Canon 300mm 4L+Sigma X2 APO TC

[ohad_kamhi]

i own a canon 300mm 4L

and ide like to buy a TC for it

does anyone have exprience with this combo

(i mostly photograph birds)

[bobatkins]

Why not buy the Canon? A 2x TC isn't the place to start cutting

corners. Even with the Canon 2x the image quality isn't

spectacular, but it's useable.

 

If you want to maintain excellent image quality, get the Canon 1.4x.

It makes a superb 420/5.6 lens. Still very sharp and with good AF.

[alex_yap]

I'd used the Sigma EX 2X APO TC on my EF 300 f2.8 L (non-IS). My SLR reported the correct aperture (f5.6), however, AF speed is not substantially reduced (ala Canon TC's). Comparing it with my Canon 2X TC, the Sigma is visibly softer, more so at the edges than the center. Egrets shots were visibly better (4R prints) with the Canon TC compared to Sigma.

 

I agree with Bob that using 2X is gonna degrade optical performance anyhow, might as well go for something that degrade less (Canon) than more (Sigma).

 

-Alex Yap (Singapore, Rep of)

[andrew_hardacre2]

Bob Atkins is right - the 300mm f4 with a 1.4x TC is a great 420 but the AF is a bit slow even with the EOS3 - for flight shots a 400mm f5.6 prime is better if you can get one, maybe second hand?

 

Andrew

[lanierb]

"...the 300mm f4 with a 1.4x TC is a great 420 but the AF is a bit slow even with the EOS3 - for flight shots a 400mm f5.6 prime is better if you can get one..."

 

I agree that the 300/4 with 1.4x is a great 420 but I don't agree that the AF is "slow". It is probably slower than the lens alone, but it is not "slow". I've used this combination a lot and I have to admit I can't really tell the difference in AF speed in practical use. I wish I had a scanner so I could show you a flight sequence I took last year of a great egret with the EOS3 and 300/4 with Canon 2x (600/8) because every frame in the sequence is very sharp (and two of the frames are two of my favorite shots I took in the last year). The AF speed does suffer a bit with the 2x, especially initial focus acquisition, but it is still very useable.

 

To the initial poster: I would highly recommend getting the Canon 1.4x initially and then getting the Canon 2x later (or perhaps in reverse order if you are absolutely set on photographing birds). I think it is worth the extra money for the Canon converters. It may even save you some bucks because if you get the Sigma/Tamron/etc you might end up getting the Canon later anyway.

[les_gyug1]

I don't have the sigma 2x, but did buy the Tamron 2x (first) and the Canon 1.4x (later). The Tamron simply doesn't get used anymore. The results are downright ugly compared to the Canon (on a 100-400 at the 400 end). The results are soft all over and not pleasing to look at even in the brief views you get in a slide show. Maybe the results won't be so bad on the 300, but maybe not. You can always take your lens to the shop, shoot a quick roll with the Sigma 2x (assuming you are buying at a shop) and then make your decision (Maybe the Sigma is better than the Tamron, but don't hold your breath). Otherwise, you are probably better to wait until you can get the Canon.

[craig_andrew_yuill]

If $$$ are your main concern then I would suggest that you keep an eye out for a USED Canon 2x converter. I use Nikon equipmant myself, and really couldn't afford one of the even-more-expensive Nikon converters. One day, however, a used one popped up at a price I couldn't refuse. Bingo! I now have the converter I always wanted. You also have a lot of on-line purchasing options. Someone might have the product you're looking for at a price you're willing to pay.

[jim_erhardt2]

On a recent field trip, we had an opportuniy to try two different lenses with the Canon 1.4X, a Canon 300/4L and a Tamron 300/2.8 in a side-by-side comparison test.

 

First of all, using the Tamron lens, the correct aperture was not reported when using the Canon teleconverter. Additionally, the sharp plane of focus with this combination always seemed to be ever so slightly in front of the subject when using autofocus.

 

The Canon lens/teleconverter combo did very well, fast and accurate focus and produced sharp slides. In fact, from edge to edge, this combo (420mm) was AT LEAST as sharp at f/5.6 as the Tamron lens alone (300mm) at f/2.8! As everyone here knows, the Canon 300/4L is spectacular by itself.

 

Take the advice of those above and use the matched Canon teleconverters with your Canon lens and get all the performance it has to offer.

[andrew_hardacre2]

"I agree that the 300/4 with 1.4x is a great 420 but I don't agree that the AF is "slow". It is probably slower than the lens alone, but it is not "slow". I've used this combination a lot and I have to admit I can't really tell the difference in AF speed in practical use. I wish I had a scanner so I could show you a flight sequence I took last year of a great egret with the EOS3 and 300/4 with Canon 2x (600/8) because every frame in the sequence is very sharp (and two of the frames are two of my favorite shots I took in the last year). The AF speed does suffer a bit with the 2x, especially initial focus acquisition, but it is still very useable."

 

I guess my definition of 'slow' is relative but I do think there is a noticeable difference with and without the Canon 1.4x TC - the 300mm f4 IS really snaps into focus on its own - the TC does not have that instant snap and occasionally it tends to hunt. With a 2x (again Canon) TC there is an appreciable slow down.

 

My big problem is getting decent shutter speeds with an effective f8 lens as I don't like to use film faster than 100 ISO and ideally I like Velvia. I did try Provia 400 and hated the grain. I tried Ektachrome E200 and found it lacked punch so now I'm back with Provia 100 or Velvia.

 

I am quite surprised you can get good flight shots with the 300mm + 2x TC; are these hand held or off a tripod?

 

Andrew

[lanierb]

Andrew- To answer your question, I was surprised as well that the shots were sharp -- at the time I shot them I was treating it more or less as an experiment. They were made panning off of a solid tripod/ball-head with the late afternoon sun behind me, so shutter speed was reasonably fast despite f/8. I was using an EOS3 in continuous AF mode, which uses the center sensor only at f/8 (which didn't matter because subject was large enough to always cover the center spot). Every shot in a series of 6 was sharp. The funny thing is I now own a 600/4, but at this point I don't think I could have gotten the same shots with it because it is just too large to pan at that speed. Maybe I'll get better at this with practice but right now I don't think I could do it.