Originally posted by jem What are your feelings about the difference in IQ with & without the 1.4x tele? I am contemplating choosing between this lens vs the Pentax 600mm & the Sigma 800mm and I'm trying to decide if the extra cost for the 600mm or 800mm would be worth it or not.
best,
John
I did also consider the Pentax 600 as an option for quite a while.
I have now had the Sigma 500 for some 10 days, and shot maybe 100-200 images with it. With this limited experience I dare to say the lens has exceeded my expectations.
Generally speaking I have always been a bit suspicious about teleconverters. The truth is that no TC ever improves image quality. However, combining an optically sound lens with a good TC may still give you good results.
The Sigma EX APO 1,4 x seems to do a pretty good job with only marginal image degradation both in terms of sharpness and contrast. AF seems to work well, at least in daylight. I have not had a change to test in low light so far.
As usual with teleconverters, the 2 x TC cannot live up to exactly the same standards. Image degradation is more profound, and AF function is impaired. This is hardly surprising for anyone familiar with teleconverters. The Sigma 2 x TC can be very useful provided the user realises it cannot defy the laws of nature.
Both these TC´s are definitely among the better ones on the market. I remember seeing an article comparing a Sigma supertele+TC combo with a Canon counterpart. The outcome was very favourable for the Sigma set.
The Pentax 600 would have cost me almost 4 x the price of the Sigma+TC´s. I am willing to pay a certain premium for Pentax gear, but could just not justify spending this much more. If I were to choose again, I would definitely go the same way. The other thing was compatibility with my existing gear. I have a 300/2,8 lens, and having nothing between 300mm and 600mm was not really conceivable.
But these questions everyone has to work out for himself.