1.4tc vs Crop 1.6

what is the general idea, i was using the 100-300 f4 siggy which is known for its sharpness on a 7D, overall it was not as sharp as i expected. Earlier i had used the 200 2.8II with a kenko 1.4 tc on my 1dmkII (1.3) and was happy with the results.

I have just bought the 120-300 2.8 and dont know if i should get a tc or a 40d/1dmkII.

what is the general consensus as I only have FF, get the tc or a 40d? I need sharp images.

Sigma 100-300/4 on a 7D should be very sharp. I'll assume you used a monopod. If you did not get good results with that combo perhaps work on your technique before buying more glass. An example posted here might help.

I'm a bit confused. Were you using the 100-300 on one of your bodies or someone else's 7D? It sounds like you're comparing one lens and camera with a second lens and camera, not two lenses on the same body, which reduces the variables. Also, you may have experienced individual variations between the lenses, in addition to or instead of systemic lack of sharpness for a given lens design. And then you're asking for help on whether to buy a TC or a different body for yet another lens selection.

Are you contemplating replacing one of your existing bodies with the 7D, should you go that route? Otherwise there's a significant cost difference between the two options, and you'll have a third body to carry around. But you will have f/2.8 across the board. Between the 7D's high ISO performance and its higher burst rate than your existing gear, it'll also extend your capabilities. Replacing the 1Ds2 with it you'll also get a real boost in enlargeability from the added pixel density.

gasrocks wrote in post #9601510
Sigma 100-300/4 on a 7D should be very sharp. I'll assume you used a monopod. If you did not get good results with that combo perhaps work on your technique before buying more glass. An example posted here might help.

heheheh yeah it was with a monopod and I did well over 5000 shots so I have plenty of experience.... It was the overall sharpness that I was not happy with. It seemed the 200 with tc did better.

Jon wrote in post #9601855
I'm a bit confused. Were you using the 100-300 on one of your bodies or someone else's 7D? It sounds like you're comparing one lens and camera with a second lens and camera, not two lenses on the same body, which reduces the variables. Also, you may have experienced individual variations between the lenses, in addition to or instead of systemic lack of sharpness for a given lens design. And then you're asking for help on whether to buy a TC or a different body for yet another lens selection.

Are you contemplating replacing one of your existing bodies with the 7D, should you go that route? Otherwise there's a significant cost difference between the two options, and you'll have a third body to carry around. But you will have f/2.8 across the board. Between the 7D's high ISO performance and its higher burst rate than your existing gear, it'll also extend your capabilities. Replacing the 1Ds2 with it you'll also get a real boost in enlargeability from the added pixel density.

I used to have the 7d as well, returned it because the video was faulty. Im not comparing on the same body as i have never used the 2 lenses on the same body, i sold the 1dmk2 and got the 7d. then for another job i got the 100-300mm which I then sold again. Now I have gotten the 120-300 for a new job but im contemplating getting a 40d rather than a tc. I will not get rid of my bodies that i have. I really need 2 FF for the daily work but would like a "sports" camera of sorts. the 40d gives good file sizes onlything im not suer of is the AF but thats not the q in here, im sure I can finda thread on that...

what im thinking with the 40d is the 2.8 rather than 4 but tehn again Id probably shoot at 4 anyway to increase or rather lower the dof.

I haven't used the 100-300 zoom but I`ve had a 200 2.8 and the 200 is a very sharp lens. If you like very sharp images at the pixel level, I doubt you`re going to find a zoom that`s any sharper than a 200 2.8, even with a 1.4x attached (assuming they are used on the same camera). So I would base the decision on the use. The zoom is much more versatile than having to take the 1.4x on and off, plus you get a constant aperture.

Is it ok that I mention taking over 5000 shots tells me nothing about your skill level. Really the Sigma 100-300/4 is a great lens and the 7D a great camera.

of course its ok.

ill digg up an example that chuffed me.

edit: so you think that id get a better result with 1.6 rather than a 1.4 tc? ex 40d vs 1dsmk2+1.4tc on the same lens?

here we go, these are lo-res images that accompany the hi-res on cd to client. As you can see the first is taken on the centerpoint but because of nature of the job you can not get closer. it is taken at 300 f4 with a 7d. however to hand to client cropping has to be done. and thats where i think it loses on the sharpness.

edit - upload in reverse order...

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

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

Looks over exposed to me, with too slow of a shutter speed maybe - his hand with the ball seems blurry. I had a MK III and a MK IIN at the same time I had 2 40Ds. For wildbirds, things you cannot get close to and need long lenses (and good technique, of course) the results from the 40D won almost every time.

zincozinco wrote in post #9602534
here we go, these are lo-res images that accompany the hi-res on cd to client. As you can see the first is taken on the centerpoint but because of nature of the job you can not get closer. it is taken at 300 f4 with a 7d. however to hand to client cropping has to be done. and thats where i think it loses on the sharpness.

edit - upload in reverse order...

Based on the grass in front of him, the lens may have been front-focusing pretty badly.
Did you micro-adjust the lens?

problem is that you have to expose for the face, and they all wear caps Other thing for my clients its ALWAYS important that I expose so that the grass is green and lush not dark.... The other problem I had here was that I had to shoot in jpg. There was no support on Apple for the 7d when I had this gig.

Again there is always so many factors its never clear cut is it??

Are you saying the 40 - because of the 1.6 vs the 1.3? I think I might give it a try. I really like the idea of the 40d the fps is fast but not mad and the file size is fast on the computer.

int2str wrote in post #9602565
Based on the grass in front of him, the lens may have been front-focusing pretty badly.
Did you micro-adjust the lens?

id say all of him is actually in focus but he is moving his legs. I have Alot of other shots and they are all in focus. Its just sharpness im after, i know they go hand in hand. im guessing ill go 1.6 over a tc.

zincozinco wrote in post #9602610
id say all of him is actually in focus but he is moving his legs. I have Alot of other shots and they are all in focus. Its just sharpness im after, i know they go hand in hand. im guessing ill go 1.6 over a tc.

Well, this is just my personal opinion, but I don't think he is in focus. I think your lens front-focused and that's why he's not as sharp as he could be.

Again, just my opinion.

I think the golfer's hand is sharper than his face - I'd say the lens front focused. I'm not surprised.

I had 2 Siggy 100-300 f/4 lenses. Both were very sharp and both front focused on mulitple bodies. That, coupled with the reverse rotating zoom ring led me to sell them and go back to Canon.

My Canon 300 f/4 in comparison, focus right on and give nice sharp results. I'm happy even though it isn't a zoom.