Lens extenders

[Jaded62]

Hi all.

Looking at getting a longer lens, say a Canon L series 70-200 f4 for landscapes, I'd like something longer but with a crook back I'm always thinking weight vs anything else.

So my question is.......using say the L 70-200 normally with the rare use of an L 2X extender vs say a 100-400 with the added weight all of the time.


What's best?


Cheers,

Mark.

[farmmax]

There are a few youtube videos which may help you. Here is one such comparison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9zWpihW8IE

[arthurking83]

.....

So my question is.......using say the L 70-200 normally with the rare use of an L 2X extender vs say a 100-400 with the added weight all of the time.


What's best?


Cheers,

Mark.

Hi Mark.
Q. 1.
Do you already have the 70-200/4 L lens?
If so, then the obvious answer would be to go with the teleconverter.

If you are looking to buy the lens to add to your bag, then of course you need to add approx 1kg with the addition of the lens.

Q. 2.
Is F/4 important to you?
If so then go with the Canon lens + TC
If not, and all you want is a bit more reach, I would recommend either of the two lenses from Tamron or Sigma with similar focal length specs.
They respectively have 100-400mm f/5-6.3 lenses.

There is a photography resource on the web called TheDigitalPicture(google it).
There the lenses in question have been tested(in a lab environment!!)
The chap that does this testing rents the gear from a reputable source, so there is no cherry picking of the best lenses to underhandedly showcase a specific brand over another.

You choose your interested gear, then compare it against another piece of gear, where the gear in question here are lenses(up to 400mm)

In your sig, you have two lenses listed, so the focal length from 70-100mm is already covered in your kit.
I would assume that the 100-400mm focal range would be ideal.

If you do the comparison, you will note that whilst the 70-200/4 lenses from Canon are great, the two 100-400 lenses from Sigma and Tamron are no slouches.
They each weigh in at just a touch over 1kg, so in effect only 100g heavier than the 70-200/4 lenses from Canon.

ONLY going by the results at TDP, I would say the Sigma at 400mm looks far nicer(as a landscape lens) than any of the other 4 lenses(ie. all 3 Canons and the Tammy).

The Canons are all seriously affected by CA(Chromatic Aberration) once the 2x TC is mounted.
CA can be easily cleaned up in PP, but this is a step you could easily avoid with the right gear.
Note that CA also implies by design that sharpness is also going to be affected compared to a lens that produces less CA.

But that would be my recommendation to you for your specified needs .. a lens up to 400mm for landscapes.

Also: if you do consider the Sigma lens as a viable option, also consider the USB Dock that Sigma also sells for their lens range.
It's not going to be a vital piece of kit, but it's handy to have .. allows the ability to tweak lens settings, and maximise how well it works for you.

[Jaded62]

Thank you Arthur for you detailed response.

Q1 - No.
The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM is 780g. The Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C is 1160g.

Q2:
# f4 is not a deal breaker but obviously going higher may compromise any hand-held shots due to shake.
# "Reach" is I suppose what this is all about but again I don't want to go mad getting "reach" that I may use sometimes but have to carry and steady all of the time.

I will check out that site. Thanks.

I've had Sigma before and was impressed. Thought the 10-22 was better than the equivalent Canon.

Cheers,

Mark

[arthurking83]

Thank you Arthur for you detailed response.

Q1 - No.
The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM is 780g. The Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C is 1160g.

.....

You're right: BUT!
I was loking more at the actual weight .. the way most folks would use it.
780g is without tripod collar. Closer to 1000g with it.
Sigma 100-400 is nearly 1200g(with tripod collar).

Add the 2xTC(+300g) to the Canon, and for the equivalent (400mm versions respectively) the Sigma is 100g less overall.
Of course you can remove all the added weight for the Canon lens and be lighter overall, but the actual 'in use' reality is basically minimal weight differences between the two options.

....

Q2:
# f4 is not a deal breaker but obviously going higher may compromise any hand-held shots due to shake.
# "Reach" is I suppose what this is all about but again I don't want to go mad getting "reach" that I may use sometimes but have to carry and steady all of the time.

....

Yep! that the way I read the opening remarks .. more about reach, than most other factors ...

Hence why I replied with the alternative options available.

On the topic of minimum aperture (vs focal length).
Again looking at in use realities, I dare say the Canon lens +2xTC would need a minimum of f/11 to get reasonably sharp/contrasty images compared to the Sigma 100-400 @ 400, which will give good sharpness/contrast at f/6.3.
Obviously with that lens set to 400mm and in use for landscape type situation, you'd be more likely to shoot at f/8 .. maybe f/11 .. but depending on distance to subject and DOF you want in the scene, then f/6.3 would render very usable images for sure.


