Sigma TCs

Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
1,955
Location
Patriots' Country (missing San Diego)
I've got the Sigma 120-300 (non-DG version) and I was wondering how well it works with the Sigma 1.4.

I noticed there are two type of 1.4 TCs, the EX and the EX DG. Any difference between the two?
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
I've got the Sigma 120-300 (non-DG version) and I was wondering how well it works with the Sigma 1.4.

I noticed there are two type of 1.4 TCs, the EX and the EX DG. Any difference between the two?

The 1.4, wonderfully! Unlike the Nikon 2.0 and the 70-200VR the Sigma 2.0 also works splendidly. When you get out to 300 with the 2.0 it begins to get a tiny bit cloudy in the distance. The 120-300, 1.4 and 2.0 are keepers. Sadly I can't help you with the two 1.4 versions. If you Google it you should be able to find an explanation though. If it's a case of an improvement I would not try and save money on the older one. You've go all this way for a reach, why stop just short? I'd go for the optically better TC..if that is the discriminator.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
1,955
Location
Patriots' Country (missing San Diego)
The 1.4, wonderfully! Unlike the Nikon 2.0 and the 70-200VR the Sigma 2.0 also works splendidly. When you get out to 300 with the 2.0 it begins to get a tiny bit cloudy in the distance. The 120-300, 1.4 and 2.0 are keepers. Sadly I can't help you with the two 1.4 versions. If you Google it you should be able to find an explanation though. If it's a case of an improvement I would not try and save money on the older one. You've go all this way for a reach, why stop just short? I'd go for the optically better TC..if that is the discriminator.

Good to know Rich, thanks!

I think the EX DG version is the newer one.

How about you Rich, any back focus problems?
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
1,130
Location
Bedford, MA
Phil,
From what I've read, the newer version has some sort of coating on it. I picked up the two non-DG versions for a total of $200 soon after getting the 120-300.

As for the quality, the 1.4 produces very little degradation. I don't use the 2.0 all that often, as I think that the images suffer a bit. However, for the price (I got my 2.0 for $70) the Sigma TC's can't be beat to get you that added focal length.

Here are two uncropped shots I took a few weeks ago of two ospreys at 300 with the 1.4TC:
2665374306_8fd9e6f1e2_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


2664549381_150aa56a14_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
1,130
Location
Bedford, MA
Phil,
It does sports well also. Here's another with the 1.4 slightly cropped of a local HS game:
2414152473_0f1e52abaf_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
Thanks! Any problems with back focus yet?

Hey, I'm an amateur. I doubt that I'd recognize it if I had it, honestly. However I was a carrier pilot and haven't noticed anything untoward in the final images and I use a 30" Apple monitor..
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom