70-200 f/2.8 + extender=400mm

[timmyquest]

I just did a quick bit of research.

For 1700-ish you get the 70-200 f/2.8
for 280 more you get the 70-200f/2.8 and the 140-400 f/5.6 (5.6 correct?) and AF still works.

So for about 2 grand i'd be getting "two" great lenses.

And based on a test done a while ago, the image quality is fine by me.

I guess my next question would be, for $800 i could get sigmas, does anyone have any examples from that lens?

photographyreview.com has a rather high ratings for it...

[Belmondo]

Given a choice between the 100-400 and the 70-200 w/2X TC, I'd take the 100-400. You're giving up the speed of the f/2.8, but you lose that when you add the TC anyway. The other difference (70mm vs. 100mm) is not critical to me.

I get consistently better results with the 100-400 than I do with the 70-200, even without the TC. The only way I was able to get good results with the 70-200 and 2X TC was from a tripod, and that can be a darned nuisance.

Tom.

[Scottes]

I second tom's statements. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and a 1.4 TC - I almost never touch them in favor of the 100-400.

[Cadwell]

Doesn't matter what the lens is... as soon as you start adding TCs the quality always suffers. Of course, the better the lens you start off with the better your TCd results will be and by all accounts the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is a decent enough toy ;)

Still the result is likely to be worse than a decent lens without TC.

[Tapeman]

Getting the extender is a good value. Also it is not to bad to carry as opposed to another large lens.

However depending on your expected use and budget, you probably would be happier with an additional lens instead of the 2x.

As I have learned from this forum SPEND WAY MORE THAN YOU CAN AFFORD!!!!!!!!!

[jrm]

Given a choice between the 100-400 and the 70-200 w/2X TC, I'd take the 100-400. You're giving up the speed of the f/2.8, but you lose that when you add the TC anyway. The other difference (70mm vs. 100mm) is not critical to me.

I get consistently better results with the 100-400 than I do with the 70-200, even without the TC. The only way I was able to get good results with the 70-200 and 2X TC was from a tripod, and that can be a darned nuisance.

Tom.

I am considering getting the 2x for my 70-200 2.8 IS, and have been following the many posts on this subject.

All the points raised above are valid. Certainly, with the 2x, lose the lens speed of the 70-200. I would also agree that the 70 vs 100 mm is not that big a deal (If you can afford L-glass, you probably have another lens to cover that range anyway).

You fail to point out one advantage of the 70-200, which is a very important one for me. In the 70-200 range, you have a 2.8 lens. The 100-400 is a slower lens - you do not have the option of using it with a wider aperture.

This, I think, was the point of the original poster - 2 lenses in one. You get a fast, 70-200, L-glass lens. Then, for the price of the 2x, you also get a good 140-400 lens - almost as fast and almost as good as the 100-400, but much less expensive.

I have heard people talk about the quality of the 70-200 w/2x as "no visible difference," "minimal quality loss," all the way to "I wouldn't use it." How much loss is there? Is it the quality of a decent non-L 100-400? Better? Worse? Since there is so much subjectivity involved, it would be good to have a "benchmark" to compare it to.

[CyberDyneSystems]

For less than price of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and 2X TC,

..you could get either a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or a Canon 70-200mm f/4, and either a 100-400mm IS or a 400mm f/5.6 prime...

Either of which would garner you better results at the 400mm end.

Hmmmm....

[CyberDyneSystems]

JRM,

If you have the 70-200mm IS,. I say definatley GET the 2X T-con

It is a low priced investment.. and the portable flexibility is allways a plus.

The point is that if you take your long telephoto shots as seriously as you take your 70-200mm f/2.8 shots,. in the end you will get a dedicated lens for that type of work.

But if the 400mm focal length is just an occasional daliance,. then the 2X will certainly be a good solution.

There are days I have no intention of packing my 500m prime...

You can bet your life on those days I have the 2X in my coat pocket!!!!

[robekert]

I was under the impression that the 2x extender was not compatible with the zooms, only the primes. Did I miss something?
Rob

[Cadwell]

I was under the impression that the 2x extender was not compatible with the zooms, only the primes. Did I miss something?
Rob

Yup. It is compatible with certain L zooms; the EF 70-200 f/2.8L being one of them.

Canons web site gives the list as "EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF 70-200mm f/4L, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM, EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM and fixed length L-series lenses of 135mm or higher"

[Scottes]

There's an old thread comparing TCs and Zooms and such. Search for something like "4 ways to shoot 400" for some pics and info.


I debated the "70-200 + 2x TC" thoughts for a while. And then got the 70-200, 1.4x TC and eventually got the 100-400. The hell with car payments, I have L.

The Canon TCs will work with a variety of L lenses, zoom and prime. Check Canon's page on the TCs to make sure your lens is listed.

[jrm]

There's an old thread comparing TCs and Zooms and such. Search for something like "4 ways to shoot 400" for some pics and info.



I remember following that thread. In my view, it really didn't answer the question (for me at least). Sure, a dedicated 400mm lens will give you better quality than a 200mm w/2x. But for me the question is "how much better." From what I remember of the thread, the 70-200 w/2x still looked good, if less than the 400mm. I will have to revisit that thread.

For me, I really wanted a fast lens. For most of my shooting, a 70-200 works best. So the 70-200 f/2.8 is ideal. That I can add a relatively inexpensive adapter and get a "good" quality 400mm every so often is a bonus. If I really needed 400mm on a regular basis, I would probably look at it different.

Plus, the 70-200 f/2.8 (plus the kit lens) is about all I am willing to carry around (and the wife still thinks it is too much!). No way could I consider adding another long lens. Maybe when my kids get a little older, one can be a lens porter. :)

The 4 ways to shoot 400 probably exist since not everyone has the same needs.

