Originally Posted by Marin
Quality *cough* and the Nikon tax *cough* comes at a price.
Pays to be the best
Originally Posted by Danylu
On the topic of telephotos, I decided to have a look at some telephotos and teleconverters and I have a question, what are the negatives to owning a teleconverter?
I'm thinking maybe a Sigma 150mm 2.8 and Sigma 2x TC next year as it offers a cheap super tele option with macro capabilities.... maybe.
They reduce the amount of light that hits the sensor. 1.4x -1 stop, 1.7x - 1.5 stop, 2.0x -2 stops. Maybe not a huge problem if you had a lens like Nuke's 400 f/2.8, but on a f/5.6, you would go to f/11 with a 2x converter.
They also reduce the quality of the lens in front of it. So unless you have multiple of thousands of dollars of glass in front of it, a 2x doesn't seem like a good idea.
If you're up for a read, check here: http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009...converters-101
If you're looking for something with some reach on the (relative) cheap, the Sigma 50-500mm f/4 to f/6.3 is fairly well known as a good lens for the price (~$1,000). Nicknamed the "bigma": http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-50-500mm.../dp/B0009F3MPQ
Then of course, there's always this cannon:
Edited by Mootsfox - 7/25/09 at 5:09am