Lens uestion: Sigma 150-600 or Canon 1.4x

[ibskiing]

Hello,

I have a Canon 80D with a canon 70-300 zoom lens (Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L).  It is a very good lens that I use mostly for wildlife and birds.  However, I would like to have more zoom capacity.

I am considering the Sigma 150-600mm lens for around $890 or the Canon EF 1.4X III for half the price.  The 1.4x would get increase my zoom to 420.  

The 1.4x is cheaper, but I believe my current Canon lens is probably of higher quality than the Sigma.  So would the quality of these pics help make up for the lack of zoom that the Sigma would provide?  Or would the 1.4x degrade the qualify of the pics?

I appreciate anyones input.   Thanks,

[Waddizzle]

Nothing in life is free.  When you use the 1.4x, you will gain focal length.  The price that you pay is that you sacrifice maximum aperture.  You will lose an entire stop of light.  Your f/4-5.6 range of aperture will become f/5.6-8.

If this is news to you, then before you buy anything do some research on this topic.  There are others caveats and gotchas associated with using a teleconverter.  Another side effect is that you will lose AF points.  Many of your AF points will be disabled with an f/8 lens.  

The 80D has 27 points that can function at f/8. You will have three rows of [9] AF points, running across the center of the viewfinder display.  This is much better than the highly regarded 7D Mark II, which only has 1 AF point, the center one.

My recommendation is to go for the Sigma "C", or the Tamron "G2".  Be sure to get the accessory USB port device, which is available from the respective manufacturer for either lens.

Be warned that these lenses are beasts.  Read the specs on their physical size and weight.  Some sort of support is recommended for extended shooting sessions.  I use a monopod with my Sigma "C".  It is much easier to carry around still attached than a tripod.  

[cicopo]

Also note that using a TC slows down the AF. Not that important with static targets but very important if tracking a moving target. I've used the Sigma for a few years shooting some VERY fast moving RC aircraft & the AF has no trouble tracking them. Some are flying at speeds in excess of 200 MPH / 325 KPH. This is one that flys in that speed range & was at full speed when I took the photo.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ibskiing wrote:

Hello,

I have a Canon 80D with a canon 70-300 zoom lens (Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L).  It is a very good lens that I use mostly for wildlife and birds.  However, I would like to have more zoom capacity.

I am considering the Sigma 150-600mm lens for around $890 or the Canon EF 1.4X III for half the price.  The 1.4x would get increase my zoom to 420.  

The 1.4x is cheaper, but I believe my current Canon lens is probably of higher quality than the Sigma.  So would the quality of these pics help make up for the lack of zoom that the Sigma would provide?  Or would the 1.4x degrade the qualify of the pics?

I appreciate anyones input.   Thanks,

---

I've found the 1.4x III TC to be a very satisfactory device. But I would not use it on anything but a constant-aperture f/2.8 (or faster) lens, e.g. the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II, for all the reasons that the others have advanced.

[kvbarkley]

One other point that is not obvious, is that that the Sigma lies to the camera so it will still autofocus, even if it is a bit beyond the AF limit for focusing. The Canon will not and the camera/lens/TC may refuse to AF.

[ebiggs1]

It is not just a bad idea to try to use the 1.4x III on your lens, it is a horrible idea. First your lens is not on Canon's list of approved lenses for usage of the tel-con.  Even if it did "work" it would be awful.

The Sigma C is THE way to go.  At this point the Tamron version marked the G2 is slightly better but the Siggy C is a real nice lens.  I have one and use it a lot.  It, as all the big super zooms are, well, big.  They are not unusually difficult to handle for their size though.  I rarely use any extra support and I use my Sigma S most of the time when I use a super zoom. A monopod would be a nice add-on, however. If you want to shoot BIF of course you don't want any thing that will hamper your movement and tracking of the bird.  Such great focal length requires some extra learning and thought. But it is not beyond the average persons ability.

[ebiggs1]

"I have a Canon 80D ..."

Additionally, the big super zoom will be some serious FL (focal length) on a 80D body. I mention this because any motion or camera movement will show up in your photos.  This is mostly overcome by keeping SS (shutter speed) above the "equivalent"  FL.  In your case than can be as fast as 1/1000.  And, 1/1000 is the slowest SS, not top.

This is part of what the learning curve is when you get into extreme FL.

[ibskiing]

Thanks everyone,

Yes I did read about the F stop issue with the 1.4x.  I had read some people say the autofocus, if it worked, was slower.  I had not read that you lose AF points.  So it sounds like I should get a new lens.

My brother in-law bought the Sigma for his Nikon, I played around with a bit, so I am familiar with its size and weight.  He has gotten some nice shoots from using it.

Some people mentioned the Tamron G2 being slightly nicer.  Last I checked it was about $400 more.  Is it worth the additional money?  What are the main differences?  Sigma has a sport version that gets rave reviews, but it is another $400 and heavier than the other two.

Thanks

[Waddizzle]

---

@ibskiing wrote:

Thanks everyone,

Yes I did read about the F stop issue with the 1.4x.  I had read some people say the autofocus, if it worked, was slower.  I had not read that you lose AF points.  So it sounds like I should get a new lens.

My brother in-law bought the Sigma for his Nikon, I played around with a bit, so I am familiar with its size and weight.  He has gotten some nice shoots from using it.

Some people mentioned the Tamron G2 being slightly nicer.  Last I checked it was about $400 more.  Is it worth the additional money?  What are the main differences?  Sigma has a sport version that gets rave reviews, but it is another $400 and heavier than the other two.

Thanks

---

This is covered in the full version of the User Manual, beginning on page 127.  Read up on lens groups.  Some lenses may cause the focusing ability of some AF to degrade, even without a teleconverter. 

[ebiggs1]

"Some people mentioned the Tamron G2 being slightly nicer.  Last I checked it was about $400 more.  Is it worth the additional money?"

I love these super zooms. I ought to I have or have had every one that has come out including the first 150-500mm line up.

My choice is the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens.  All lens should be taken as a package and not just one or two specs.  You need the one that does what you need it to do.  For me the extreme build of the S is important.  Why?  Because I use my equipment and I expect it to be there and do its job no matter what.  The S fills that requirement.

I would not call the Tamron G2 version as "nicer".  It is slightly better in IQ right now but al any time Sigma may up theirs and that would not be true. Is the last little bit of IQ worth $400 bucks?  It would be to me but it may not to you. It is slight and you really need to look at a regular photo to see it.  Again, look at the total package not just the last drop of IQ.  The Siggy C is a great lens.

"Sigma has a sport version ... it is another $400 and heavier than the other two."

It is significantly heavier than either of the other choices. It, again, is slightly sharper than the others.  Is it worth the extra $400?  To me it is, as I bought mine, at $1900, before they came down to their current price.

If you buy the Siggy C you will be happy with it. 

f you have to up your brother-in-law a tiny bit buy the Tamron G2 and rub it in!