Teleconverter with Sigma lens - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/17/2006 03:54:52 AM · #1

I'm looking for a teleconverter for my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM for Nikon. I'm thinking about one of the Kenko Pro models. Does anyone have experience with a Kenko teleconverter used on this lens? Does it still autofocus and meter correctly with Nikon cameras?

hotpasta

Nikon D800

07/17/2006 04:28:02 AM · #2

I have the Sigma 2X on mine and it works well, not sure I'd go for the Kenko...better to match like with like in my opinion

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

07/17/2006 07:32:46 AM · #3

Kenkos are good and so are sigma's. I have tried both on the same lens and cannot see a difference in quality. Stating that it does reduce the quality somewhat..

gazdi

Pentax K20D

Asahi 55mm f/1.8 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar, M42 Mount

07/17/2006 07:39:13 AM · #4

Could we get test photos of the same setup, at 200mm and at 2x100mm with KenkoPro and with Sigma?
I know it's not two minutes and I definetly don't want to use your time, but it would be a great study.

Originally posted by coronamv:

Kenkos are good and so are sigma's. I have tried both on the same lens and cannot see a difference in quality. Stating that it does reduce the quality somewhat..

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/17/2006 03:07:58 PM · #5

Thanks for the replies guys.

Originally posted by gazdi:

I second gazdi. Can someone post a 100% crop picture taken with the Kenko Pro and the Sigma? Thanks in advance.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/17/2006 03:17:36 PM · #6

I have a Kenko Pro 1.4x on the way from B&H... From all my homework it was a easily smarter buy then the Canon.

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

07/17/2006 08:08:21 PM · #7

The only problem I had with the teleconverters are the fact you better make sure it will work with your lens the sigma pro and kenko pros will not fit on the 75-300 neither will any of the canon teles on the market. Kind of strange. I actually bought the quantary 2x could not see the difference in the others for my glass.

Message edited by author 2006-07-17 20:09:41.

MrEd

Sony DSLR-A100

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Minolta

07/17/2006 08:53:48 PM · #8

Originally posted by gazdi:

I have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and a Sigma 2X EX DG teleconverter. I'll take some shots tomorrow after work with and without it. But, I haven't seen any downside to using the tele.......yet.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/17/2006 09:57:41 PM · #9

Why would you consider anything but a dedicated Sigma teleconverter? They're inexpensive, and the Sigma 1.4x was DESIGNED especially for the lens you have as well as for the 120-300 2.8.

I have the sigma 1.4x and it performs flawlessly. I cannot notice a drop in sharpness at all even wide open, and the HSM is still as fast and quiet as it is without it.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/17/2006 10:03:20 PM · #10

280mm, f/4

EDIT to add that I think 100% crops are stupid. If you waste your time looking at everyone's 100% crops, you're going to have a real difficult time making a decision. Take my word for it, the Sigma 1.4x is a great addition for some extra reach...mine LIVES on my d70 along with the 70-200.

Message edited by author 2006-07-17 22:04:52.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/18/2006 04:31:08 AM · #11

Thanks guys.

Deapee, you're piture with the Sigma 1.4x looks like it will suit me well. Thanks for the sample.

MrEd, I'm looking forward to seeing your sample pictures with the Sigma 2x.

Looks like, I need to just decide on whether I want the 1.4x or the 2x. I may be willing to sacrifice the image quality for the extra reach.

Thank you all again.

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

07/18/2006 05:23:03 AM · #12

100% crops are a helluva lot better than resized images. However yeah, all the info still has to be there or they are also meaningless.

deapee

Kodak V803

07/18/2006 09:44:16 AM · #13

Originally posted by kyebosh:

100% crops are a helluva lot better than resized images. However yeah, all the info still has to be there or they are also meaningless.

What I mean is that as far as telling picture quality. Too many people want to pixel peep. The fact of the matter is that pretty much nothing is meant to be seen at 100%. Even if you do make a print that is like 20x30 from your image, the viewing distance is supposed to be more than how close someone's face sits from their computer screen.

As a general rule, what you really want to do is make your photo the size that it should be (like 8x10, or 8x12 for example), then view it at 50% on the computer screen, and that's what you'll get...that's also a good way to sharpen your prints visually.

When I had a canon and a 75-300, that thing looked horrible at 100%, but it produced some really nice 8x10's.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/18/2006 10:28:53 AM · #14

Originally posted by hotpasta:

I have the Sigma 2X on mine and it works well, not sure I'd go for the Kenko...better to match like with like in my opinion

Suh-weet!

Do you think the Sigma 2x will fit my Sigma 18-200 (Canon)? $320 at Henry's.

MrEd

Sony DSLR-A100

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Minolta

07/18/2006 03:24:56 PM · #15

I used AP set at f/4 for my own curiosity. All handheld...I need a new tripod, mine broke moving up here.

I can email you the full uncropped image (their about 4.5K each).

Edited to add: P.S. I'm sure the tele-photos would have come out better had I gone full manual.

Message edited by author 2006-07-18 15:26:04.

07/18/2006 03:55:06 PM · #16

Thanks for the samples MrEd.