Hope that helps:
And if/when you get your preferred option of gear... be sure to post up some pics!

[Tannin]

Since when did Sigma 100-400s have a tripod collar? Has Sigma finally grown a brain and started providing what should never, ever have been missing in the first place?

[arthurking83]

Since when did Sigma 100-400s have a tripod collar? Has Sigma finally grown a brain and started providing what should never, ever have been missing in the first place?

Nup! many apologies .. you're spot on Tony.

No tripod collar on Sigma.
Tammy has tripod collar.

Too many products to compare .. massive brain fade on my part in claiming Sigma had tripod collar.

One more point against the Sigma, especially if OP wants it for landscapes(ie. more likely on a tripod).

[Journeyman]

Good day Jaded62,

Like you, unstable hands and a ropey old spine apply restrictions. I am a bird photographer and would like to have a lens that goes out to 500mm. The aftermarket variable 500s seem to be heavy.

I have a Canon 400 f5.6L and an EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L2. Both excellent lenses, though heavy in the circumstances. Maybe I need to simplify step away and start again.

I wish you good fortune with your choice. I am currently a basket case of over information and indecision.

Kind regards, Journeyman

[Journeyman]

Should have mentioned, I use a Tamron 18-400 which serves me very well. It is about 750 grams. Worth a look perhaps. The 18 end has a “panorama” effect. For the want of a better description. The 400 end provides good sharp photos. At times I reckon it is at 380 though.

It is a lens I will hold on to what ever I finish up with. Good price around $750/800.
Regards, Journeyman

[Cage]

Good day Jaded62 & Journeyman

Like Jade62 I have unstable hands and a stuffed spine. I've also been an avid bird photographer.

To continue with bird photography I had to reassess my capabilities. It was obvious that I could no longer wander through the scrub snapping shots with a 150-600mm lens so I had to do some lateral thinking. So, if I couldn't go to the birds, how about getting them to come to me. I'd put a birdbath in my yard, and over a period of time I'd noticed that birds have a reasonably predictable timetable. Some birds were morning bathers while most seemed to prefer a tub in the afternoon. They all seemed to take a nap for an hour or so around midday then fed and bathed till near sunset.

Obviously they feed all over the place, so the best option to get shots is to stake out their watering place. I had a tripod and a monopod but the best bit of kit I bought was a Wimberley Sidekick, which when set up and properly balanced allows effortless sideways and vertical movement. I also bought a Ghillie suit but it can be a bit hot in the summer so I often just threw some camo sheet over my head.

I came across one of the Hunter Valleys best bird photographers in the scrub, sitting in the open without any camo gear, about 2m away from a tin lid in which he had placed some mealworms, and a Grey Shrike Thrush was coming in to grab a worm and then fly a metre or so to a tree trunk to consume it's meal. I mention this because if you can sit perfectly still you will not alarm the birds.

So it's then a matter of scouting the bushland to see what's around, late afternoon or early morning is best, and try to locate watering holes. One of my best was a roadside drain that I cleared some brush from to give me a clear sighting, and also put a stick in the ground because the birds will almost always use it to check that their bathing and watering area is safe.

I've now switched most of my lens to Sigma as I just can't justify the extortionate prices for OEM gear. And by using good handholding techniques I can comfortably hold my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 plus a 1.4 T/C, a combo with negligible distortion, and when using it on my Nikon D7200 gives a full frame equivalent of 420mm.

The Wimberley Sidekick allows me to use my Sigma 150-600mm with ease.

A few shots with the big Sigma on the Sidekick. http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...s-at-Le-Trough

[Jaded62]

.........I am currently a basket case of over information and indecision.

My doppelgänger??

- - - Updated - - -

And by using good handholding techniques I can comfortably hold my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 plus a 1.4 T/C, a combo with negligible distortion, and when using it on my Nikon D7200 gives a full frame equivalent of 420mm.

Thanks Kev. For me its the carrying, not the using. Any serious landscapes I do are always on a tripod so using the weight is not a big deal. But as I get older I think lugging a tripod, the 5Ds, 16-35 and say your Sigma (1800g!!!!!!!!, you nick name must Popeye!), blah blah a few kMs up and down dale is something I need to think about. Comparing your Sigma f2.8's 1800g to say the Canon f4 at 780g I don't see a choice here, especially given I'll be using a tripod and so f4 is something I can generally deal with with exposure.

Appreciate your input!