2x TC for 70-200 2.8 IS vs 100-400L

[IRLPhotog]

I recently picked up a 70-200mm 2.8 IS which I'm quite impressed with. However, I'm interested in a longer zoom and am currently wondering if it makes more sense to pick up the 100-400L or if I'd be better off picking up a 2x TC for the 70-200. On one hand, I think it'd be nice to have the 100-400 range in a lens without using a TC as I may get better IQ, but it seems that with the 2.8 I'm getting the benefit of a wider aperture over effectively the same zoom range.

Thoughts?

 

[Flying Fish]

If you put a 2X TC on that lens it won't be faster anymore than the 100-400, and will even be a bit slower at the short end (f/4.5-5.6 for the 100-400, f/5.6 for the 70-200 plus 2X TC).

Art Morris's latest bulletin (birdasart.com) has images he made with the new 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens and a Canon 2X TC, and they are amazingly sharp. I don't think the older lens would be as sharp but I don't have good evidence for that.

FF

 

[Port Royal Dad]

With the 2x Tele conveter, your f/2.8 lens now becomes an f/5.6 lens.

I tried this combination about two months ago with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS (mk1) lens. Although the images were very sharp...they were all shot at apertures of f/11 or narrower.

My shots with apertures wider than f/11 were soft, low constrast, and somewhat washed out on colors.. And so, for all intensive purposes what I had was a 140-400 f/11 lens.

I promptly returned the 2x converter to B&H (within 2 days) and put in an order for the 100-400L.

Now that I have my 100-400L, I am stunned at the IQ it delivers...and more importantly for me, I have a 400 mm zoom that I can shoot wide open at f/5.6, as opposed to f/11 with the 70-200 + 2x tele combo, and get crisp images with great color and contrast.

On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of good talk here for the mk2 version of 70-200L f/2.8 IS when used with the 2x converter.

r/Mike

I recently picked up a 70-200mm 2.8 IS which I'm quite impressed with. However, I'm interested in a longer zoom and am currently wondering if it makes more sense to pick up the 100-400L or if I'd be better off picking up a 2x TC for the 70-200. On one hand, I think it'd be nice to have the 100-400 range in a lens without using a TC as I may get better IQ, but it seems that with the 2.8 I'm getting the benefit of a wider aperture over effectively the same zoom range.

Thoughts?

--
B.R.A.S.S. (Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze)

 

[BigBen08]

On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of good talk here for the mk2 version of 70-200L f/2.8 IS when used with the 2x converter.

And it will be interesting to see how the 70-200 mk2 works with the new 2x III when it's released.

 

[40d_dane]

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_70-200_l_is_usm_2_review.htm

 

[Port Royal Dad]

If the combo is a real performer, it'll probably give the 100-400L a slight run.
Mike
--
B.R.A.S.S. (Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze)

 

[kevindar]

which body?

on a high density crop (7d, t2i, 60D), I suspect the performance gap would be higher. On 1ds3, according to the digital picture.com, slight edge at f 5.6, identical at f8. I also suspect the 100-400 would focus faster. I think there is some degree of variablity in quality in 100-400 lens. some have super sharp lenses, and some not as much.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11731152@N00/

 

[FrankPrice]

I have both lenses. My 16 year old son shoots the 70-200 non IS on a 40D and I shoot the 100-400 on a 7D. We have been shooting a lot of night time football games.

Ill give you a example of both set ups. You have a lot of give and take, longer reach, slower shutter vs shorter reach, faster shutter.

7D 100-400 @ 400mm 5.6 1/200 ISO 6400



40D 70-200 non IS @ 200mm 2.8 1/500 ISO 3200

 

[GtoJon]

Actually focus is pretty good. With the 1.4x converter there is no difference in focus speed. I would say it's pretty sharp : ), even with my non-scientific test.
7D, 70-200II w/ 2xII, f5.6, 1/50s, ISO 1600





Cheers : ))
--
http://www.JonSmithers.com GtoJon -
Taken any photographs lately?

 

[GtoJon]

Most are : 7D, 70-200II, 1.4x, f4, 1/800s, ISO 3200 .... enjoy : ) EXIF at bottom of each pic : )
http://www.jonsmithers.com/vikings2



--
http://www.JonSmithers.com GtoJon -
Taken any photographs lately?

 

[FrankPrice]

Hey Jon, your photos are exactly why Im on the fence. Sell my 100-400 and get a 70-200II x 1.4 or just save up for the 300 2.8. You made some great shots!

 

[GtoJon]

Thanks .... still not nearly as good as a 300 f2.8 : )
--
http://www.JonSmithers.com GtoJon -
Taken any photographs lately?

 

[Stephen Christie]

If you want to use 400mm quite often, don't use a 2x to get it.
I did it with the 70-200 and it was ok.
Then I got the 100-400 and was much better at 400mm for wildlife and sports.
The 400 5.6 prime is the best for 400mm.
However, if you shoot 70-200 most of the time, the extenders can be ok.
Just dont expect them to be the "best".

 

[Stephen Christie]

Thanks .... still not nearly as good as a 300 f2.8 : )
--
http://www.JonSmithers.com GtoJon -
Taken any photographs lately?

if a 300 2.8 is what you want, no other will do.
Save up for it, you will love it.
You can get a 70-200 f/4 for the short game on the cheap.

 

[Rob Turner184723]

Most are : 7D, 70-200II, 1.4x, f4, 1/800s, ISO 3200 .... enjoy : ) EXIF at bottom of each pic : )
http://www.jonsmithers.com/vikings2



--
http://www.JonSmithers.com GtoJon -
Taken any photographs lately?

Very nice series Jon!

 

[GtoJon]

Thanks : ) It was a blast .... first time at a Vikings game in 25+ years.
--
http://www.JonSmithers.com GtoJon -
Taken any photographs lately?

 

[GtoJon]

Taken 10 minutes ago : )
7D, 70-200II, 2xII, f5.6, ISO 1600, 1/250s @ 400mm





--
http://www.JonSmithers.com GtoJon -
Taken any photographs lately?

 

[BigBen08]

I've been re-reading Canon's site and they say the new extenders III will enhance the new super tele lenses, such as the 300, 500, 600mm. Nothing is said about enhancing the zooms, not even the 70-200 mkII. In fact, the new extenders are listed under the super telephotos...

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3508

So I guess time will tell if the new 2x III will be a benefit over the current 2x II when used with the 70-200 f2.8 mkII.

To stir up the pot a bit, here's a guy ( rsieminski ) that claims his Kenko 2x is much better than Canon's when used with his 70-200 mk I.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ef70-200mm/discuss/72157624526059401/

 

[Flying Fish]

That's a fascinating link. Did you notice that the AF speed is reduced with the extenders? By 50% with the 1.4X and by 75% with the 2X.

FF

 

[BigBen08]

That's a fascinating link. Did you notice that the AF speed is reduced with the extenders? By 50% with the 1.4X and by 75% with the 2X.

Yes, I saw that. For the benefit of others, here's what it says...

As with previous EF Extenders, usage of Series III EF Extenders lowers AF drive speed to improve AF performance. When Extender EF 1.4X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 50%. When Extender EF 2X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 75%. This may seem like a drawback, but in reality subject tracking performance remains quite high when Series III Extenders are used with IS II lenses. This is due to improvements in AF precision made possible by the new microcomputer in the extenders.

I wonder how AF speed is reduced with the current extenders?

My guess is that with cameras such as the 7D and 1DmkIV, that offer very fast AF, then the new extenders might still be workable for many people. But for those who demand fast AF (sports and action shooters), the new extenders would not be useable.

Time will tell