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

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

Forumghost516 wrote in post #10688928
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.

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?

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.

Forumghost516 wrote in post #10688928
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
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...

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!

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

jamesb wrote in post #10689282
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
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Have you seen this comparison? (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.

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

timnosenzo wrote in post #10689014
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