I know this question has been asked before, but there is nothing valuable to find since 1997 in the photo.net (Q&A and nature) archives. So, I try it again. Who knows the Sigma (newer) 1.4x EX APO teleconvertor and has worked with it ??? How does it compare with other 3rd parties such as Tamron, Kenko etc....? Problems? Does APO mean that it can be used/matched with APO lenses, only (this is the case with Minolta's TC's !) ?

Please, no answers and speculations why a brand convertor and a fix focal tele are better. I know all this already (Thanks to Bob A. et al.) and I am looking for "real life" user experience.

Goal and application is to extend my 80-400 f4.5-5.6 travel zoom (Minolta AF mount) in a longer range where AF is still possible and to gain some ("cheap") expertise to decide whether a purchase of a "pro" lens makes sense for me. Right now it is neither likely that I sell my work nor enlarge beyond 10x11.

Additional to my travel zooms I want to add some primes over the time (20mm, 50mm, 105 mm macro and a tele - 300,400 or 500 ? - for wildlife with "focus" on birds).

Thanks...

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), February 28, 1999

Answers

Marcus, I own the Sigma TC 1.4 APO EX. I use it mostly in combination with my 80-200/2.8D and I have excellent results with it. Only in extreme situations (wide open and totally blue sky) I have detected some vignetting but on the whole this converter is a very good performer. It does not need an APO lens to match. IMHO the term APO on this TC is purely a marketing factor. Naturally, image detoriation will be much higher with (slow) lenses like your 80-400/4.5-5.6. With a maximum aperture of f8, I think you will lose AF too. In that perspect I don't believe you will able to make good quality photos no matter what brand of converter you will try to use with this lens. Remember, beyond 400 mm there are no cheap solutions if you want quality (even on small prints like you mention). The 1.4 TC APO EX will only give satisfactory results on good (read expensive) lenses with maximum apertures f2.8 or f4. Ivan.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), March 01, 1999.

Ivan, thanks for your advice. The beauty of using Minolta is that I still have AF at f8. Even over f 8 depending on the overall lighting. Shure, the viewfinder is dark as hell, but that'll be alright for the time being.

I know that I can't expect great pictures of this combo, but I consider this combo as a "learner". So, if I bought this Sigma I still could use it in the future in conjunction with a hopefully better lens than my zoom.

Thanks, I am still open to more input.....

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), March 01, 1999.

Marcus, you said your 80-400 f4.5-5.6 is a travel zoom. Are you ready to carry a heavy tripod with you all the time while you are traveling ? While your camera may be able to AF at f/8, 560mm f/8 is really slow. It's long focal length will enhance any camera shakes, and you cannot get away with faster shutter speed because of the large f-stop (unless you use a faster/grainer film). Even if you could solve the camera shake, you will still miss the shots because the subject(s) move(s) while the shutter is open. Again, slower shutter speed becomes a big concern. As above poster noted, I wouldn't seek out a cheap solution beyond 400mm range. Be happy with your 400mm zoom, or get a realsuper telephoto lens.

-- Hiroshi Shigematsu (pooh02@earthlink.net), March 02, 1999.

Hiroshi,

as a support I usually carry my Bogen 3401B (a modified #3221) with a 3410 pan-tilt head, total weight approx. 9.5 lbs and I intend to get a Bogen monopod for places where I can't take my tripod.

This has been sufficient so far. I usually use ISO 400 film when I work with this long zoom. At times I already used it with a 2x convertor, just to see how it performs. It is not breath taking, but at times it is better to have an average picture than none at all. What do you think....

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), March 02, 1999.

Marcus,
If you are satisfied with your results, .....there is nothing to tell you. Just, go ahead and get that teleconverter for your telephoto zoom.
Since you asked for opinions, I'm telling you that I'd rather not use your particular combination. Actually, I'm a big fun of prime lenses so that I'd rather carry several primes and a lightweight tripod than a big zoom lens.
That figures. I'd rather be selective on the subjects that can be photographed with the equipment I have at that moment, than try to capture everything that falls into my sight with "can do everything" super-zoom like 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6. However, you are free to disagree. After all, this is ONLY my opinion. I hope you'll understand that.

-- Hiroshi Shigematsu (pooh02@earthlink.net), March 03, 1999.

Hiroshi,

everything has it's place. Depending what kind of travel I am doing, I use mainly my zooms. If photography is the main reason for travel, I would pack fix focals as well. As I stated initially, I am working on the fix focal route as well.

A 1.4x convertor is never a wrong investment. As everybody knows, when it comes to long teles, there is absolutely no free lunch. You get what you pay for. But, another good question is: How much is good enough for my purposes and what expense can I justify??? Here is a link to a guy with intersting results...

http://web.net-link.net/~cassino/home.html

If I am in the position one day to spend $ 2500 + on a f2.8 300 mm lens or $ 4000 + on a f4.5 500 mm lens I will surely do that. Until that day, I will probably practice my tele technique with a cheap set- up. When I see that I am really into it I might convince my wife to spare a little extra money....;-)

May the LIGHT be with you....

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), March 03, 1999.

"How much is good enough for my purposes and what expense can I justify???" Good question! The answer is I sincerely don't know that, but it seems you already answered your very question yourself.

