With your lens and camera combination, you are already at an effective 750 mm. That is a really long focal length, so I am wondering what you are trying to shoot. A lot of the need for a converter can be covered by improved field technique, although there certainly situations where that doesn't apply or would be a really bad idea.
I have not used that lens specifically, but I suspect that adding a teleconverter is not a good idea. For what it does, it is a good lens but it is not the sharpest lens out there. Adding a teleconverter will make that very obvious, plus even a 1.4 converter will push the focal length to a shade under 1000 mm.
That focal length is a combination I have used with Canon's best glass and it was extremely difficult to get sharp images because of the effective focal length. I have good technique but this combination was ruthless in exposing my weaknesses.
There are really only a few zoom lenses that respond well to teleconverters, the 70-200 2.8's being one of the few.
I agree with Dan's points completely. As a Nikon shooter I can add a few things:
1. Many experienced Nikon shooters find that Nikon's TC's tend to perform better on quality prime lenses than they do on any zooms, including the near-legendary 200-400. Personally, I will NEVER put a TC on a zoom, but I readily admit I tend to be very anal about image quality.
2. Based on communications I've had with several Nikon shooters, there seems to be such a variability in opinion in TC performance (usually with prime lenses) that I'm fairly convinced there is high sample-to-sample variability in quality of the Nikon TC's. So you'd be best to try a few different ones (at the shop) before purchasing one.
If you're interested in my experiences with TC's with Nikon's own lenses (and my general comments on Nikon's TC's), feel free to go here (I just updated it yesterday based on more testing over last weekend):
Like Dan, I haven't used the Sigma lens, but I do use Olympus's 300mm and 90-300mm zoom, both f2.8 glass. The results with the two different lenses combined with teleconverters is instructive, I think.
Both the Olympus 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters work pretty well with the 300mm f2.8 fixed, although I usually shoot in AF-M, manually adjusting pretty carefully after initial autofocus. That's 300 x 2.0 TC x 2.0 (4/3rds sensor) = 1200mm. But contrast, I cannot get a sharp image with the 90-300mm f2.8 zoom, even at 90mm, even with the 1.4 TC. I've had some long, helpful talks with the excellent tech folks at Olympus. As they explain it, there's just too much glass. The 90-300 works fine alone. But a TC with it won't give you a crisp image. I've spent hours photographing logarithmic graph paper, my focus-testing tool of choice (thanks, Bob Steele).
If you think you still want to try, I'd go to a friendly photo shop clutching target paper, camera and lens and borrow a TC to test. Or if you want to do field testing, go to one of the lens leasing shops discussed here a couple of weeks ago. Before you spring for the cost of a high-quality TC.
Posted by Austin Booth on May 19, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I agree with dan. More focal length is good up to a certain point but then it starts being extremely sensitive to camera shake even from pressing the button when its on a tripod and you will need a very quick shutter speed which will be harder with the converter. Like he said a teleconverter will magnify imperfections of a lens and they are only helpful on the very best sharpest top of the line glass which for your camera would be the nikon fixed focal length telephotos. The sigma is a good lens and significantly better than a cheaper $200 telephoto but it is a zoom lens which hurts its image quality slightly and it just doesn't compare to the nikon 500mm fixed lens or even the 400mm fixed lens. I've seen comparisons that show that when using teleconverters on all but the sharpest of glass it is hard to tell the difference between the image with a teleconverter and one that has been increased in size 1.4x with software.
I'm guessing you are shooting mostly shooting wildlife? More important than a longer lens for wildlife photography is learning to get closer to the animal (just don't endanger yourself by getting to close to a bear or an elk in rutting season). This is what makes wildlife photographers like Frans Lanting so good is that they know how to get close. If you are shooting song birds a simple technique is learning how to "spish" as it makes them curious and they will sometimes get really close while trying to figure out where that noise is coming from. The big thing is you have to be patient, if you run all over trying to shoot as much as you can the animals will be aware of you and won't let you get close. If you find a good hiding spot or set up a blind they may not know you are there and you may luck out and one will wander very close to you. One time when I was still living in Northern California I was up in the Mountains in the brushy chaparral habitat and found a small pool of water that the birds were drinking and bathing in. I carefully moved in closer and hid in the bushes only 5 feet away from the pool. I waited about 5 minutes and the birds started to come and use the pool non-stop unaware that I was there and I was able to get hundreds of very close up shots of Hermit Thrushes, Varied Thrushes, Wrentits and California Thrashers.
Christopher hi there
I have the 150-500 and I occasionaly use it with a Sigma TC1.4 on my D300.
as the others say there is a sharpness factor wich is basically focusing manually and with the pin point focusing its a little difficult(I wear glasses) this could be part of my problem.
I have Posted a shot taken with the lens + 1.4 and still cropped it by .I will post cropped @ uncropped for you.
I like the lens a lot
Do not use OS with 1.4
AVI
Thank you all for taking the time to post your ideas and suggestions. I will consider them closely.
Avi, you say "do not use OS with 1.4" , why?
For this shot did you use AF ? No that's right you did manual. What was the distance for this shot and did you use auto exposure for ISO and shutter speed and f stop?
Even cropped this shot is very sharp according to my eye, standards.
1/640 @ F9 ISO 400 I was using A with a fixed f9 and no auto iso .
About 12-15 yards from me.
The OS is very sensative and when the lens is on tripod/bean bag or stabilized by any other form the OS becomes more of a hinderance than anything else.I found it most usefull(OS) in windy conditions and handheld.
AVI
Discussion
8 repliesI have not used that lens specifically, but I suspect that adding a teleconverter is not a good idea. For what it does, it is a good lens but it is not the sharpest lens out there. Adding a teleconverter will make that very obvious, plus even a 1.4 converter will push the focal length to a shade under 1000 mm.
That focal length is a combination I have used with Canon's best glass and it was extremely difficult to get sharp images because of the effective focal length. I have good technique but this combination was ruthless in exposing my weaknesses.
There are really only a few zoom lenses that respond well to teleconverters, the 70-200 2.8's being one of the few.
I agree with Dan's points completely. As a Nikon shooter I can add a few things:
1. Many experienced Nikon shooters find that Nikon's TC's tend to perform better on quality prime lenses than they do on any zooms, including the near-legendary 200-400. Personally, I will NEVER put a TC on a zoom, but I readily admit I tend to be very anal about image quality.
2. Based on communications I've had with several Nikon shooters, there seems to be such a variability in opinion in TC performance (usually with prime lenses) that I'm fairly convinced there is high sample-to-sample variability in quality of the Nikon TC's. So you'd be best to try a few different ones (at the shop) before purchasing one.
If you're interested in my experiences with TC's with Nikon's own lenses (and my general comments on Nikon's TC's), feel free to go here (I just updated it yesterday based on more testing over last weekend):
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html#anchor_teleconverter
Cheers...
Brad
Both the Olympus 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters work pretty well with the 300mm f2.8 fixed, although I usually shoot in AF-M, manually adjusting pretty carefully after initial autofocus. That's 300 x 2.0 TC x 2.0 (4/3rds sensor) = 1200mm. But contrast, I cannot get a sharp image with the 90-300mm f2.8 zoom, even at 90mm, even with the 1.4 TC. I've had some long, helpful talks with the excellent tech folks at Olympus. As they explain it, there's just too much glass. The 90-300 works fine alone. But a TC with it won't give you a crisp image. I've spent hours photographing logarithmic graph paper, my focus-testing tool of choice (thanks, Bob Steele).
If you think you still want to try, I'd go to a friendly photo shop clutching target paper, camera and lens and borrow a TC to test. Or if you want to do field testing, go to one of the lens leasing shops discussed here a couple of weeks ago. Before you spring for the cost of a high-quality TC.
I'm guessing you are shooting mostly shooting wildlife? More important than a longer lens for wildlife photography is learning to get closer to the animal (just don't endanger yourself by getting to close to a bear or an elk in rutting season). This is what makes wildlife photographers like Frans Lanting so good is that they know how to get close. If you are shooting song birds a simple technique is learning how to "spish" as it makes them curious and they will sometimes get really close while trying to figure out where that noise is coming from. The big thing is you have to be patient, if you run all over trying to shoot as much as you can the animals will be aware of you and won't let you get close. If you find a good hiding spot or set up a blind they may not know you are there and you may luck out and one will wander very close to you. One time when I was still living in Northern California I was up in the Mountains in the brushy chaparral habitat and found a small pool of water that the birds were drinking and bathing in. I carefully moved in closer and hid in the bushes only 5 feet away from the pool. I waited about 5 minutes and the birds started to come and use the pool non-stop unaware that I was there and I was able to get hundreds of very close up shots of Hermit Thrushes, Varied Thrushes, Wrentits and California Thrashers.
I have the 150-500 and I occasionaly use it with a Sigma TC1.4 on my D300.
as the others say there is a sharpness factor wich is basically focusing manually and with the pin point focusing its a little difficult(I wear glasses) this could be part of my problem.
I have Posted a shot taken with the lens + 1.4 and still cropped it by .I will post cropped @ uncropped for you.
I like the lens a lot
Do not use OS with 1.4
AVI
I THINK THIS WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
Avi, you say "do not use OS with 1.4" , why?
For this shot did you use AF ? No that's right you did manual. What was the distance for this shot and did you use auto exposure for ISO and shutter speed and f stop?
Even cropped this shot is very sharp according to my eye, standards.
Christopher
About 12-15 yards from me.
The OS is very sensative and when the lens is on tripod/bean bag or stabilized by any other form the OS becomes more of a hinderance than anything else.I found it most usefull(OS) in windy conditions and handheld.
AVI