Request close-up pictures from 70-200s (with and w/out converters)

Started Feb 18, 2011 | Discussions thread
Port Royal Dad
Port Royal Dad Senior Member • Posts: 2,713
My example with and w/out the 2x Canon converter

I purchased the 2x converter and tried it on my 70-200 f/2.8 IS MK1.

With the converter on my lens, my widest aperture was f/5.6 . However, reduction in IQ forced me to shoot at f/11. And that was in decent light too. I thought about it long and hard and came to the conclusion that I did not want to take a "kick-azz" lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and turn it into a lens where I'd always be shooting at f/11; that was just was too slow for me.

By the way, with your 70-200 f/4, your widest aperture will become f/8 . Your AF may struggle.

Also, I did not like fiddling around with the converter as far as removing it, installing it, removing it, installing it, removing it, installing it.....

Pain in the azz, IMHO.

After three days of playing with the 2x converter, I returned it for a full refund to B&H, and bought the 100-400L instead. Now granted the 100-400L is huge compared to the converter, but the 2x converter could not even begin to come close in performance as far as a comparison to the real life, in the field use. I'm sure others have great things to say about the 70-200 1.4/2 converter combo....particularly about weight and size.

And, this does not mean that the converter would not work well for you, or that it would not be an awesome addition to a prime lens. But for me at the time, it wasn't a good fit.

Here is my example, before I returned it. Simply a comparison of magnification.

70-200L f/2.8 IS without converter

70-200L f/2.8 IS with 2x converter, shot at f/11. At f/5.6, the basketball netting was fuzzy.

Best Regards, Mike

-- hide signature --

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

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow