How has experience with Sigma 1.4x EX APO teleconvertor

[marcus_erne4]

I know this question has been asked before, but there is nothing valuable to find since 1997 in the photo.net (Q&A and nature) archives.

So, I try it again. Who knows the Sigma (newer) 1.4x EX APO teleconvertor and has worked with it ???

How does it compare with other 3rd parties such as Tamron, Kenko etc....? Problems? Does APO mean that it can be used/matched with APO lenses, only (this is the case with Minolta's TC's !) ?

 

<p>

 

Please, no answers and speculations why a brand convertor and a fix focal tele are better. I know all this already (Thanks to Bob A. et al.) and I am looking for "real life" user experience.

 

<p>

 

Goal and application is to extend my 80-400 f4.5-5.6 travel zoom (Minolta AF mount) in a longer range where AF is still possible and to gain some ("cheap") expertise to decide whether a purchase of a "pro" lens makes sense for me. Right now it is neither likely that I sell my work nor enlarge beyond 10x11.

 

<p>

 

Additional to my travel zooms I want to add some primes over the time (20mm, 50mm, 105 mm macro and a tele - 300,400 or 500 ? - for wildlife with "focus" on birds).

 

<p>

 

Thanks...

[ivan_verschoote1]

Marcus, I own the Sigma TC 1.4 APO EX. I use it mostly in combination

with my 80-200/2.8D and I have excellent results with it. Only in

extreme situations (wide open and totally blue sky) I have detected

some vignetting but on the whole this converter is a very good

performer. It does not need an APO lens to match. IMHO the term APO on

this TC is purely a marketing factor. Naturally, image detoriation

will be much higher with (slow) lenses like your 80-400/4.5-5.6. With

a maximum aperture of f8, I think you will lose AF too. In that

perspect I don't believe you will able to make good quality photos no

matter what brand of converter you will try to use with this lens.

Remember, beyond 400 mm there are no cheap solutions if you want

quality (even on small prints like you mention). The 1.4 TC APO EX

will only give satisfactory results on good (read expensive) lenses

with maximum apertures f2.8 or f4. Ivan.

[hiroshi_shigematsu3]

Marcus, you said your 80-400 f4.5-5.6 is a travel zoom. Are you

ready to carry a heavy tripod with you all the time while you are

traveling ? While your camera may be able to AF at f/8, 560mm f/8 is

<i>really slow</i>. It's long focal length will enhance any camera

shakes, and you cannot get away with faster shutter speed because of

the large f-stop (unless you use a faster/grainer film). Even if you

could solve the camera shake, you will still miss the shots because

the subject(s) move(s) while the shutter is open. Again, slower

shutter speed becomes a <font size=+2><i>big</i></font> concern. As

above poster noted, I wouldn't seek out a cheap solution beyond 400mm

range. Be happy with your 400mm zoom, or get a <i>real</i>super

telephoto lens.

[marcus_erne4]

Hiroshi,

 

<p>

 

as a support I usually carry my Bogen 3401B (a modified #3221) with a

3410 pan-tilt head, total weight approx. 9.5 lbs and I intend to get

a Bogen monopod for places where I can't take my tripod.

 

<p>

 

This has been sufficient so far. I usually use ISO 400 film when I

work with this long zoom. At times I already used it with a 2x

convertor, just to see how it performs. It is not breath taking, but

at times it is better to have an average picture than none at all.

What do you think....

[hiroshi_shigematsu3]

Marcus,<br>If you are satisfied with your results, .....there is

nothing to tell you. Just, go ahead and get that teleconverter for

your telephoto zoom.<br>Since you asked for opinions, I'm telling you

that I'd rather not use your particular combination. Actually, I'm a

<i>big</i> fun of prime lenses so that I'd rather carry several

primes and a lightweight tripod than a big zoom lens.<br>That

figures. I'd rather be selective on the subjects that can be

photographed with the equipment I have at that moment, than try to

capture everything that falls into my sight with "<i>can do

everything</i>" super-zoom like 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6. However, you are

free to disagree. After all, this is <b>ONLY</b> my opinion. I hope

you'll understand that.

[marcus_erne4]

Hiroshi,

 

<p>

 

everything has it's place. Depending what kind of travel I am doing,

I use mainly my zooms. If photography is the main reason for travel,

I would pack fix focals as well. As I stated initially, I am working

on the fix focal route as well.

