Canon 70-200mm f 2.8 with 2x extender or sigma 50-500mm

[michael_vassallo]

Hey everyone, I was wondering if I would get sharper better pictures

with the canon 70-200mm f2.8 with a 2x extender making it 400mm or

keeping my sigma 50-500mm. I was thinking of selling it to buy the

canon lens. I like shooting pics of surfing,thats why I got the sigma

lens but I am not that imprest with it. I also want to shoot some pics

of models on the beach and I know the Canon lens would be very nice

for that. Do you think I would get better pics with the 2x extender on

the Canon or the sigma at 400mm. Also will the Canon still be auto

focus with the extender on it.

Thanks Michael

[denisgermain]

I've never compared the two is that you would (FOR sure) have a better lens between 70-200mm for your model shots.

I've tried the 1.4 extender and I didn't feel like I lost a lot of quality... not sure about the 2x

[ken halverson]

I had both the 70 - 200/2.8 IS with 2x extender and Sigma 50 - 500mm.

 

Wish I kept the pictures with both lenses so I can show you the differences. I took the same picture at same focal length, and then cropped the pictures. I also compared an image taken at 500mm with the 50 - 500mm and an image taken at 400mm with the 70 - 200x plus 2x, both images cropped to the same perspective (so that both cropped images were the same).

 

But, the 50 - 500mm was better at the longer focal lengths. The 70 - 200 was better optically than the 50 - 500. The 2x extender reduced image quality enough that even the 50 - 500mm provided slightly better picture.

 

I would suggest Canon's 100 - 400mm/5.6 lens, or Canon's 400/f5.6 prime lens.

[jnicholson]

I have the Canon combination. It can probably compete with the image you have attached but I've never been really happy with the results (I mean no disrespect regarding your picture). <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3039905">This</a> is the only picture I have left in my portfolio using that combination. The lens alone though is just great. Good luck.

[John Crowe]

The 400mm f5/6 L would be your best choice for performance and value. The Canon 200mm f2.8 L and 2x converter would provide more flexibility for about the same amount of money. The 200/2.8 is said to be better than the 70-200mm f2.8 so with a 2x it may outperform the big Sigma zoom but likely will still not be as good as the 400/5.6 L.

 

 

Although I have not used these specific lenses I have used a different 200mm f2.8 and 400mm f4.5 in the past and researched a great deal about the lenses in question.

[steve rowe]

I have the Sigma 50-500, the Canon 70-200/2.8L (non IS) and the Canon 2x II converter, and have used both combinations for surf photography.

 

I have found that the 50-500 is sharper than the 70-200 plus 2x. It is also 100 mm longer. When shooting surfing comps, I often find I need all the reach I can get.

 

The 70-200/2.8 will be a 140-400/5.6, so it will still auto focus on pretty much any EOS body.

 

The Sigma is not a great lens, but I ended up keeping it as I could find no other 500 mm lens available at the same price that was significantly better. I have had photos taken with this lens published in magazines, so it does the job for me. I got mine from eBay for around $400 USD, and it has already paid for itself.

 

If I had the money, the 500 mm and 600 mm Canon L primes are the obvious choices, but (for me at least) that will have to wait.

 

The Sigma lenses do not seem to hold much value, so you would be out of pocket quite a lot if you sold yours and bought a 70-200 plus converter.

[steve torelli]

Michael, I agree with Ken and John that the 400 5.6 would be the way to go for the kind of shots that you posted. The 70-200 with an extender would give you more options but the 2X extender seems to degrade image quality considerably. The 400 gets rave reviews in the FM forum for being very sharp. The two Canon lenses are priced about the same I believe. Possibly the 70-200 with the 1.4 TC would give you the reach you want while maintaining quality, but from what I've read (I don't own one) the 400 5.6 is the lens for surfing pix. Good Luck.

[awindsor]

Your picture looks pretty sharp. There is plenty of fine detail in the top of the wave. The picture is lacking in contrast though. This could be due to flare or just the obscene number of elements in the Bigma. The contrast can easily be fixed in software.

 

I suspect the focus is on the wave behind the surfer rather than on the surfer himself. The biggest problem is that the surfer is in shadow.

 

This was shot at 500mm and there is nothing in the Canon arsenal that will get you there with AF on a 20D on a mere mortal budget.

 

I am not convinced that the prime is a better lens for the application. I guess the wave breaks at the same point and you can position yourself for good framing. My friend who shoots motorsport uses the 100-400.

[awindsor]

Not much I can do with the surfer in shadow but the wave looks better. I am sure with more effort you can get a better image but that would require careful masking.

 

Is it really a lack of sharpness that is the problem ?<div></div>

[michael_vassallo]

The sun was directly in front of me and there was alot of glair that day off the water I was using a uv filter as well. The sun was killing me from any angle I tried.