Canon 2x tc vs Tamron 150-600? Looking for more reach for birding and wildlife shots. I have canon 70D and canon 300mm f4L. I realize that the teleconverters loose some light and image...

FSATIN Loc: Westchester, NY

Looking for more reach for birding and wildlife shots. I have canon 70D and canon 300mm f4L. I realize that the teleconverters loose some light and image quality I just wonder if the difference in image quality is worth about $700 difference. The canon 2x extenders are about $429 and the big zooms like Tamron and Sigma's 150-600 are about $1100. Will there be much difference in quality with my 300mm lens and 2x converter and one of the aforementioned zooms.

Jbat Loc: Charleston, SC

I shoot Nikon but I would bet Canon is about the same. If you want quality, I think you better go for the big lens. I have the latest 1.4 TC for my 80-400 Nikon lens and comparing images from it with a Sigma 150-600 that I rented for a special trip there is no contest. The Sigma would blow it away. In fact, I would rather most of the time shoot my 80-400 without the TC and just crop it. I am using it on a D800 so I have plenty of mp to crop if necessary.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

FSATIN wrote:

Looking for more reach for birding and wildlife shots. I have canon 70D and canon 300mm f4L. I realize that the teleconverters loose some light and image quality I just wonder if the difference in image quality is worth about $700 difference. The canon 2x extenders are about $429 and the big zooms like Tamron and Sigma's 150-600 are about $1100. Will there be much difference in quality with my 300mm lens and 2x converter and one of the aforementioned zooms.

Do not use the 2X, but it's ok to use the 1.4x. The sharpness stopped down to F8 (effective), may be almost as good as the Tamron or Sigma shot at F8 at that focal length. A 1.4x TC will only take away 5% of your sharpness, and that 300 F4 L is a great lens.

Keep in mind that camera shake really becomes a problem at longer focal lengths, so adequate support and peerless technique is critical to getting usable images.

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

I have the 60D and Ef 300 f/4 L. Also have the 1.4x and 2x MkIi TC's. The 1.4 does quite well and typically stays on the lens, but the 2x is horrible. The 2X Mkiii version may or may not be a bit better but the $ make that experiment undoeable for me. Also the 2x makes the lens equivalent to an f/8 wide open which will not AF and even in manual focus is unworkable for the wildlife I typically am after.

Kojack

I have a 70D and a 70DMkII and use a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 with a Canon 2X TC. Results are very good in good light with small f/stops (small apertures). with good planing and intelligent use the combination is more than worth the investment and beats the price of a 400 mm lens.

ggttc Loc: TN

Since Sigma introduced its 150 600 line of lenses, the price on the Sigma 150 500 is hovering around $700 to $800

My wife shoots this lens on a D5200 with excellent results...

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

FSATIN wrote:

Looking for more reach for birding and wildlife shots. I have canon 70D and canon 300mm f4L. I realize that the teleconverters loose some light and image quality I just wonder if the difference in image quality is worth about $700 difference. The canon 2x extenders are about $429 and the big zooms like Tamron and Sigma's 150-600 are about $1100. Will there be much difference in quality with my 300mm lens and 2x converter and one of the aforementioned zooms.

You will get excellent images with the 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x teleconverter. With your 70D, the 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x you will have an effective focal length of 672mm. I know quite a few photographers that still use this combination and get awesome results. I know guys that shoot 1DX, 500mm f/4 with the teleconverter and net result is 700mm focal length. That's less than 30mm more on that setup. Most of the guys that shoot with this expensive setup choose not to use the 1.4x because they feel they get better IQ. It's up to you but if you use a 2x on that setup, you will not focus well and you will lose IQ. The 1.4x is a much better choice in my opinion.

erickter Loc: Dallas,TX

FSATIN wrote:

Looking for more reach for birding and wildlife shots. I have canon 70D and canon 300mm f4L. I realize that the teleconverters loose some light and image quality I just wonder if the difference in image quality is worth about $700 difference. The canon 2x extenders are about $429 and the big zooms like Tamron and Sigma's 150-600 are about $1100. Will there be much difference in quality with my 300mm lens and 2x converter and one of the aforementioned zooms.

Dump the converter idea. Straight glass directly to the sensor is best, and $400 more is pocket change. I shoot with the Tamron 150-600 on a Canon crop, and the quality is excellent. $1050 is the best value/quality proposition currently available. Tam or Sig. C and N also excellent quality, but price is not, and IQ is no better than T or S.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Jbat wrote:

I shoot Nikon but I would bet Canon is about the same. If you want quality, I think you better go for the big lens. I have the latest 1.4 TC for my 80-400 Nikon lens and comparing images from it with a Sigma 150-600 that I rented for a special trip there is no contest. The Sigma would blow it away. In fact, I would rather most of the time shoot my 80-400 without the TC and just crop it. I am using it on a D800 so I have plenty of mp to crop if necessary.

:thumbup: