Does this lens work with the Canon MkIII TCs or do you have to buy the Sigma ones? Sigma stripped my compatibility with the 1.4CanonTC with a sneaky FW update on the 150-600C.....add that to the list of reasons I sold that thing and why I've been hesitant to buy any Sigma lens since.
If I have to add in the cost of the two TCs then it starts to bring the lens closer to the CPS price of the 500II.....probably within $1K so then you have to start weighing in the benefits of a native Canon lens over the long term with future Canon bodies.....
lowa2 wrote:
Yeah the Canon ones don't work. I have the new sigmas.
I was able to sell my Canons and buy these guys.
Thanks for the info.
I think I will only look at this lens for Nikon then. I don't have the Nikon 2xTC yet, I do have the 1.4 but I will have to check Brad's review to see if he said if Nikon TCs work or not. But in Canon I already own two 1.4s and one 2x so don't want to add more TCs just for this lens. I won't be selling off my TCs as I will be using them on many other Canon lenses.
For your situation it made a lot of sense, selling off the Canon equivalents (lens and TCs) and getting this equal quality but less expensive Sigma offering. The Sigma TCs add an extra $1030 CDN to the price of the lens. I need my TCs...basic necessity for the big primes.
lowa2 wrote:
I shopped around. Got the TC's for around 900$.
And yeah, I have limited funds. I can only afford one big gun at a time.
I'd also be selling a big lens if I was to buy it. I'm not adding any more big lenses without selling one first. Would probably have to be the 200-400 that would go....
Rob: Selling 200-400L to buy a similarly expensive prime tells me that the potential of such zoom might have not been fully exploited.
Now, going from 200-400L to 100-400 II makes more sense to me because lots of money is being freed up for a moderate loss in capability, but a major gain in comfort and ease of use.
PetKal wrote:
Rob: Selling 200-400L to buy a similarly expensive prime tells me that the potential of such zoom might have not been fully exploited.
Now, going from 200-400L to 100-400 II makes more sense to me because lots of money is being freed up for a moderate loss in capability, but a major gain in comfort and ease of use.
PetKal wrote:
Rob: Selling 200-400L to buy a similarly expensive prime tells me that the potential of such zoom might have not been fully exploited.
Now, going from 200-400L to 100-400 II makes more sense to me because lots of money is being freed up for a moderate loss in capability, but a major gain in comfort and ease of use.
I listed the 200-400 for sale for awhile this year and then took it to Haines and realized I needed to give myself one of these so I don't plan to sell that lens anytime soon. I also don't have any intention of actually buying this 500 anytime soon either but its fun to dream
Hi Charles, I have just read your thread on the new Sigma 500, and I think you are on the right path. If one can get beyond the AF accuracy/calibration issues, it looks like that new lens is a winner. All things considered, I have always felt that 500mm f/4 is a sweet spot lens for wildlife photography in general. We in Canada are really hammered down with our $, and I have put all of my purchases on hold. Getting satisfying results with the least amount of $$ invested into gears is something we should strive towards if this was a totally rational hobby. Alas, I have done very poorly in that regard in the past, but no more at this $ exchange rate. I had a similar discussion with a few of my Nikon shooting buddies recently, and this is a piece of graphics I prepared for them. New Nikkor 800 + D5 cost as much as a well appointed Mazda 3. An equivalent Canon setup is probably 5% cheaper.
PetKal wrote:
Hi Charles, I have just read your thread on the new Sigma 500, and I think you are on the right path. If one can get beyond the AF accuracy/calibration issues, it looks like that new lens is a winner. All things considered, I have always felt that 500mm f/4 is a sweet spot lens for wildlife photography in general. We in Canada are really hammered down with our $, and I have put all of my purchases on hold. Getting satisfying results with the least amount of $$ invested into gears is something we should strive towards if this was a totally rational hobby. Alas, I have done very poorly in that regard in the past, but no more at this $ exchange rate. I had a similar discussion with a few of my Nikon shooting buddies recently, and this is a piece of graphics I prepared for them. New Nikkor 800 + D5 cost as much as a well appointed Mazda 3. An equivalent Canon setup is probably 5% cheaper....Show more →
That's what I was getting at...
From a purely hobby standpoint, I had too much invested in this!
so I don't plan to sell that lens anytime soon. I also don't have any intention of actually buying this 500 anytime soon either but its fun to dream
