Options for Canon Telephoto
Dec 20, 2015 09:31:25 #
I have a Canon T6i with the following EF lenses:
10 - 18mm
50 mm Macro
70 -200 mm 2.8 L IS USM
35 - 350 3.8 L
Some of these are old, but all lenses have autofocus
I am looking for my best option for a good telephoto lens in the neighborhood of 500mm to 600 mm. I want to spend as little money as possible so Canon products are pretty much out of the question.
I am considering the following options:
Tameron 150 - 600
Sigma 150 - 600
OR,
Buying a 1.4 extender as follows:
Canon EF 1.4 III - cost $429
Sigma TC-1401 1.4 extender - Cost $319
I would use the extender with all of my lenses but most with 35 - 350 L which at Max extension with the extender would be the equivalent of 490mm.
My question is first,
Has anyone ever tried this extender one of these or some other lens, and what results?
Second, considering the options I have laid out which would you think would be the best?
Finally, if you have a better option than all of the above, what would it be?
Thanks
10 - 18mm
50 mm Macro
70 -200 mm 2.8 L IS USM
35 - 350 3.8 L
Some of these are old, but all lenses have autofocus
I am looking for my best option for a good telephoto lens in the neighborhood of 500mm to 600 mm. I want to spend as little money as possible so Canon products are pretty much out of the question.
I am considering the following options:
Tameron 150 - 600
Sigma 150 - 600
OR,
Buying a 1.4 extender as follows:
Canon EF 1.4 III - cost $429
Sigma TC-1401 1.4 extender - Cost $319
I would use the extender with all of my lenses but most with 35 - 350 L which at Max extension with the extender would be the equivalent of 490mm.
My question is first,
Has anyone ever tried this extender one of these or some other lens, and what results?
Second, considering the options I have laid out which would you think would be the best?
Finally, if you have a better option than all of the above, what would it be?
Thanks
Dec 20, 2015 09:55:33 #
Never liked using extenders because of decline in image quality. The Tamron 150-600 is widely acclaimed and that would be my choice. I have the new version of the Canon 100-400 and it is a wonderfully sharp lens. But it fails a bit with my 1.4 extender so I don't use that.
Dec 20, 2015 10:01:21 #
I have a 2x that I use on my 70-200 2.8 IS and 300 2.8 IS with good results.
Dec 20, 2015 10:33:44 #
It fails in sharpness? vignetting?
I guess the issue for me is, if the two are comparable, I would go with the 1.4 extender be cause:
1. it is cheaper
2. it weighs less
3. I would have Canon quality all the way.
I have read a lot about the Tameron 150 - 600, and from what I have read, some are suggesting going with the Sigma, since that is better.
On the other hand, the guy who responded after you posted a photo of a bird with a canon 300mm with a 2.0X extender, which presumably would be less sharp than a 1.4X the the photo looks pretty good to me.
I sometimes wonder if I am counting angels on the head of a pin, or more appropriately, pixels on the head of a pin.
I guess the issue for me is, if the two are comparable, I would go with the 1.4 extender be cause:
1. it is cheaper
2. it weighs less
3. I would have Canon quality all the way.
I have read a lot about the Tameron 150 - 600, and from what I have read, some are suggesting going with the Sigma, since that is better.
On the other hand, the guy who responded after you posted a photo of a bird with a canon 300mm with a 2.0X extender, which presumably would be less sharp than a 1.4X the the photo looks pretty good to me.
I sometimes wonder if I am counting angels on the head of a pin, or more appropriately, pixels on the head of a pin.
Dec 20, 2015 11:00:37 #
The shot was tightly cropped.
If you would like I can post the original for comparison.
As good as 3rd party equipment is, I only use Canon products so I know the match is as close to perfect as possible.
If you would like I can post the original for comparison.
As good as 3rd party equipment is, I only use Canon products so I know the match is as close to perfect as possible.
Dec 20, 2015 12:17:02 #
Thanks, posting the original would be helpful.
Also what camera were you using and how many pixels?
The T6i has 25 megapixels which was one of the reasons I got that over the 60D that I also have. My theory being that I don't have to get quite as close to get a good photo. Still testing that theory.
Also what camera were you using and how many pixels?
The T6i has 25 megapixels which was one of the reasons I got that over the 60D that I also have. My theory being that I don't have to get quite as close to get a good photo. Still testing that theory.
