Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.		 OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS ➔ Cameras, Lenses & Accessories ➔ Canon Lenses 
Thread started 24 Dec 2005 (Saturday) 10:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

70-200f2.8 +2xTC vs 135-400f5.6 dilemma..

19 posts, 2 pages
1 2 Next
 
Dave_G
Goldmember
Avatar
3,621 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 10:15 |  #1

Ok

A few months ago I bought a Sigma 135-400 f4-5.6. It's a fairly cheap lens but doesn't have Sigma's nice HSM focus jobbie. Been happy with the results and has produced some images I'm happy with.

Recently treated myself to a Sigma 70-200f2.8 EX DG APO IF HSM...you know the one.

What I'm thinking is, if I splash out on a 2x TC I'll have the same focal length and a faster focusing lens along with all the benefits of the EX HSM etc and still retain the reasonably fast f5.6 aperture.

Is there really any advantage of using the longer lens? Or am I going to be better off with the shorter one with the TC? If so I'll out the 135-400 and buy a 2xTC.

Answers/brainstorms/of​f topic rants welcome!

D

Skoda Fabia vRS SE| Don't make a 70-200 thread | Pan Master™ © Allen Mead | Skodalover |Hippopotomonstrosesqui​ppedaliophobia- Fear of long words... | now with 17s, a turbo, rear tints, dual climate, cruise... must be a new company car

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOSAddict
Book Committee Immortal
Avatar
6,091 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Preston, Lancashire, England
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 10:25 |  #2

Well, practically speaking I assume you will take the 2.8 wherever you can because of its advantages and a TC insted of the other lens you will save a lot of space!

My 2p worth!

Al
My Gear, My Website: www.endofthetrailphoto​graphy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
Return of the Jedi
Avatar
9,911 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2005
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 10:26 |  #3

Only a suggestion: sell the 135-400 and put it towards a Bigma (50-500). The Bigma plus your 70-200 f2.8 is a nice pair to have, and you have HSM/FTM on both.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dave_G
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,621 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 10:33 as a reply to  @ EOSAddict's post |  #4

EOSAddict wrote:
Well, practically speaking I assume you will take the 2.8 wherever you can because of its advantages and a TC insted of the other lens you will save a lot of space!

My 2p worth!

Is what I'm thinking!

fStopJojo wrote:
Only a suggestion: sell the 135-400 and put it towards a Bigma (50-500). The Bigma plus your 70-200 f2.8 is a nice pair to have, and you have HSM/FTM on both.

Hmm!

Skoda Fabia vRS SE| Don't make a 70-200 thread | Pan Master™ © Allen Mead | Skodalover |Hippopotomonstrosesqui​ppedaliophobia- Fear of long words... | now with 17s, a turbo, rear tints, dual climate, cruise... must be a new company car

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOSAddict
Book Committee Immortal
Avatar
6,091 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Preston, Lancashire, England
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 10:40 |  #5

I would love the 70-200 2.8 but then what would I do with my 100-300f4 which I adore!!

Al
My Gear, My Website: www.endofthetrailphoto​graphy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dave_G
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,621 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 10:46 |  #6

trade in for the SIgma 120-300f2.8?

lol

Skoda Fabia vRS SE| Don't make a 70-200 thread | Pan Master™ © Allen Mead | Skodalover |Hippopotomonstrosesqui​ppedaliophobia- Fear of long words... | now with 17s, a turbo, rear tints, dual climate, cruise... must be a new company car

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOSAddict
Book Committee Immortal
Avatar
6,091 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Preston, Lancashire, England
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 14:01 |  #7

There's an idea! Still, I am looking for a suitable way to bridge that 70-100 gap I have! Wish Sigma would do a version of the new 24-105 F4L !!

Al
My Gear, My Website: www.endofthetrailphoto​graphy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,819 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: UCLA
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 14:11 |  #8

How about Sigma's 100-300 f/4?

And you can always stick a 1.4 tc on it.

Go UCLA (external link)!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.com (external link)SportsShooter (external link)|Flickr (external link)|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dave_G
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,621 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 14:12 |  #9

see what I mean? decisions decisions

Skoda Fabia vRS SE| Don't make a 70-200 thread | Pan Master™ © Allen Mead | Skodalover |Hippopotomonstrosesqui​ppedaliophobia- Fear of long words... | now with 17s, a turbo, rear tints, dual climate, cruise... must be a new company car

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,819 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: UCLA
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 14:14 as a reply to  @ Dave_G's post |  #10

Dave_G wrote:
see what I mean? decisions decisions

Options are always good or tormenting. :lol:

Go UCLA (external link)!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.com (external link)SportsShooter (external link)|Flickr (external link)|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dave_G
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,621 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 14:19 |  #11

hell yeah

my main objective is to get maximum focal length, minimum bag space used up!

70-200 2.8 + 2x TC would take up less space than that combo plus the 135-400, because I'd carry the 70-200 almost everywhere...religious​ly hahaha

Skoda Fabia vRS SE| Don't make a 70-200 thread | Pan Master™ © Allen Mead | Skodalover |Hippopotomonstrosesqui​ppedaliophobia- Fear of long words... | now with 17s, a turbo, rear tints, dual climate, cruise... must be a new company car

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,819 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: UCLA
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 14:23 |  #12

How much do you value quality? I mean you could get the 70-300 DO, and that thing would take up very little space. :p

It's all realive to what you desire in a lens. Speed, sharpness, etc.

Go UCLA (external link)!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.com (external link)SportsShooter (external link)|Flickr (external link)|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOSAddict
Book Committee Immortal
Avatar
6,091 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Preston, Lancashire, England
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 14:52 |  #13

I think Dave's original qu was based on the fact that he already has the 70-200 2.8 and isn't about to get rid of it... what would be best way of increasing his focal length - another lens or a TC.. am I right?

Al
My Gear, My Website: www.endofthetrailphoto​graphy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,819 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: UCLA
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 15:42 as a reply to  @ EOSAddict's post |  #14

EOSAddict wrote:
I think Dave's original qu was based on the fact that he already has the 70-200 2.8 and isn't about to get rid of it... what would be best way of increasing his focal length - another lens or a TC.. am I right?

Yeah, but if you are going to use a 2x extender a lot to get 400 + crop factor applied, your results will be okay at best.

Go UCLA (external link)!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.com (external link)SportsShooter (external link)|Flickr (external link)|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOSAddict
Book Committee Immortal
Avatar
6,091 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Preston, Lancashire, England
More info
     
Dec 24, 2005 15:45 |  #15

I've seen some pretty good results withthe EX/L lenses and 1.4 and 2x TCs - probably at least as good as the 135-400 Dave already owns

Al
My Gear, My Website: www.endofthetrailphoto​graphy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

19 posts, 2 pages
1 2 Next
1,537 views & 0 likes for this thread, 4 members have posted to it.
70-200f2.8 +2xTC vs 135-400f5.6 dilemma..
FORUMS ➔ Cameras, Lenses & Accessories ➔ Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home
Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
1992 guests, 126 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.