1.4x TC II and 70-200 2.8 IS for airshows?

[Agged]

I just received my new 70-200 2.8 IS and am quite happy with it so far. One of my areas of interest is airshows. As I don't get to attend them very often, I opted for this lens instead of the 100-400.

My question is: Is it worthwhile getting a 1.4x TC for my infrequent airshow attendances? Is the expense worth the extra 80 mm reach? How about the IQ of this setup?

Perhaps I'd be better off just going with my nifty 250?

Would love to get input from those who do this regularly.

[DealsGapCobra]

I have never shot with the 250 but use the 70-200 2.8 +1.4x for air shows. Obviously it doesn't have the reach of the 100-400 but produces good results.

[Agged]

I have never shot with the 250 but use the 70-200 2.8 +1.4x for air shows. Obviously it doesn't have the reach of the 100-400 but produces good results.

Thanks for your response. It sounds like you find the images and IQ to your liking. Does it AF well?

[PhotosGuy]

You should have no problems with IQ & AF. I didn't even with the 2X TC. I've used the 100-400 & it's a good lens. It's one failing is that it's a slow f/5.6 at 400mm.
I decided on a 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) with a 2X TC, which also gives f/5.6 but needs to be stopped down to f/11 to be as sharp & retain contrast. The advantage is that you have a long f/2.8 lens if you need the speed for other sports.
Biggest disadvantage with the 2X is that it sucks in low light because of my f/11 requirement, as was seen in my Selfridge air show pics: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=743041

This will be argued forever, so here's some results with cars:
POTN at Waterford Hills - Open Wheel Club Racing. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=543685)

[Agged]

Thanks PhotosGuy. I played in the Selfridge A/S thread as well. Had the same problem with grain and noise while shooting an airshow on a cloudy day with a buddy's 100-400L. Super disappointing but I want to learn from the misadventure.

I thought the 70-200 2.8 IS would be a more versatile lens for all around use, so I bought one. I want to maximize it's use and if a TC is the way to go, I'm in. There seems to be lots of opinions either way on the merits and drawbacks of the 1.4x and the 2x. I can only afford one, so I have to make the right choice.

I'd like to see some airshow images from someone with a 70-200 / 1.4 x combo. I'm also to hang out at out local airport and see how well I can do with this lens by itself.

Your car series looks really good.

I decided on a 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) with a 2X TC, which also gives f/5.6 but needs to be stopped down to f/11 to be as sharp & retain contrast. The advantage is that you have a long f/2.8 lens if you need the speed for other sports.

[PhotosGuy]

I'd like to see some airshow images from someone with a 70-200 / 1.4 x combo. I've seen some somewhere & they looked good. You might try the "Lens" thread. Your car series looks really good. Bright sunlight, remember. ;)

[ChunkyDA]

I used the 40D and 70-200+1.4TC for this shot. First is full size so you can see how much of the frame is filled by a modern fighter at US airshow distance. This was shot RAW, 4 in camera sharpening, converted to jpg using DPP. EXIF is all there.
Second is 100% crop of same image.
The nice thing about that combination is that for formations and large transports/bombers you can take the TC off. As you can see, 4 or more would have caused me to zoom out.
IMHO, this is the perfect combi for the once or twice a year airshow enthusiast. I rented an EF 400mm f5.6 once and it was real nice too.
I have a bunch more but this is just a quick testimonial.
Why not sell the 250 and get the 1.4? You'd have the range covered out to 280.

[Agged]

Why not sell the 250 and get the 1.4? You'd have the range covered out to 280.

You may be on to something here ChunkyDA. F-22 image looks great. This might be the best of both worlds.