Dec 20, 2015 12:22:53 #
Dec 20, 2015 12:31:09 #
BigBear wrote:
5D mk III and 300 2.8 IS with 2x handheld.
Nice shot Big Bear. That's a nice rig you were using. What shutter speed did you use?
Dec 20, 2015 12:45:48 #
davidrb wrote:
Nice shot Big Bear. That's a nice rig you were using. What shutter speed did you use?
Thank you.
It may have come out better is shot at 1/1500-2000.
1/1000
f/5.6
ISO 100
Dec 20, 2015 12:50:08 #
Geeze that looks pretty good to me.
The only thing I might do differently, assuming there was enough light, would be to use a polarizer to bring the clouds into full relief.
That is not a criticism, I just like well-defined clouds.
In terms of criticism, I have none. I couldn't take a hand held photo with an effectively 600 mm lens that looked that good.
The only thing I might do differently, assuming there was enough light, would be to use a polarizer to bring the clouds into full relief.
That is not a criticism, I just like well-defined clouds.
In terms of criticism, I have none. I couldn't take a hand held photo with an effectively 600 mm lens that looked that good.
Dec 20, 2015 12:54:05 #
VegesaurusRex wrote:
Geeze that looks pretty good to me.
The only think I might do differently, assuming there was enough light, would be to use a polarizer to bring the clouds into full relief.
That is not a criticism, I just like well-defined clouds.
In terms of criticism, I have none. I couldn't take a hand held photo with an effectively 600 mm lens that looked that good.
The only think I might do differently, assuming there was enough light, would be to use a polarizer to bring the clouds into full relief.
That is not a criticism, I just like well-defined clouds.
In terms of criticism, I have none. I couldn't take a hand held photo with an effectively 600 mm lens that looked that good.
Thank you !!
Yes, a polarizer might make a difference, but there are no filters for a 300 2.8.
If I were staying in one place to shoot, I would have had my tripod with Gimbal head. But that is too heavy to carry around when chasing the wildlife through the woods.
Dec 20, 2015 13:05:56 #
V'Rex, have you considered a used Canon 100-400 mkl and a used 1.4mkll?
That lens is extremely sharp in the center where it's usually used. On your camera with the 1.4 you would have to tape the pins to get AF but that works very well.
Or just save for the 100-400ll which I've read many times is as sharp or sharper than the other two you mention after being cropped to 600 than the other two at their native 600! Plus in pretty sure either Canon will retain a much higher resale and demand than the other two.
Plus, the Canon, not being a boat, will never need to be docked!!! :lol:
SS
That lens is extremely sharp in the center where it's usually used. On your camera with the 1.4 you would have to tape the pins to get AF but that works very well.
Or just save for the 100-400ll which I've read many times is as sharp or sharper than the other two you mention after being cropped to 600 than the other two at their native 600! Plus in pretty sure either Canon will retain a much higher resale and demand than the other two.
Plus, the Canon, not being a boat, will never need to be docked!!! :lol:
SS
Dec 20, 2015 13:08:41 #
BigBear wrote:
Thank you !!
Yes, a polarizer might make a difference, but there are no filters for a 300 2.8.
If I were staying in one place to shoot, I would have had my tripod with Gimbal head. But that is too heavy to carry around when chasing the wildlife through the woods.
Yes, a polarizer might make a difference, but there are no filters for a 300 2.8.
If I were staying in one place to shoot, I would have had my tripod with Gimbal head. But that is too heavy to carry around when chasing the wildlife through the woods.
The 300 2.8, if it's a Canon, it should take a drop-in filter, no?!
SS
Dec 20, 2015 13:13:35 #
SharpShooter wrote:
The 300 2.8, if it's a Canon, it should take a drop-in filter, no?!
SS
SS
There are gel filters, but not worth the cost for me.
I have them for all of my 77mm lenses but rarely use them as most of my shooting is in the woods with wild lighting ranges.
Dec 20, 2015 13:13:47 #
Wow! What size filter does it take. Or do you mean there is nowhere to screw the filters in? My biggest lens has a 77mm aperture, and there are several polarizers that fit, as well as other filters. (Polarizers are from Tiffen. Zeiss and Luminesque also make them, and they are all pricey, unfortunately.)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.