Please don't get me wrong, but take a moment to consider the following. First of all, your Bogen 3401B (a modified #3221) with a 3410 pan-tilt head is not steady enough for the 560mm f/8 lens you are trying to accomplish. After all, it is a 560mm lens and need a same (or greater, because of the slower f-stop) steadiness for the tripod as if supporting a 600mm f/4 lens. You need to invest a huge chunks of your precious money to the tripod & head. Also, you mentioned that "I will probably practice my tele technique with a cheap set- up." What you probably don't realize is that it is much harder to get a decent photo with a cheap zoom lens on a TC than a prime lens alone. It will take quite a considerable technique to reproduce a presentable image with your particular combo. You will be surprised to see how easier to get a decent picture with a prime lens. There are less flare, vignetting, and ghost problems; better contrast, sharper image even at wide open (not quite so with the telephoto zooms) with prime telephoto lens. These things alone can improve your photographs, I think.

By the way, I believe there is no such thing as a "tele technique," but only a "photo technique" which can be learned regardless of the focal length you use; you just have to be selective on the subject. As you may already know, you can get (and learn) great pictures with P&S. If you are interested in "photo technique," then, I suggest you to read the books by John Shaw and Arthur Morris.

If you don't have multi-thousand dollars just laying around waiting to be spent (neither do I), may I suggest save up some money on the TC and get a 300mm f/4? Actually, this is the route I took, and I have never regretted my decision. This size of the telephoto lens is not so expensive for the quality and light weight enough to be carried around very often. The good news are your current tripod is steady enough for this lens (even with 1.4X TC attached), and it should work pretty well with, shall I say, TCs (this is not true with most super-telephoto zooms like you own).

If all you are trying to achieve are pictures like these, your set-up maybe just fine. However, I find them rather underwhelming; it is fine for the beginner, though. It is easier to show you the pictures than trying to explain 100 times the difference between ones taken with zoom and ones taken with prime alone. To use the examples you suggested, this is lacking contrast as the black is not true black and possibly suffering from flare as the entire picture looks kind of soft & whitish. These problems seem common to the many low-cost zoom lenses. Now, let's take a look at this. This is taken with 500mm prime, and you can notice the black is real black, and there is a better contrast than the picture above. Also, the focus is much sharper with this, and I cannot detect any flare with this one. Let me ask you, Marcus. If you have a choice, which kind of picture would you rather take: this or this?

Marcus, if you are "working on the fix focal route as well", why not get a prime lens, now, rather than getting a 3rd party TC? There are a lot to be discovered if you take that route. And I'm sure you will be glad, in the end, that you have done so. You probably thought your tripod is steady enough for what you are getting into, but I'll tell you otherwise. It is not only the size & wieght of the lens you are mounting but also the focal length of the lens itself to determine the steadiness of the camera support. Are you ready to shell out another $400 or more for a new tripod+head in addition to the $150 for a 1.4X TC? It will probably close enough to get you a Minolta 300mm f/4 APO. Now, suddenly, prime route starts sounding much better choice, isn't it? Also, getting prime lens is not so expensive if you look for the used one hard enough. Since you are willing to use 3rd party TC, you may look for the 3rd pary primes, which is much better than your zoom, as well. Once you start using a prime lens, you will become less likely to use your 80-400mm zoom. You'll know why I'm against such lenses. Surely, "everything has it's place. However, for 80-400mm zoom, it is very likely to end up being either in a junk box or in a classified ad. once the owner get a better lens. To me, 100mm & 300mm (and possibly 200mm) prime lenses have better uses than such zoom lenses.

Return of the PRIMES!?

-- Hiroshi Shigematsu (pooh02@earthlink.net), March 04, 1999.

When I post it, for some reasons the link didn't work. So, I'll post it again.

If all you are trying to achieve are pictures like these, your set-up maybe just fine. However, I find them rather underwhelming; it is fine for the beginner, though. It is easier to show you the pictures than trying to explain 100 times the difference between ones taken with zoom and ones taken with prime alone. To use the examples you suggested, this is lacking contrast as the black is not true black and possibly suffering from flare as the entire picture looks kind of soft & whitish. These problems seem common to the many low-cost zoom lenses. Now, let's take a look at this. This is taken with 500mm prime, and you can notice the black is real black, and there is a better contrast than the picture above. Also, the focus is much sharper with this, and I cannot detect any flare with this one. Let me ask you, Marcus. If you have a choice, which kind of picture would you rather take: this orthis?

-- Hiroshi Shigematsu (pooh02@earthlink.net), March 04, 1999.

Hiroshi, first of all, thank you for taking such much time to answer in depth and trying to convince a hardheaded German (me). Of coarse I prefer the pictures taken with the 500 mm lens ! It is really a pitty that I do not have the capability to post a picture here taken with the 80-400 zoom. It is not as bad as you may think.

I own three Shaw books by the way and Morris's book is on top of my shopping list. I still think that when it comes to tele-photography you have to work in a slightly different style and it takes some practice. You have to operate your gear with a lot more care than when you use wide angle or "short" lenses.

Anyway, I think I'll abandon the idea of getting into a longer tele range via a 1.4x converter on my zoom and focus on my prime route first. May be I stumble over a used and dirty cheap f 2.8 300 mm these days... ;^)

Thanx again, Marcus

-- Marcus Erne (cerne@ees.eesc.com), March 04, 1999.

I'll just add this rather late note that the Sigma 1.4x APO EX teleconverter has a front element and mount that sticks out a bit. So, it does not physically fit many lenses. For example, my Nikon AF-D-mount Sigma 1.4x EX fits on my Nikkor 300/4 AF and 80-200/2.8D, but would not fit on my Tamron 70-300 LD (despite a very recessed rear element) even if I wanted to put together such a combination.

-- John Kuraoka (john@kuraoka.com), January 20, 2001.