without the converter at F4 based on my experiments with teleconverters on a 70-200F2.8L.

You might like to look at the Tamron 28-200 lens (TR in the chart below) with a Photodo rating of 2.7 and thus similar to the Sigma. In the chart it is right next to the 70-200F2.8L with a 2X extender but zoomed back to 200mm (to compare the same focal length and F-number). The combo seems a bit sharper than the straight Tamron lens even at F8.

Overall I would think the 135-400 shooting at F8 would probably be better since you would still have Autofocus. Assuming you get things in focus, the image quality might be a bit better with the 70-200F4 plus the 2X extender, but if you are a little out of focus you will loose all that back.

Another option would be to get the 1.4X extender. This will be sharper than the 2X and still leave you with autofocus. When everything is considered, you might be better off with this combination and doing some scaling in Photoshop or the like (I would rather scale a sharper in-focus image than use a blurrier unscaled image). BTW, after several comparisons, you don't loose a lot with the Kenko converters versus the Canon brands, although there have been some bargain out there on the Mark I Canon converters.

http://www.fototime.com/ {F4AF9497-B2DA-4EE7-B460-BFDA3E5D321C} picture.JPG

Karl

Ken T said:

I'm looking at getting a decent (not necessarily L quality) 400mm
lens for outdoor use in good light. I had originally thought I
would use my 70-200L f4 with a 2x converter (Yes, I know about the
MF and the 2x stops loss...like I said, I only need the range in
good light). If that is the case, is the picture quality of the 2x
on a zoom worse than just getting a 400mm zoom such as the Sigma
135-400mm lens? People say that you will be disappointed with the
2x, but compared to what?

I would appreciate any input.

-Ken

Click to expand...

--
Karl

Thanks Karlg!

That is the type of test that I am looking for. Very much appreciated. You have done a great job with what you've put together. Thanks again.

-Ken

PS for anyone else:

I would -really- like to see a 2x TC shot with a 70-200L f4 full size, unsharpened just to see exactly what I can expect from someone with that exact combo.

Robert,

These shots are amazing. The quality of the lens with the extender is spectacular as well. Thanks for the posts.

Boris

RobertG said:

I went with the Sigma 70-200 2.8EX and the Sigma 2X converter.

I then went out to shoot in overcast conditions...these are all at
the 400mm, and f5.6 AND many are almost at the minimum focussing
distance. I wanted to see just how soft it would get. Anyway
here they are for what it is worth...all handheld and no flash.
Reduced and compressed for posting.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/robert.ganz/sigma/

You can see the shallow DOF, and some aberration close to the edges.

Cheers,

Robert

Jason Hutchinson said:

For instance, as people have showed here a couple times, putting
the 2x telephoto on a 200f/2.8 hurts the image quality much more
than a 70-200f/2.8.

Specific you your lens, there are samples of that combo around,
such as this:

http://www.geocities.com/keithlommel/lenscomparison1.htm

jason

Ken T said:

I'm looking at getting a decent (not necessarily L quality) 400mm
lens for outdoor use in good light. I had originally thought I
would use my 70-200L f4 with a 2x converter (Yes, I know about the
MF and the 2x stops loss...like I said, I only need the range in
good light). If that is the case, is the picture quality of the 2x
on a zoom worse than just getting a 400mm zoom such as the Sigma
135-400mm lens? People say that you will be disappointed with the
2x, but compared to what?

I would appreciate any input.

-Ken

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Boris said:

Robert,

These shots are amazing. The quality of the lens with the extender
is spectacular as well. Thanks for the posts.

Click to expand...

Boris,

I'm sure the Simga 70-200F2.8 with a 2X extender is a reasonable combination, BUT you really can't tell much from a much reduced picture unless one's only purpose is to post reduced pictures.

My only point is to not jump to conclusions from a few pictures in good lighting with the lens stopped down.

Karl

Karl I agree completely!

