Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 09 Aug 2010 (Monday) 14:11
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Ok Guys 70-200 f2.8 IS + 2XII Extender or 100-400L

 
Forumghost516
Member
158 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Massapequa, United States
     
Aug 09, 2010 14:11 |  #1

Here it is guys the big debate for me right now

70-200 f2.8IS Mark I with a 2X II Converter or the 100-400L

I tried the extender in the store today and loved it on the lens now I just need to hear some opinions.

Thanks


www.facebook.com/apert​urepriorityrentals (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Aug 09, 2010 14:15 |  #2

Forumghost516 wrote in post #10688928 (external link)
Here it is guys the big debate for me right now

70-200 f2.8IS Mark I with a 2X II Converter or the 100-400L

I tried the extender in the store today and loved it on the lens now I just need to hear some opinions.

Thanks

When I had the 70-200 mk1 The results with a 2X were not good, but the mk2 is a different story.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jamesb
Senior Member
Avatar
383 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: USA
     
Aug 09, 2010 14:24 |  #3

I'm curious as well. I'm looking at picking up the 70-200 2.8 IS II and was thinking of a 2x extender instead of springing for the 100-400 IS when i'd be able to afford it.

Am I going to notice a big differene between each setup?


Canon gear
CT Wedding Photographer
www.jamesbernatchez.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,831 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Aug 09, 2010 14:27 |  #4

If you plan to use 200mm - 400mm often, I would get the 100-400. If you just need it ever now and again, then the 70-200 + 2x should do the trick. I find the IQ to be acceptable from the 70-200 + 2x, but the AF can be unpredictable, IMO.


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dinanm3atl
Goldmember
Avatar
3,123 posts
Likes: 109
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 09, 2010 14:49 as a reply to  @ timnosenzo's post |  #5

Forumghost516 wrote in post #10688928 (external link)
Here it is guys the big debate for me right now

70-200 f2.8IS Mark I with a 2X II Converter or the 100-400L

I tried the extender in the store today and loved it on the lens now I just need to hear some opinions.

Thanks

I would get the 70-200 and the extender? Why? Because if you take the extender off you end up with the 70-200 f/2.8 which is just wonderful. I shoot with the first version and love it to death. Use it all the time. Go to the track and pop on the extender if I need to.

malla1962 wrote in post #10688955 (external link)
When I had the 70-200 mk1 The results with a 2X were not good, but the mk2 is a different story.

Not good? I find that hard to believe. I was panning cars... some out @ "400mm" and got good results in my opinion...

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4100/4755767684_65a7231e1c_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4076/4755771326_5249b160ec_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4755125541_93c2b772eb_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/4755133319_df60c9f4f4_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4116/4755768638_4d1f2e6467_b.jpg

Halston - MotorSports Photographer
1Dx - 1Dx - A7r - 400L f/2.8 - 70-200L f/2.8 - 24-105L f/4 - 17-40L f/4 - 50 f/1.4 - 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye - 1.4x TC - 2x TC
Photography Site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jamesb
Senior Member
Avatar
383 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: USA
     
Aug 09, 2010 15:10 |  #6

Those photos, I assume, are with the 70-200 IS I and the 2x correct? They look perfectly acceptable to me.

I want the range to shoot planes, animals, motorcycles, etc every now and then. If I get really into it then I can spring for the 100-400 and keep the extender other stuff. Thanks for convincing me!


Canon gear
CT Wedding Photographer
www.jamesbernatchez.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ben_r_
-POTN's Three legged Support-
Avatar
15,894 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Aug 09, 2010 15:28 |  #7

100-400 all the way. The 2x TC with the Mark I 70-200 2.8 is not pretty IMO. I hated it.


[Gear List | Flickr (external link) | My Reviews] /|\ Tripod Leg Protection (external link) /|\
GIVE a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dinanm3atl
Goldmember
Avatar
3,123 posts
Likes: 109
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Aug 09, 2010 15:37 |  #8

jamesb wrote in post #10689282 (external link)
Those photos, I assume, are with the 70-200 IS I and the 2x correct? They look perfectly acceptable to me.

I want the range to shoot planes, animals, motorcycles, etc every now and then. If I get really into it then I can spring for the 100-400 and keep the extender other stuff. Thanks for convincing me!

Those are all with the Mark I version. I am very happy with it. As said the best part is with the 2x TC removed you are left with the 70-200 which is awesome.

ben_r_ wrote in post #10689395 (external link)
100-400 all the way. The 2x TC with the Mark I 70-200 2.8 is not pretty IMO. I hated it.

