Jump to content
Welcome to the NEW Photo.net! ×

Will Canon 1.4x extender work with Sigma 70 -200 F2.8 Lens


model mayhem gallery
 Share

Recommended Posts

<p>Recently upgraded from crop sensor camera to full frame and have lost the long end of my 200 zoom. Used to get out to about 320mm with 1.6 crop. I know 1.4x won't get me that far but at least it will add some reach back.<br>

I will eventually upgade the Sigma for Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS. Can I invest in the Canon extender now but use it with the Sigma lens or should I just play it safe get the Sigma extender. I will use the Sigma as long as I can and don't plan on upgrading until I have to.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I know from experience the Canon 1.4x extender does not fit the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro. Since the Tamron, Sigma and Kenko extenders are generally well-reviewed and fit many more lenses, I'd go with one of those. I finally bought a used Sigma 1.4x extender to use with the macro lens, and it works quite well.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong><em>"will the Sigma 1.4x work with my Canon L- series lenses?"</em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

I <strong><em>think </em></strong>it mounts OK with <em>L series </em><strong><em>telephotos</em></strong><em> and </em><strong><em>telephoto zooms</em></strong><em>, including 70 to 200, yes.</em> </p>

<p>It <em><strong>does not</strong></em> necessarily work with <em>"my Canon L- series lenses?"</em> <em><strong>(being an inclusive statement of all L lenses)</strong></em></p>

<p>But I do suggest you <em>await someone to confirm my beliefs, in this regard - as I guess you are specifically concerned about the EF70 to 200.</em></p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Note however, Sigma do recommend the x1.4 <em >NOT be used with lenses other than those Sigma specify</em>: and <strong ><em >Sigma specify specifically the x1.4 be used with Sigma lenses</em></strong>, so I guess that implies, for example, if AF does not function on the EF70 to 200, then it is your problem, not Sigma's Problem.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p >Don't worry I believe I have confirmation that my belief was correct: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >FYI:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >"Canon make two EOS compatible teleconverters, a 1.4x and a 2x. They will only mount on EF telephoto lenses of the "L" series since they have a protruding front element which prevents mechanical coupling to (almost) all the other EF series lenses. Even if you could mount them on other lenses, the results might not be good. The Canon teleconverters are obviously designed to provide an optimum match to the optical characteristics of their telephoto lenses. The Canon teleconverters convey the true aperture of the lens/converter combination to the camera body, i.e. a 300/2.8 with a 1.4x attached to it will show a maximum aperture of f/4 on an EOS body. Both converters can be mounted on any EF series lens if you use an EF25 extension tube. This is, of course, only useful for macro work. To get AF operation with a 1.4x converter you must use a prime lens of f/4 or faster. f/4 will become f/5.6 with the converter attached. Similarly to get AF operation with the 2x converter you must start with a lens that is f/2.8 or faster. f/2.8 will become f/5.6 with the converter attached. With lenses slower than the values specified above the camera will not even TRY to autofocus. Thus unfortunately you cannot get AF operation with the 500/4.5L and a Canon 1.4x converter. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Tamron, Sigma and Vivitar all make EOS compatible AF teleconverters (there are also a few "store" brands). These converters will mount on any EF series lens, or any 3rd party EOS compatible lens. They do NOT convey the true aperture of the lens/converter combination, i.e. If you start out with a 300/2.8 and add a 3rd party 1.4x converter, the EOS body will still allow you to set an aperture of f/2.8, when your true maximum aperture is f/4. This will not affect exposure accuracy however since the TTL metering will take care of things for you. If you use a hand held meter and transfer readings to the camera in manual exposure mode you will have to remember to make the exposure correction yourself. The only problem I can see is in situations where the lens aperture is used to calculate other things, such as depth of field or flash range. The Tamron 1.4x converter claims to provide AF with any lens faster than f/4.5 (vs f/4 for the Canon 1.4x). I don't know how accurate this is. It certainly seems to work fine with an EF300/4L lens. The Tamron 2x claims to provide AF with any lens of f/4 or faster (vs. f/2.8 for the Canon). This is not really true. It does provide some AF when used with an EF300/4L, but not 100% reliable AF. Under average daylight conditions with average targets it probably gives something like a 65% success rate. The reason Canon's specs are tighter is that they quote numbers where you can expect to rely on AF operation, not that their converters are not as good (they are at least as good, and probably better). From some brief measurements I have made, it looks like both the Canon and Tamron 1.4x converters are indeed very close to 1.4x. The Canon 2x seems to be very close to 2x, but the Tamron 2x seems a little less powerful than stated, perhaps closer to 1.8x. This may not be altogether bad, but it is as well to be aware of it. The difference should give you a little more aperture, but at the expense of a little less focal length. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Converter quality. Canon's are the best, but also the most expensive. George Lepp (in his "Natural Image" newsletter) tested a number of converters and found the Tamrons to be the best of the 3rd party brands (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and Vivitar tested with Nikon, Canon and Sigma lenses) most of the time. They were close to the Canon converters in center resolution, but were not as good at the edges of the frame. I have found a similar result comparing images taken with my Tamron converters with those taken by Jay Schlegel using the Canon converters. The biggest difference seems to be between the Tamron 1.4x and Canon 1.4x at the frame edges. Central resolution (used with a Canon EF300/4L) was good in both cases at 70+ lp/mm. However the resolution and lateral color at the edges of the frame were better with the Canon converter. There seemed to be less difference between the Canon and Tamron 2x converters in terms of image quality. Contrast with all the 3rd party converters may also be lower, and they may introduce more chromatic aberration. They cost less than the Canons, so you have to decide if you can put up with the lower quality images, though if you intend to use them with anything other than "L" series telephotos then the Canon converters are not an option anyway. In general, converters don't work well with low cost zoom lenses. They can give acceptable results with some higher quality zooms (e.g. EF80-200/2.8L) and can give quite good results with high quality telephotos, especially if you stick to the 1.4x converters. In general, avoid any 3x converters or "store brand" converters since the quality of images they produce is not likely to be acceptable. Converters are a compromise of size, weight, cost and quality. Only YOU can decide if the quality of the images they provide is acceptable. Do not expect miracles, and do not use them in critical applications (like on a one-in-a-lifetime safari) without testing them on the lenses you will use them with to see if you can live with the results. A converter which gives great results with one lens, may not be all that great with another, so test all the combinations you intend to use. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >One final point, despite anything you may read elsewhere, teleconverters can work no "magic" with respect to depth of field. Whether you have a 400mm f/5.6 lens, or a 200mm f/2.8 with a 2x converter (=400/5.6) you get <em>exactly</em> the same depth of field in each case."</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >All original material is Copyright © 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 Alvin Chia-Hua Shih and Robert M. Atkins. </em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >REFERENCE CITED: <strong ><em >Bob Atkins Photography</em></strong> (WEB) CANON EOS FAQ Version 2.4 November 1993 Section 4; Lenses; Item 16 “Tell me about teleconverters”</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/eosfaq24/4lenses.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/eosfaq24/4lenses.html</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just checked the prices of the Sigma 1.4x it is only $50 cheaper than the Canon. Which is like $300 more expensive than I expected. But a very cheap 300mm F4 when compared to $1200 the Canon 300mm F4 IS lens. I liked having 300mm on my 30D. Now my only decision is do I keep the 30D for long range shots? Or buy the Sigman branded 1.4x for my Sigma lens? After shooting with the 5D2 I have not used the 30D, I will have to get iti out and see if it still works for me ;-)<br>

