I like the 150-600's...but my dilemma...
May 22, 2015 07:55:50 #
andrew.haysom
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
I'm using the Sigma 150-600 Sports on my 60D and it is an amazing lens. I thought it would be a worse performer in low-light than my Sigma 120-400 as it was f6.3 at 600m vs the f5.6 of the 120-400 @ 400mm. But, it is so much better than the 400 in lower light. Image quality is fantastic, but at 2.8kg it is hefty and you definitely need support to use it for more than 1-2 shots, but comfortable on my monopod.
May 22, 2015 15:53:29 #
Jim Bob wrote:
I have that same Canon lens (I assume you are refe... (show quote)
Thanks Jim Bob. Yes to the version I. That 100-400 ain't no picnic either after a while, but the tripod/monopod is definitely nice to have around!
May 22, 2015 15:55:29 #
andrew.haysom wrote:
I'm using the Sigma 150-600 Sports on my 60D and it is an amazing lens. I thought it would be a worse performer in low-light than my Sigma 120-400 as it was f6.3 at 600m vs the f5.6 of the 120-400 @ 400mm. But, it is so much better than the 400 in lower light. Image quality is fantastic, but at 2.8kg it is hefty and you definitely need support to use it for more than 1-2 shots, but comfortable on my monopod.
Thanks for commenting Andrew. Yeah, I really looked hard at the Sigma and was wondering if the 1.4 add-on to what I have would be a cheaper route for now. No problem as far as weight, I've got the tripod and mono.
May 22, 2015 21:02:58 #
mrova wrote:
I shoot with a Canon 60d, and I have the Canon 100-400L (push/pull version).
I'm really enjoying seeing what many of you are doing with the 150-600 lens and I've considered letting mine go and get one of those lens for the extended reach.
My questions: Might it make better sense to just get the 1.4 extender to add to my current lens? Would that degrade the picture quality more than just having the 150-600?
Thanks for the help!
I'm really enjoying seeing what many of you are doing with the 150-600 lens and I've considered letting mine go and get one of those lens for the extended reach.
My questions: Might it make better sense to just get the 1.4 extender to add to my current lens? Would that degrade the picture quality more than just having the 150-600?
Thanks for the help!
The Teleconverters or Extenders will usually not give you the Quality Image you'll be looking for.
Yes the 150-600mms are a little bigger Lenses but the IQ is stunning on either the Sigma or Tamron.
And your reach will be in the neighborhood of 240-960mm on the Canon APS-C CMOS Sensor.
I have the Tamron 150-600mm and love it.
Craig
May 22, 2015 21:20:57 #
CraigFair wrote:
The Teleconverters or Extenders will usually not give you the Quality Image you'll be looking for.
Yes the 150-600mms are a little bigger Lenses but the IQ is stunning on either the Sigma or Tamron.
And your reach will be in the neighborhood of 240-960mm on the Canon APS-C CMOS Sensor.
I have the Tamron 150-600mm and love it.
Craig
Yes the 150-600mms are a little bigger Lenses but the IQ is stunning on either the Sigma or Tamron.
And your reach will be in the neighborhood of 240-960mm on the Canon APS-C CMOS Sensor.
I have the Tamron 150-600mm and love it.
Craig
Thank you Craig, your comment is also helpful. I was wondering about how much, if any, the image quality might suffer. An earlier post mentioned someone that really liked the combination (100-400 & extender).
If I had the extender, would my total reach be that 960mm, but you're saying the image quality will suffer, correct?
May 22, 2015 21:25:52 #
mrova wrote:
Thank you Craig, your comment is also helpful. I was wondering about how much, if any, the image quality might suffer. An earlier post mentioned someone that really liked the combination (100-400 & extender).
If I had the extender, would my total reach be that 960mm, but you're saying the image quality will suffer, correct?
If I had the extender, would my total reach be that 960mm, but you're saying the image quality will suffer, correct?
Yes, your optical image quality will suffer, your AF speed and accuracy will suffer - (if you have any,) and your Shutterspeed/ISO will suffer....
May 22, 2015 21:32:32 #
imagemeister wrote:
Yes, your optical image quality will suffer, your AF speed and accuracy will suffer - (if you have any,) and your Shutterspeed/ISO will suffer....
Here is a good article on extenders/converters especially as they relate to Sony/Minolta but the general concepts apply universally ........
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/teleconverters.asp
May 22, 2015 21:33:35 #
imagemeister wrote:
Yes, your optical image quality will suffer, your AF speed and accuracy will suffer - (if you have any,) and your Shutterspeed/ISO will suffer....
Thank you IM. That is helpful too. Doesn't sound too good.
May 22, 2015 21:39:26 #
imagemeister wrote:
Here is a good article on extenders/converters especially as they relate to Sony/Minolta but the general concepts apply universally ........
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/teleconverters.asp
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/teleconverters.asp
Thank you! I'll check that out!
May 22, 2015 22:26:18 #
I have the same camera, have used the 100-400 lens and am now the proud owner of the 150-600mm Tamron lens. If you take a few steps closer to the subject you'll make up for the difference in focal length. The sharpness is probably better on the Canon but you would have to pixel peep to see the difference. I think the Tamron focuses quicker but you can check out some reviews to verify that.
All in all, I'd say, you're in good shape with the lens you have. If you have unlimited resources, then go for it. If not, save your money.
You might check in with Regis. He has both lenses and can probably give a more informed answer.
All in all, I'd say, you're in good shape with the lens you have. If you have unlimited resources, then go for it. If not, save your money.
You might check in with Regis. He has both lenses and can probably give a more informed answer.
May 22, 2015 22:53:11 #
mrova wrote:
Thank you Craig, your comment is also helpful. I was wondering about how much, if any, the image quality might suffer. An earlier post mentioned someone that really liked the combination (100-400 & extender).
If I had the extender, would my total reach be that 960mm, but you're saying the image quality will suffer, correct?
If I had the extender, would my total reach be that 960mm, but you're saying the image quality will suffer, correct?
I have a Kenko 2x and a Tamron 2x Teleconverters and fined the IQ suffers slightly. But I'm pretty picky.
I don't know anything about the 1.4x or 1.7x Teleconverters.
Craig
May 22, 2015 23:03:06 #
CraigFair wrote:
I have a Kenko 2x and a Tamron 2x Teleconverters and fined the IQ suffers slightly. But I'm pretty picky.
I don't know anything about the 1.4x or 1.7x Teleconverters.
Craig
I don't know anything about the 1.4x or 1.7x Teleconverters.
Craig
I've heard of those but I was looking to put a Canon 1.4 with the Canon lens...wonder if that makes any difference?
May 22, 2015 23:24:20 #
mrova wrote:
I've heard of those but I was looking to put a Canon 1.4 with the Canon lens...wonder if that makes any difference?
The optical IQ differences between 1.4X TC's tend to be quite small ....but the optical IQ differences between 2X TC's is much more pronounced !
May 22, 2015 23:35:30 #
mrova wrote:
I've heard of those but I was looking to put a Canon 1.4 with the Canon lens...wonder if that makes any difference?
In the Nikon world their TCs only work on f/2.8 and faster Lenses I don't know about Canon???
But any TC IS going to lose Image Quality...
Craig
May 23, 2015 06:43:17 #
imagemeister wrote:
The optical IQ differences between 1.4X TC's tend to be quite small ....but the optical IQ differences between 2X TC's is much more pronounced !
Thank you Imagemeister, that is what I was guessing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.