08-11-2011, 06:46 AM
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1312977921' post='10575']
While I agree that if pure WD is the motivation, any 180mm would be superior to a 150mm or shorter, I think the bigger question is to stabilise or not. There you only get two choices (in Canonland) the 100L and now the Sigma 150 OS. While the 100L was somewhat interesting to me, I never bit as from memory it doesn't easily take teleconverters so would significantly limit its potential. The Sigma 150mm OS is a more natural choice there. I also think a 150mm with optional 1.4x TC is the more versatile choice over a straight 180, and now you can get the 150 with OS it is pure win.
The Sigma 150mm non-OS was and still is hugely popular, and I do not doubt the OS version would be different there. I am wondering if I should pay the extra to upgrade from the non-OS...
[/quote]
I sold my 2X long ago (found it to be only usable with 300/2.8 IS and longer super-telephoto lenses) but I never found 1.4X to be a problem with any lens, 100/2.8 IS included.
While I agree that if pure WD is the motivation, any 180mm would be superior to a 150mm or shorter, I think the bigger question is to stabilise or not. There you only get two choices (in Canonland) the 100L and now the Sigma 150 OS. While the 100L was somewhat interesting to me, I never bit as from memory it doesn't easily take teleconverters so would significantly limit its potential. The Sigma 150mm OS is a more natural choice there. I also think a 150mm with optional 1.4x TC is the more versatile choice over a straight 180, and now you can get the 150 with OS it is pure win.
The Sigma 150mm non-OS was and still is hugely popular, and I do not doubt the OS version would be different there. I am wondering if I should pay the extra to upgrade from the non-OS...
[/quote]
I sold my 2X long ago (found it to be only usable with 300/2.8 IS and longer super-telephoto lenses) but I never found 1.4X to be a problem with any lens, 100/2.8 IS included.