 

<p>

 

A 1.4x convertor is never a wrong investment. As everybody knows,

when it comes to long teles, there is absolutely no free lunch. You

get what you pay for. But, another good question is: How much is good

enough for my purposes and what expense can I justify??? Here is a

link to a guy with intersting results...

 

<p>

 

http://web.net-link.net/~cassino/home.html

 

<p>

 

If I am in the position one day to spend $ 2500 + on a f2.8 300 mm

lens or $ 4000 + on a f4.5 500 mm lens I will surely do that. Until

that day, I will probably practice my tele technique with a cheap set-

up. When I see that I am really into it I might convince my wife to

spare a little extra money....;-)

 

<p>

 

May the LIGHT be with you....

[hiroshi_shigematsu3]

"<i>How much is good enough for my purposes and what expense can I

justify???</i>" Good question! The answer is <b>I sincerely don't

know that</b>, but it seems you already answered your very question

yourself.<br><br>Please don't get me wrong, but take a moment to

consider the following. First of all, your Bogen 3401B (a modified

#3221) with a 3410 pan-tilt head is not steady enough for the 560mm

f/8 lens you are trying to accomplish. After all, it <b>is</b> a

560mm lens and need a same (or greater, because of the slower f-stop)

steadiness for the tripod as if supporting a 600mm f/4 lens. You

need to invest a <b>huge</b> chunks of your precious money to the

tripod & head. Also, you mentioned that "<i>I will probably practice

my tele technique with a cheap set- up</i>." What you probably don't

realize is that it is much harder to get a decent photo with a cheap

zoom lens on a TC than a prime lens alone. It will take quite a

considerable technique to reproduce a presentable image with your

particular combo. You will be surprised to see how easier to get a

decent picture with a prime lens. There are less flare, vignetting,

and ghost problems; better contrast, sharper image even at wide open

(not quite so with the telephoto zooms) with prime telephoto lens.

These things alone can improve your photographs, I think.<br><br>By

the way, I believe there is no such thing as a "<i>tele

technique</i>," but only a "photo technique" which can be learned

regardless of the focal length you use; you just have to be selective

on the subject. As you may already know, you can get (and learn)

great pictures with P&S. If you are interested in "photo technique,"

then, I suggest you to read the books by John Shaw and Arthur

Morris.<br><br>If you don't have multi-thousand dollars just laying

around waiting to be spent (neither do I), may I suggest save up some

money on the TC and get a 300mm f/4? Actually, this is the route I

took, and I have never regretted my decision. This size of the

telephoto lens is not so expensive for the quality and light weight

enough to be carried around very often. The good news are your

current tripod is steady enough for this lens (even with 1.4X TC

attached), and it should work pretty well with, shall I say, TCs

(this is not true with most super-telephoto zooms like you

own).<br><br>If all you are trying to achieve are pictures like <a

href=http://web.net-link.net/~cassino/thumbsb.html>these</a>, your

set-up maybe just fine. However, I find them rather underwhelming;

it is fine for the beginner, though. It is easier to show you the

pictures than trying to explain 100 times the difference between ones

taken with zoom and ones taken with prime alone. To use the examples

you suggested, <a href=http://web.net-

link.net/~cassino/birds03.html>this</a> is lacking contrast as the

black is not true black and possibly suffering from flare as the

entire picture looks kind of soft & whitish. These problems seem

common to the many low-cost zoom lenses. Now, let's take a look at

<a href=http://web.net-link.net/~cassino/birds27.html>this</a>. This

is taken with 500mm prime, and you can notice the black is real

black, and there is a better contrast than the picture above. Also,

the focus is much sharper with this, and I cannot detect any flare

with this one. Let me ask you, Marcus. If you have a choice, which

kind of picture would you rather take: <a href=http://web.net-

link.net/~cassino/birds03.html>this</a> or <a href=http://web.net-

link.net/~cassino/birds27.html>this</a>? <br><br>Marcus, if you are

"<i>working on the fix focal route as well</i>", why not get a prime

lens, now, rather than getting a 3rd party TC? There are a lot to be

discovered if you take that route. And I'm sure you will be glad, in

the end, that you have done so. You probably thought your tripod is

steady enough for what you are getting into, but I'll tell you

otherwise. It is not only the size & wieght of the lens you are

mounting but also the focal length of the lens itself to determine

the steadiness of the camera support. Are you ready to shell out

another $400 or more for a new tripod+head in addition to the $150

for a 1.4X TC? It will probably close enough to get you a Minolta

300mm f/4 APO. Now, suddenly, prime route starts sounding much

better choice, isn't it? Also, getting prime lens is not so

expensive if you look for the used one hard enough. Since you are

willing to use 3rd party TC, you may look for the 3rd pary primes,

which is much better than your zoom, as well. Once you start using a

prime lens, you will become less likely to use your 80-400mm zoom.