[Scottes]

jrm it sounds like you have your answer. Given your criteria, the 70-200 + a 2x TC will do it.

I hardly think you're going to hate it or anything. And if you find yourself going long a lot then get a 300mm f/2.8 or something similar.

[Sketcher]

There's an old thread comparing TCs and Zooms and such. Search for something like "4 ways to shoot 400" for some pics and info.

Whoah! an "old" thread :lol:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24218&highlight=four+ways+shoot+4 00

That was Jan 29th '04... So that's what it takes to be "old" now days eh!? :wink:

[Scottes]

If it ain't on Page 1, it's old. :)

That one's about 1300 messages back. Pretty old.

[aeroshots2003]

I'd go for the 70-200 f/2.8. And buy the 1.4 AND 2.0 extenders. That way your gear is very compact, yet you have a wide range of top quality :

70-200 f/2.8 (dubbed mother of all lenses...)
100-280 f/4.0 (still considerable speed and Top Q)
140-400 f/5.6 (for more range - I doubt you would see much Q difference with 100-400 IS)

I for one will replace my 70-200 f/4.0 for the 2.8 version in due course, since I work a lot in this range and therefore it would be a good thing to put my money in :D


Johan

[ilya]

I got the 2x for my 70-200 2.8 IS. My reasoning was:

- Where do I spend most of my time? It was 70-200 rather then 100-400. And the 70-200, besides giving you a wider rear, is superior through that range to the 100-400m.

- If I was spending most of my time at 400mm or more, then it would be a no brainer, I'd get a prime 400mm (plus an extender); or if I spend a decent amount of time at 400mm and I needed long zoom flexibility, then I'd get a 100-400mm.

- Stopped down to F11 there is no noticeable difference - at 400mm. You could get away with F8 or wider at lower zoom ranges.

So for occasional long reach needs, the limitations imposed by the 2x are acceptable. However, to many being locked into F11 to get the best results all the time would not be acceptable.


There is a luminous-landscape.com review of 70-200 with 2x vs 100-400, at 400mm. I don't have the link at the moment, but it says F11 gets you same results.

Alternatively, the overwhelming majority of people say that the 1.4x has no perceptible deterioration in quality.

So consider where you spend most of your time shooting.
Ilya

[Ferdinand]

All I can contribute here are photos taken with my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with 2X TC.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28570

To my eyes, I found that they take photos that will easily satisfy my requirements. Only time I found that I don't like a photo is not really the lens fault nor the 2x TC's fault, and that is when the subject is so far away and I have to crop so hard that I end up with bad image quality.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[skid00skid00]

I tested the 70-200 2.8 and 2x TC, and find it
better than I expected. You can see my test
shots at: http://home.earthlink.net/~ladlueck/TC.htm

It's good at F8 - F11, although there may be an
issue with halation (?) or internal reflections...
I have been shooting under heavy overcast,
so I'm not yet sure.

It's good enough for me, for occasional birding,
and to carry in my fanny pack.

The 1.4x just barely degrades this lens...

[IanD]

I have been using the 70-200 IS and 1.4 TC for a couple of weeks now and the results are excellent. However my main duck/deer lens is the 100-400IS. Soon going to add the 400 prime as a flight lens and put a 2X TC behind it for those long way out there shots.

[eric1]

Ian, i have the 4005.6, and the 2x. it does a pretty good job, but you need plenty of light at f11. i start at ISO 200, and go up from there if i need to. i will say on it's own the 400 prime is one fine piece of glass!

thanks,
eric1

[timmyquest]

I think what i need to do here is simply wait till football season starts and look at what my 70-300mm sigma can do.

If i find that 400mm is to close then i'll take that into consideration.

If i find that 5.6 with my 550ex is not fast enough, then i'll take that into consideration.

Personally though, the 70-200 seems like a logical choice as of right now, but thats without any first hand experience.

[Johnny Q]

Go for the 70-200. It is the sharpest lens out there!

[cspratt]

What about the 300 F/4L IS USM lens and a 1.4x converter. Is this a good lens with or without the converter? You get a fixed 300mm lens at F/4 and you can get 420mm with the 1.4x (f/5.6) or 600mm with the 2x at F/8.

Bit off topic but I really would like to know.

[sds4kst8]

Here is a previous post comparing the Canon and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (with photos). http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27224&highlight=

Honestly, I like the Canon, but it's nothing to drool over compared to the Sigma. If I hadn't picked up the Canon at such a great price I'd still be happily shooting the Sigma.

[jonnyhorizon]

i have been trying to get some mtn goat pics but they are pretty shy
i have a digital rebel and a 70-300 IS
i would love to try a teleextender
i can use a tripod and generally have very good light
the canon charts indicate that my lens is not one of the ones that work with a 2x
i do not mind haveing to manually focus
i there an option out there?
...

[robertwgross]

Jonny, you better get up there closer to the mountain goats. Build a blind.

I've been trying to shoot a family of white-tailed kites (a member of the hawk family) for almost a month now, and they just won't let me get close enough to properly use the 500mm lens I have. I'm going to have to build a hawk blind and sit out there all day.

---Bob Gross---

[jonnyhorizon]

guess so
i have a motion sensor and cable release attachment but i have had problems with DOF because the set-up does not like auto focus
also - i obviously will not leave my set-up just anywhere
i am thinking if i can see an area they frequent i will setup the motion sensor/camera (with a sign on it) and watch the set-up from the next ridge
here are some coyote kits i got in the neighborhood recently
you can see the poor quality of my lens and focus challenges
http://www.johncastor.com/cyote/

[robertwgross]

I think mountain goats are camera shy and prefer long L lenses.

There's something about a white lens that makes the hair stand up on the back of their head.

---Bob Gross---