lens converter vs an even longer telephoto?

chriswad

chriswad

Suspended / Banned
Messages
27
Name
Chris Waddle
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello to everyone again, and thanks for your advice on grad filters!! I have just recently come back from scotland and got some good shots of sea eagles amongst other wildlife. My telephoto lens however only goes up to 300mm and i woulda killed for extra range or to be closer (which isn't always an option). I have been looking at sigma 50-500mm and 150-500mm, and they are a bit pricey, but i suppose if thats what ya gotta pay thats ...... blah!! Anyway, I have also been looking at a sigma 2x apo dg converter.
Will this basically give me a 600mm range? And also, what is the comparison between this and a telephoto zoom of a similar range.

Any advice or info would be greatly appreciated,

Chris
 
What lens do you use to get to 300mm?
Unless it is a f/2.8 then you will lose autofocus with a 2x converter!
I guess image quality with a 2x conveter will also suffer!

Matt
 
yes, it would give you a 600mm lens, HOWEVER
with a 2x teleconverter, you lose two stops of light, so if your lens at the moment is minimum of f5.6 at 300mm, then you'll be at f7.2 or so when you get to 600mm....most (maybe all, I don't know) cameras can't autofocus at this high a aperture.

That and, even if you decided to go at manually focussing, you're still having to shoot at f7.2 minimum... which, when you want as fast a shutter speed as possible (eliminate camera shake, and freeze action) isn't good at all.
 
Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG MACRO Lens is the lens i use, so basically by what you have both written, it looks as though well... your right! Think saving for telephoto zoom of a longer range might be the way forward!
Thanks for your replies
 
chriswad said:
Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG MACRO Lens is the lens i use, so basically by what you have both written, it looks as though well... your right! Think saving for telephoto zoom of a longer range might be the way forward!
Thanks for your replies
Click to expand...

The TC's won't work on the sigma 70-300mm.

The problem you also have is that the max aperture you camera will work with and still autofocus is f5.6.

You can add a TC to say a canon 100-400mm on your camera body, but you'll be manual focusing the image.

As for the 2 lenses you've highlighted, I would choose the bigma 50-500mm over the 150-500mm, slightly better lens, but very heavy compared to your 70-300mm, so a tripod would come in handy.

Personally I would look at the 400mm f5.6, great wildlife and bird lens, definitely a better option than the sigma's, but more £££

Peter
 
itsdavedotnet said:
yes, it would give you a 600mm lens, HOWEVER
with a 2x teleconverter, you lose two stops of light, so if your lens at the moment is minimum of f5.6 at 300mm, then you'll be at f7.2 or so when you get to 600mm....most (maybe all, I don't know) cameras can't autofocus at this high a aperture.

That and, even if you decided to go at manually focussing, you're still having to shoot at f7.2 minimum... which, when you want as fast a shutter speed as possible (eliminate camera shake, and freeze action) isn't good at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, except that two stops down from f/5.6 is f/11, not f/7.2 :thinking:
 
You would be better getting a longer lens than adding a 2X. Have you thought second hand too? Mifsuds are selling a 400 5.6 for just over 800, you could probably pick up a sigma 500 4.5 for under a grand too........not used it myself but the reviews are mixed some love it some hate it, but it will be 10X better than the 70-300 with a 2X.
 
Would agree with the above, if you can afford it, a longer lens is the better way to go :thumbs:
 
Right, I'm not only looking at telephoto of a greater extent but also macro of the MASSIVE!! kind and also fish eye! Wow this photography lark is addictive but expensive!!
Any advice on where to go first or what other people have done to build up a range of lens'. I know it will take time but thats what its gotta take!
Thanks for your advice so far
 
Yes, it can be expensive but decide what you really want to do (landscapes, portraits, macro, motorsport, wildlife) and focus (if you'll excuse the pun) on just the one thing and gear up for that.

If you just decide to buy a bit of this and a bit of that, you'll be mad or bankrupt or both!
 
desantnik said:
Yes, it can be expensive but decide what you really want to do (landscapes, portraits, macro, motorsport, wildlife) and focus (if you'll excuse the pun) on just the one thing and gear up for that.

If you just decide to buy a bit of this and a bit of that, you'll be mad or bankrupt or both!
Click to expand...

^^^ Very good advice. You can't possibly do all of that extreme stuff at once. But taken one thing at a time, it should be a lot of fun :)
 
im a total newbie, infact im below newbie standard, and ive learned with lenses is you get what you pay for, £30 is cheap and id imagine its cheap for a reason
 
fragdude said:
im a total newbie, infact im below newbie standard, and ive learned with lenses is you get what you pay for, £30 is cheap and id imagine its cheap for a reason
Click to expand...

Yes. It's rubbish.
 
My mate picked up one similiar, just screws on like a filter.. Can't see anything majorly wrong with it :S

Quality is pretty good, nice details, can take some fun shots.

I can't talk for the one being shown, but as fisheye lenses aren't exactly an everyday lens, and I'm not using £2,000 costing DLSR's a £30 doss about is certainly nicer than a £400 full on lens I may use a few times a year.

Just a thought from a poor student photographer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top