Canon 300mm 4-5.6L IS USM lens plus 1.4x II Extender vs Sigma 150-500 5-6.3 OS HSM

[elmo_2006]

Hi there...


I'm interested in the the above Canon lens, and was wondering what the actual reach of this lens is on a FOCV 1.6 camera (450D) with the 1.4x extender.


Once the lens is mounted on the 450D I wouldachieve 480mm, however if I were to attach the 1.4x II extender, would it thenequate to 672mm?


Judging by some of the other threads, it seems the Canonlens and the 1.4 extender go great together. I was looking at the Sigma 150-500mm, however it seems slow compared to this puppy!


Opinions/suggestions.....


Thanks

[powers_brent]

I assume you are talking about the 300mm f/4 L IS (iono where you got the 5.6). If so then yes that lens with the 1.4 teleconverter on a 1.6 crop body would be equivalent to 672mm on a full frame or 35mm film body.


In terms of quality, just take a look at this. It shows the relative qualities of the lenses. Obviously the Canon L is far superior. A focal length range that large at higher focal lengths (the sigma) typically is not that good, in addition to that fact that most variable aperture zooms are not as high quality as the Canon L primes.

[elmo_2006]

My error, it should have read 'Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens'. My Apologies.

[Benjamin]

If I were in the market of telephoto and I need to choose between these two lenses, I would need to think first if I need a zoom lens or a prime lens will just do the same thing for me. Because in terms of image quality I would say that the Canon combo dominates despite the use of a 1.4x converter. Plus when you take the converter off you get an even greater 300/4L lens. I personally have not used the Sigma 150-500 lens myself, but my experience told me multiple times that Sigma lens will not focus as fast and reliable as the Canon lenses despite the use of HSM. They will suffer more in low light conditions too.


So IMO the question is really if you need a zoom or prime lens. If zoom, well, I think the Canon 100-400L lens is somewhat a greater lens. If prime, the 300/4L + 1.4x II is a perfect combo to own.

[Daniel Browning]

Once the lens is mounted on the 450D I wouldachieve 480mm

It is important to be precise with language in order to understand and avoid misleading other readers. Here's how I suggest phrasing it: "Once the 300mm lens is mounted on the 450D, you would achieve an angle of view that is equivalent to a 480mm lens mounted on a full frame camera."


As I think you know, the focal length remains 300mm even when mounted on the 450D. (It's important.)

however if I were to attach the 1.4x II extender, would it thenequate to 672mm?

If you attach the 1.4X extender, the focal length changes from 300mm to 420mm. On your 450D, that provides an angle of view that is equivalent to 672mm on the 5D2.

Judging by some of the other threads, it seems the Canonlens and the 1.4 extender go great together.

Yes indeed.

I was looking at the Sigma 150-500mm, however it seems slow compared to this puppy!

The Sigma gives you a maximum of 500mm. On your 450D that's an angle of view equivalent to 800mm on FF. And it's only 1/3 stop slower.


So on the one hand you have the 300mm f/4 L IS, which becomes 420mm f/5.6 with the 1.4X. On the other you have 150-500 f/4-6.3.


If you mean the Sigma is "slow" in autofocus speed, I would agree. It also lacks image stabilization.

[elmo_2006]

@Daniel Browning


"It is important to be precise with language in order to understand and avoid misleading other readers. Here's how I suggest phrasing it: "Once the 300mm lens is mounted on the 450D, you would achieve an angle of view that is equivalent to a 480mm lens mounted on a full frame camera."


LOL,'six of one, half a dozen of the other', but I will keep this in mind, thank you. []


As for the Sigma 150-500, it does have stabilization, it is Sigma's version called Optical Stabilization.


Thanks for theopinions/suggestions everyone.

[Daniel Browning]

As for the Sigma 150-500, it does have stabilization, it is Sigma's version called Optical Stabilization.

You're quite right. Thanks for the correction.