For the record, I generally post reduced pictures, and print full res.

By the way, if you were referring to my shots as under good lighting, and "stopped down" I object

Max aperture (5.6), at just about min distance, and ISO 400 under heavy overcast with no flash does not qualify I think.

By the way, I realized after posting that Ken was looking specifically for the Canon f4 +TC to compare with, and so my pics are not really relevant to this discussion.

Thanks

RobertG

Karlg said:

Boris said:

Robert,

These shots are amazing. The quality of the lens with the extender
is spectacular as well. Thanks for the posts.

Click to expand...

Boris,

I'm sure the Simga 70-200F2.8 with a 2X extender is a reasonable
combination, BUT you really can't tell much from a much reduced
picture unless one's only purpose is to post reduced pictures.

My only point is to not jump to conclusions from a few pictures in
good lighting with the lens stopped down.

Karl

Click to expand...

if anyone's interested.

http://www.canogacameras.com/e/env/0001-105927-121378840-158032745-7712-3R9L1/price_list/grp019_list.html?link=%2e%2e/info_pages/cam_info.html&item=invnew:49468

I bought one of these recently. It is the same optically as the new 1.4 & is $100 cheaper.

-John

JohnM said:

if anyone's interested.

http://www.canogacameras.com/e/env/0001-105927-121378840-158032745-7712-3R9L1/price_list/grp019_list.html?link=%2e%2e/info_pages/cam_info.html&item=invnew:49468

I bought one of these recently. It is the same optically as the
new 1.4 & is $100 cheaper.

-John

Click to expand...

Thanks, John. I've actually seen that and it looks like a good deal, if they have any left! What lens are you using yours with? Do you have any full size samples you could email me or post here in the forum? (full size, unsharpened?)

-Ken

RobertG said:

Karl I agree completely!

For the record, I generally post reduced pictures, and print full res.

Click to expand...

For "artistic composition and effect" I like to see the whole picture reduced. But for comparing lenses, I find it pretty worthless to compare reduced pictures and would rather see crops of full resolution, unsharpened images (to save bandwidth for those without high speed connections).

I find it kind of silly for someone to look at a picture that has been 2X to 4X reduced and then make any kind of comment about the lens quality. Basically the imperfections scale down to the point were they are unoticable. It is like trying to tell whether a shot was focused right from the little LCD display on the back of the camera.

RobertG said:

By the way, if you were referring to my shots as under good
lighting, and "stopped down" I object

Max aperture (5.6), at just about min distance, and ISO 400 under
heavy overcast with no flash does not qualify I think.

Click to expand...

Opps, I missed that you put the F-number in your prior post

In a similar quandry, I tried the Sigma 135-400 at the same time as the 50-500. the 135-400 was contrasty & reasonably sharp, but had terrible "fringing" along the edges in high contrast areas, even towards the center. There was no fringing at all with the 50-500 so I went that way in spite of spending a little bit more money. There is considerable difference in the size and heft of the two, but I find the 50-500 is a joy to use.

Sigma 70-200 2.8 and teleconverter will end up about the same price as the 50-500, but will offer a wider range of options. Were I to do it over again, I would likely go with the 70-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 1.4x or 2x converter. Samples I have seen from the 70-200 f2.8 with the 1.4x teleconverter seem as good as the 50-500 at comparable focal lengths. As always, buy Sigma where you can exchange it, "just in case".
Hope this helps.

kunza

Ken T said:

I'm looking at getting a decent (not necessarily L quality) 400mm
lens for outdoor use in good light. I had originally thought I
would use my 70-200L f4 with a 2x converter (Yes, I know about the
MF and the 2x stops loss...like I said, I only need the range in
good light). If that is the case, is the picture quality of the 2x
on a zoom worse than just getting a 400mm zoom such as the Sigma
135-400mm lens? People say that you will be disappointed with the
2x, but compared to what?

I would appreciate any input.

-Ken

Click to expand...