Sigma VS Canon 2X teleconverter????

Hello there,

first off, thanks for trying to help....

I am looking to get a telephoto lens for my 7D...

I've been debating wether i should go for a 4.0+ super telephoto (300mm+) or a faster 2.8 200mm..... i think i came to a conclusion that it's better to spend my money on a smaller BUT BETTER lens... so i'm going for the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS.... now 200mm is not enough for birds so i am thinking to get a teleconverter... a fast lens like this one should be able to handle a 2X teleconverter...

now what's the difference between the Canon 2X EF Extender III and the Sigma 2X teleconverter? i mean quality-wise.. would the canon EF extender work better with this lens or the SIGMA? what are your thoughts? any experience?


Thanks again!

If you aren't planning to use 200 much but want longer why not pickup 100-400?

is it mainly for birds and wildlife? if so the 70-200 f2.8 OS is not the best choice...

Aside from the above, the Canon telecoverter is really only designed to be used on certain Canon brand L lenses. It will probably not even mount on a Sigma lens.

what lens should i go for then... :s i've been trying to choose an option for ever so frustrating! lol

ramtin k wrote in post #15121502
what lens should i go for then... :s i've been trying to choose an option for ever so frustrating! lol

if it's birds and wildlife i wouldn't look at anything shorter than 400mm if you can afford it(aside from maybe the 300f4IS, or sigma 120-300f2.8OS + TC's)

depending on budget some options are:

sigma 120-400OS
sigma 150-500OS
canon 400f5.6L
canon 100-400L
sigma 50-500OS

tkbslc wrote in post #15121325
Aside from the above, the Canon telecoverter is really only designed to be used on certain Canon brand L lenses. It will probably not even mount on a Sigma lens.

Where do you take this information?
Many Sigma lenses take the Canon extenders.
I have the Sigma 70-200 OS and Canon extenders and there is no compatibility problem.

ramtin k wrote in post #15121502
what lens should i go for then... :s i've been trying to choose an option for ever so frustrating! lol

Sigma 300mm F2.8 ( plus either 1.4 or 2.0 tc ) This will give you 3 options, bare lens is great for Dragonflies too.
The cheapest way to 600mm in my opinion whilst keeping high IQ. This is with a 2x tc wide open, F5.6 at 600mm. Can't lay my hands on any with a 1.4 tc or bare lens at the mo, but this will be as bad as you will get, the 1.4 and bare lens are better
Oh, and the AF is pretty quick too with the 2.0x tc and lightening fast without it.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

^^fyi...exif says f9...

The Sigma 150-500 is highly regarded. -rick

Rush87 wrote in post #15121633
Where do you take this information?
Many Sigma lenses take the Canon extenders.
I have the Sigma 70-200 OS and Canon extenders and there is no compatibility problem.

From Canon and from the design of the TC. That's great that they work in this particular scenario, but there are many lenses the Canon TC's won't even mount on.

DreDaze wrote in post #15121783
^^fyi...exif says f9...

Ooops you're right, if I remember correctly it will also say I shot it in P too, dial slipped. Still nailed it though
The one and only time I've ever shot in P, for birds it's Av for me. Still a much underrated lens for the money, I bought the lens, plus a 1.4 and 2.0x tc for less than the cost of a 100-400. Normally I shoot it exclusively wide open.

All Canon extenders mount on the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS. I used to have 4 different 2x TCs, including the expensive Canon 2x III. Sold it eventually when I got my Sigma 2x APO EX DG. Sharpness in the center was close, actually favored the Sigma a bit. Corners: Canon won by a bit. What the Canon does better is controlling CA. I ended up selling the Canon and freeing up some funds this way.

However, the question is what are you planning to shoot? If mostly birds, I'd go longer, such as Sigma's 150-500 OS, or perhaps the Canon 100-400L IS. Yes, it is only 400mm but a good copy is nice and sharp and contrasty. The Canon 400m f/5.6L is good too, although no IS.

If you think that you could use a fast 70-200 lens in many applications, it is worth considering the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS or (if budget allows) the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II.
I'd say a Sigma 2x TC works pretty much equally well on the Sigma lens, but if you go the Canon route, I'd get the Canon 2x III.
The Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS is decent with the 2x Sigma TC, I usually avoid wide open (f/5.6) it is much nicer at 6.3 and up. Still, even an average copy of a 100-400L would beat it in IQ and especially AF speed.
I also own the Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS which is a great lens. Sharp, and fast, and works great with TCs. But it's quite heavy. So quite often I actually take the Sigma 70-200 OS + a couple TCs with my for a "nature oriented" walkaround. When I know that I'll be sitting in a blind or other stationery places, I take my 120-300 OS and tripod/monopod.

but again the bottom line is, do you plan on only shooting birds, or do you also shoot events, portraits, sports, especially in lower light environment? If yes, then a good 70-200 2.8 OS/IS + TC would be a good, flexible solution.

Here are a couple shots taken with my Sigma 70-200 OS + Sigma 2x TC (cropped somewhat and processed):
(Note: the last one was taken using an older, non-reporting TC, hence the EXIF info stating 200mm)

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/6​982833742/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/6​941296912/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/29108710@N04/6​193055305/