Quality Image of 70-200mm with converter

[optical]

I am planning to shoot some wildlife occasionally, and may need to go beyond 200mm.

I understand that 70-200mm can be extended to 400mm with converter, but wonder how good is the image? I assume that it is not as a good as that of 100-400mm.

I am thinking of either getting the more expensive 70-200mm f2.8 +/- IS (with converter), or getting the cheaper 70-200mm f4 and a 100-400mm.

Any advice?

[timmyquest]

getting the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-400 seems like a pretty big waste to me. I'm not too sure what the 100-400 is at at 200mm but i know it's at f/5.6 when at 400...so i would think it wouldn't be too much higher if any higher then f/4...as such you'd have two lenses that do the same thing, and one that does more.

This thread should be of some use to you:

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

[minatophase3]

I am contemplating the same issue, look forward to the advice you get :lol:

[scottbergerphoto]

The 2X converter uses up 2 f stops and some image quality. Some people use this combination with success. I am a big fan of the 100-400 IS L. If you are serious about wildlife however, take a look at the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX APO HSM. It is 1/2 the price of a comparable Canon. I have been using it alot lately and I am very happy with it.
Scott

[SDloCal]

I have tried using a 2x converter for shooting surfing and, depending on how much you rely on it, found that it really messed with my autofocus. Also, the quality of the images did go down. I have gotten good shots with a Tamron 200-400 with a fixed ap at 5.6. Hope that helps.
Jake

[Scottes]

I have the Canon 100-400 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Two very different lenses. Like Timmyquest said, I don't see the sense of getting the 100-400 and the 70-200 f/4 since they're very similar. The 2.8 is a big difference with about 1.5 stops more at 200mm. And the larger aperture will help a lot with autofocus.

Define "wildlife" - they range from bird-size to moose-sized. For birds you will never have enough length. For most other wildlife you will probably want a large aperture for early morning and late afternoon shooting.

I first purchased a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.4 TC, giving me enough for everything except birds smaller than geese. A couple months later I got the 100-400 for smaller birds and for the IS. I was left with a very good range from 70mm f/2.8 up to 560mm f/8. You might want to think along these lines.

You will find a LOT of people here like the 100-400 and any of the 70-200s - it depends on what you want, and what you want to shoot.

[DaveG]

I am planning to shoot some wildlife occasionally, and may need to go beyond 200mm.

I understand that 70-200mm can be extended to 400mm with converter, but wonder how good is the image? I assume that it is not as a good as that of 100-400mm.

I am thinking of either getting the more expensive 70-200mm f2.8 +/- IS (with converter), or getting the cheaper 70-200mm f4 and a 100-400mm.

Any advice?

You don't say what camera you have but with a 10D that 200 is going to be like a 320 mm lens. If you put a 1.4 extender on it you'll have a lens that's effectively a 480 mm.

Now you might require something longer than this but the 70-200 is an f2.8 alone and an f4 with the converter and that speed may be as important as the focal length. I mean it may be nice to frame the subject with a 800 mm lens but if you're forced to shoot it at too slow a shutterspeed then the exercise is moot.

My choice was the 70-200 f2.8 L and the 1.4 extender, and so far I'm more than satisfied. I know that it might nor be enough focal length for some things but that's going to happen even with the 100-400 on the wrong day. "David on some days the 16 is too long and the 1000 is too short."

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 2X will do in a pinch,. but the quality does not begin to compare with the 100-400 IS sans converter.

If your budget is tight and you ewant a quicj affordable solution,. it's a great option.

But if shooting at 400mm is the priority,. go for a 400mm lens.

[KBMphotography.com]

I opted for the 70-200mm F2.8L IS which is fantastic.

pairing it with the Canon 1.4x Mk 2 has lost no quality.... just one stop.

[defordphoto]

I opted for the 70-200mm F2.8L IS which is fantastic.

pairing it with the Canon 1.4x Mk 2 has lost no quality.... just one stop.

I also use the same setup quite frequently and am nothing but pleased with the results.

[dds]

I have the 70-200 2.8 (non IS :roll: ) and I'm happy with it.
I'm looking for something longer. I could:

1) get just the 1.4 TC ("relatively" inexpensive choice)
2) sell my beloved 70-200 and buy a 100-400 or another third party lens in the same focal range (but I like my 2.8 :cry: ) (more expensive choice)

I would probably go with the 1.4 TC. Aquestion just in case: is it supposed to work with third party lenses?

DDS

[optical]

It looks like the 70-200 with TC is a good option.

Is there any difference in image quality of 1.4 X TC compared 2X TC?

I have read that the TC can affect the autofocus, particularly with the 70-200 f4, and ? less with f2.8, is this correct?