Sigma 70-200mm2.8 os

[nitti48]

Comtemplating getting this lens for a Nikon mount..Would a Sigma 1.4x or 2x teleconverter work for indoor shots like a zoo or inside family occassions..Anymore help would be greatly appreciated

[wave01]

Hi I would go and try this lens out, I did and although it was a very good lens I opted for the canon 70-200 f4/l as it was a lot lighter to carry around.

[zig-123]

Originally Posted by nitti48

Comtemplating getting this lens for a Nikon mount..Would a Sigma 1.4x or 2x teleconverter work for indoor shots like a zoo or inside family occassions..Anymore help would be greatly appreciated

Adding a 1.4 teleconverter makes the 70-200mm f2.8 essentially a 70-200mm f4 lens while adding the 2x telecon converts the lens to a 70-200mm f5.6.
I don't know specifically what kind of photographs you plan on taking (static or action) but the Af may hunt a little indoors with available light.

That would be true regardless of wether you purchased a Nikkor or Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens.

You might want to consider renting one to see if it meets your needs.

[TCav]

Most 1.4X teleconverters are pretty good. Most 2X teleconverters are not very good. If you're serious about a 2X teleconverter, get one of the matched teleconverters (read "expensive"), but make sure it works with that lens.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by nitti48

Would a Sigma 1.4x or 2x teleconverter work for indoor shots like a zoo or inside family occassions..Anymore help would be greatly appreciated

What type of family occasions? a 70-200 lens is very long for households. So you'll have to be more specific.

As for zoos - it depends. Around me, I have 2 zoos. The indoor exhibits in both really require f2.0-f2.8 lenses and higher ISOs. Lighting is usually not great. So, I couldn't see f4-f5.6 working. But 2 zoos is a very small pool from which to draw conclusions. Even so, I also can't imagine needing 280-400mm lenses for the indoor exhibits at my zoos - you're not that far away from the animals.

So, in both instances, I'm having difficulty understanding why you need such long focal lengths. Can you elaborate?

[nitti48]

OK maybe not indoors for zoos..sorry..but for many exhibits outside would like to bring the animals in closer(lions..apes..polar bears birds etc) maybe the sigma 1.4x would be a good take..mostly outdoors where I could use more reach..inside just the sigma 70-200mm2.8 with OS..i just thought with the 2.8 and OS you could use a 2x without alot of soft pictures...

[Bob Nichol]

My experience at the Toronto Zoo was that even 300mm wasn't enough for certain exhibits.

[TCav]

Originally Posted by nitti48

i just thought with the 2.8 and OS you could use a 2x without alot of soft pictures...

It's not the lens' fault you can't; it's the cheap teleconverter. The $299 Sigma 2.0X Teleconverter EX APO DG should produce sharp images.

[zig-123]

From a price to performance perspective the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 OS Lens is hard to beat. It is sharp, fast to focus and with optical stabilization, should give you very sharp images on it's own without the use of a telecon.

With it being a zoom instead of a prime, it will offer far greater flexibility for everyday shooting.

My suggestion would be for you to get the sigma 70-200mm without any telecon. After you use it, for a period of time, you may find that it suits your purposes without any telecon. You'll also have a better idea wether the 1.4 or the 2x would be a better fit.

FWIW, I have the Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8 VR lens as well as the 1.4 and 2x tele cons. I find that I use the 1.4 tele con a lot while the 2x stays at home. My experience has been that images taken with the 70-200mm f2.8 + 1.4 tele con
can be cropped and still come out sharper than images taken using the 2x converter.

YMMV

Zig

[JohnG]

I agree with Zig. 2x TCs should be saved for only the sharpest Telephotos - 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 2.8 type lenses. They're the only ones that really suffer the loss of image quality well.