Camera Labs

Hi

Anyone has had experience using this lens? Any experiences using it together with one of the teleconverters?

_________________
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 L

Ive used one a couple of times.

Build quality is superb. Its a little heavy, but definitely feels solidly built.

Autofocus was fast, but I also found it to be not particularly accurate in maybe one in three or four attempts. Maybe just the particular model I used however. The manual focusing ring seemed perfectly damped for my liking however.

Not had any use with it on a teleconverter.

What exactly did you want to know about it?

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Hi Jeremy.

Thanks for the reply.

I want to change the telephoto I have (the sigma 120-400) for faster lens. So I'm thinking on getting a 70-200mm 2.8 (sigma or canon, sigma is supposed to offer a newer version of its current lens) and get a 300mm 2.8 fast prime.

This prime will be primarily for wildlife photography, so I'm interested on image quality, specially if being coupled with a teleconverter.

_________________
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 L

I dont have any complaints, shot it wide open and was fine. Why not get a prime 200mm f2.8 and a 2x teleconverter both from canon? Its just getting a 70-200mm and a 300mm seems like overkill to me

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Ok, that's good to know.

Mainly, if I switch to a 200mm prime, I would have a gap from 55mm to 200mm, that's why I an thinking about a 70-200mm zoom.

The idea of the 300mm is just for wildlife, coupled with a, say, 2x TC, I'd get 600m while with the 200mm the focal length would be 400mm. That's a 50% difference.

The thing is, 300mm f/2.8 primes are not precisely cheap...

_________________
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 L

To be honest, I would think that the results with a teleconverter, even the canon option, would be a let down. Ive never really used one, and the people I know that do, use exotic 400mm and 600mm lenses.

I think that a 300mm through a 2x converter would give less quality than your current Sigma at 400mm even once cropped to give a 600mm equivalent.

I find no need to cover all of the 55-200mm range if Im honest. Generally I shoot film, and the lenses I would take on a general shoot would be my 24mm, an 85mm and then my 300mm f4. I have a 135mm which I crack out only really for portraits.

Converting these ranges to digital cropped sensors, you'll note that I dont actually cover anything between 55mm and 200mm!

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Yes, precisely the point I am worried about is the performance of the lenses with teleconverters.

Thanks for your input.

_________________
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 L