You'll know why I'm against such lenses. Surely, "<i>everything has

it's place</i>. However, for 80-400mm zoom, it is very likely to end

up being either in a junk box or in a classified ad. once the owner

get a better lens. To me, 100mm & 300mm (and possibly 200mm) prime

lenses have better uses than such zoom lenses.<br><br>Return of the

<b>PRIMES</b>!?

[hiroshi_shigematsu3]

When I post it, for some reasons the link didn't work. So, I'll post

it again.

 

<p>

 

If all you are trying to achieve are pictures like <a

href=http://web.net-link.net/~cassino/thumbsb.html>these</a>, your

set-up maybe just fine. However, I find them rather underwhelming; it

is fine for the beginner, though. It is easier to show you the

pictures than trying to explain 100 times the difference between ones

taken with zoom and ones taken with prime alone. To use the examples

you suggested,

<a href=http://web.net-link.net/~cassino/birds03.html>this</a> is

lacking contrast as the black is not true black and possibly

suffering from flare as the entire picture looks kind of soft &

whitish. These problems seem common to the many low-cost zoom lenses.

Now, let's take a look at

<a href=http://web.net-link.net/~cassino/birds27.html>this</a>. This

is taken with 500mm prime, and you can notice the black is real

black, and there is a better contrast than the picture above. Also,

the focus is much sharper with this, and I cannot detect any flare

with this one. Let me ask you, Marcus. If you have a choice, which

kind of picture would you rather take:

<a href=http://web.net-link.net/~cassino/birds03.html>this</a>

or<a href=http://web.net-link.net/~cassino/birds27.html>this</a>?

[marcus_erne4]

Hiroshi,

first of all, thank you for taking such much time to answer in depth

and trying to convince a hardheaded German (me).

Of coarse I prefer the pictures taken with the 500 mm lens ! It is

really a pitty that I do not have the capability to post a picture

here taken with the 80-400 zoom. It is not as bad as you may think.

 

<p>

 

I own three Shaw books by the way and Morris's book is on top of my

shopping list. I still think that when it comes to tele-photography

you have to work in a slightly different style and it takes some

practice. You have to operate your gear with a lot more care than

when you use wide angle or "short" lenses.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, I think I'll abandon the idea of getting into a longer tele

range via a 1.4x converter on my zoom and focus on my prime route

first. May be I stumble over a used and dirty cheap f 2.8 300 mm

these days... ;^)

 

<p>

 

Thanx again, Marcus

[kuraoka]

I'll just add this rather late note that the Sigma 1.4x APO EX

teleconverter has a front element and mount that sticks out a bit. So,

it does not physically fit many lenses. For example, my Nikon

AF-D-mount Sigma 1.4x EX fits on my Nikkor 300/4 AF and 80-200/2.8D,

but would not fit on my Tamron 70-300 LD (despite a very recessed rear

element) even if I wanted to put together such a combination.

[marcus_erne]

Just for the record:

 

December 2000 I got myself a nice, used Minolta 300mm f/4 with Minolta 1.4x & 2x TC's.

The resulting images are in a higher league than those taken with the zoom, of course.

 

As it is rather lightweight (unlike an f/2.8 lens), it is no "beast of burden" when taking the full rig in a backpack into the field. Although optically much better than the zoom, I often miss the zooms flexibilty of "in-camera-cropping" which proofed to be extremly helpful during a safari in South Africa.

For large mammals the 300mm and 420mm focal lengths are sufficent, but trying to capture medium to smaller birds with a f/8 600mm lens is a major "pain-in-the-butt"!

 

In case I will ever manage to save extra cash, I'll definetly get something longer (Sigma f/4.5 500mm or the new 300-800mm) for my system. As for the Minolta primes, the 400mm is too short and only f/4.5 (not f/4!) and the f/4 600mm is way too expensive, even as used.

But right now I can not justify the expense as I find too little time to practice...

 

However, the other day I took out the Tokina 80-400mm zoom to a local zoo.

In combination with my monopod I managed to capture a fine, frame-filling cormorant image that I showed some of my photo-pals during a recent meeting. They were stunned to hear with what lens it was taken. I guess this is another reason for fine-tuning one's tele-technique, to use a proper support and to keep the Tokina as a dedicated travel zoom!

 

Cheers,

Marcus