All the above photos are shot with the Mark I. I wouldn't call them not pretty. The first photo is all the way out to 400mm and you can see it is not as sharp as the rest. Pull it in a bit and the others are pretty sharp. Not going to be able to cut your wrist with them but still good.


Halston - MotorSports Photographer
1Dx - 1Dx - A7r - 400L f/2.8 - 70-200L f/2.8 - 24-105L f/4 - 17-40L f/4 - 50 f/1.4 - 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye - 1.4x TC - 2x TC
Photography Site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jamesb
Senior Member
Avatar
383 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: USA
     
Aug 09, 2010 15:43 |  #9

Do you think there would be a noticeable step up when using the extender with the 70-200 IS II?


Canon gear
CT Wedding Photographer
www.jamesbernatchez.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Quizzical_Squirrel
Senior Member
489 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
Aug 09, 2010 15:57 |  #10

My opinion is only of interest if weight may be an concern.

I'm not a strong woman and although I often use the 70-200 2.8 II with a 1.4x when the conditions call for it, it's too heavy and unbalanced for someone like me to hold up to my eye for long.

So if the light is good or I'm going to be out using the camera continually all day, I prefer to use the 100-400.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
inverseSquare
Senior Member
367 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2007
     
Aug 09, 2010 16:27 |  #11

Your 7D may fair better - but I tried the 70-200 f2.8 mk2 with 2x converter on a semi-dull day with a 30D and the AF was compromised.

It struggled and could hunted back and forth unless there was noticeable contrast difference to grab hold of - the 100-400 had no problems at all.

As you have the 70-200 and want more range then a 2x converter makes sense, a bit of a no-brainer as the relative cost is so small.
But if you are looking to get to 400 regularly? I'd look at the 100-400 in the longer term (or 400 f5.6 :)).


Cheers.


motionimages.co.uk (external link)
flickr (external link)
tumblr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KCMO ­ Al
Goldmember
Avatar
1,115 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
     
Aug 09, 2010 16:32 |  #12

For specific subjects, such as a fast moving object like at airshows or car races, the 100-400 has the distinct advantage of the push-pull zoom/focus. At airshows for example, you can zoom back to 100 to pick up the incoming aircraft and then zoom to compose and manually focus with one hand. Same would apply for lateral moving race cars. It gets some getting used to, but really works well. Having to use a separate zoom ring would not work for me very well. IQ of the 70-200 is probably better in it's native range, but it's probably not enough to be noticeable in the work that I do.


Film: Leica M-4, Elan 7E, Rolleiflex 2.8f, Pentax 645 -- Digital: Canon Pro-1, EOS 5D Mk III
EOS Lenses: Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX - Canon EF 17-40 f4.0L - Canon EF 24-105 f4.0L - Canon EF 35 f1.4L USM - Canon EF100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM - Canon EF100 f2.8 Macro - Other stuff: MR 14EX - 430EX - 580EXII - ST-E2 - TC1.4x - TC-80N3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hairy_moth
Goldmember
Avatar
3,739 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 12
Joined Apr 2009
Location: NJ
     
Aug 09, 2010 16:37 |  #13

Have you seen this comparison? (external link) (I love this site)

At 400, the 100-400 looks better. But at 135, the 70-200 is clearly better and, of course, it is faster.


7D | 300D | G1X | Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 | EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro | EF 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200 f/2.8L MkII -- flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
2,988 posts
Gallery: 80 photos
Likes: 788
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Aug 09, 2010 18:26 |  #14

The 70-200 MK II and 2X work well together. Not as well with the original 70-200 f2.8 IS.


Fujifilm X-T3, 16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2, 80mm f/2.8 OIS Macro, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OIS, 1.4x TC, Flashpoint R2 Strobes/Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,831 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Aug 09, 2010 19:10 |  #15

timnosenzo wrote in post #10689014 (external link)
If you plan to use 200mm - 400mm often, I would get the 100-400. If you just need it ever now and again, then the 70-200 + 2x should do the trick. I find the IQ to be acceptable from the 70-200 + 2x, but the AF can be unpredictable, IMO.

Ignore this. I thought you were talking about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 2x.

Just for reference, here's the 70-200 I vs II with the 2x. IMO the II handles it better.

http://the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=6&API=0 (external link)


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,841 views & 0 likes for this thread
Ok Guys 70-200 f2.8 IS + 2XII Extender or 100-400L
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Birdie760
958 guests, 306 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.