Thanks</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Interesting trivia: The 5D2 and 30D have exactly the same pixel pitch - 6.4 micrometers on both. Among other things, that means that simply cropping your 5D2 image from 5616x3744 pixels down to 3504x2336 pixels will give you pretty much exactly the same picture you would have gotten if you'd shot it with the 30D in the first place.</p>

<p>So: If you need a backup camera, you might keep the 30D for that reason. But otherwise I'm not sure there's much point.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My backup camera for my Canon 5D Mark II is a Canon ELAN 7NE. It was the reason I switched to full frame so that I could switch cameras in studio and not have to move my tripod or change my lighting. I am thinking about keeping the 30D as throw in the trunk walk around camera when I might want to shoot on the beach or in night clubs or something where I ain't getting paid and don't want to risk damaging my 5D2.<br>

I din't think the extension tubes ould be such a big deal, but the reviews on the Sigma 1.4x are not very good.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For reference, here's two links.</p>

<p>First is the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro with and without the Sigma 1.4x extender. Roll the mouse over the image to flip between with/without images. The extender quality is quite good.</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=378&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=378&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0</p>

<p>Next is a similar lens, the Canon 180mm f/3.5 L macro, with and without the Canon 1.4x extender. Again, roll the mouse over the image to alternate the views. The extender quality is good, but no better than the Sigma.</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=109&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=109&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0</p>

<p>I bought the Canon before I was aware of the compatibility problems of that extender. I would have started with Tamron/Sigma/Kenko if I'd known they fitted many more lenses. Which extender works best with which lens is basically impossible to answer without testing them yourself - no one has tested all combinations. But in most tests I've seen, the better third-party extenders work well, as good as Canon's.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use my Sigma 1.4x and 2x EX APO converters with my 200/2.8L. So yes, the Sigma extender works with some Canon gear.</p>

<p>I can't vouch for the reverse, Canon converter on a Sigma lens. Which is what you're interested in.</p>

<p>I'm quite happy with the Sigma converters. Good resolution, slight decrease in contrast. The 2x converter has slight halation and purple fringing. I believe Sigma makes both consumer-grade and EX-grade converters. The EX converters cost only a little bit more. So watch when you're ordering and be sure to get the good ones. FWIW I got my converters used from Keh, saves quite a few $$,</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The only Sigma lens I know for a fact will fit Canon teleconverters is the 120-300mm f2.8 zoom because it needed to appeal to news and sports photographers who probably already have the Canon extenders in their kit. The new 150-500mm will not take Canon extenders because the inner diameter of the rear opening of the lens is smaller--the Sigma extender matches in that regard. To answer another question. That means that, based on my own tests, there is a significant amount of vignetting when using the Sigma extender on Canon lenses because the diameters of the lens elements don't match.</p>

<p>But on POTN, if you do a search you will find this definitive list of what will and won't fit:<br>

<br /> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41922</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...