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 Member 158 posts Joined May 2010 Location: Massapequa, United States More info | Aug 09, 2010 14:11 | #1 Here it is guys the big debate for me right now www.facebook.com/aperturepriorityrentals
LOG IN TO REPLY |
malla1962 Cream of the Crop ![]() 7,714 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jul 2004 Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk More info | Aug 09, 2010 14:15 | #2 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jamesb Senior Member ![]() 383 posts Joined Aug 2010 Location: USA More info | 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. Canon gear
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | 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
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dinanm3atl Goldmember ![]() 3,123 posts Likes: 109 Joined Feb 2008 Location: Atlanta, GA More info | 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... Halston - MotorSports Photographer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jamesb Senior Member ![]() 383 posts Joined Aug 2010 Location: USA More info | 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. Canon gear
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ben_r_ -POTN's Three legged Support- ![]() 15,894 posts Likes: 13 Joined Nov 2007 Location: Sacramento, CA More info | 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
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dinanm3atl Goldmember ![]() 3,123 posts Likes: 109 Joined Feb 2008 Location: Atlanta, GA More info | Aug 09, 2010 15:37 | #8 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. Halston - MotorSports Photographer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jamesb Senior Member ![]() 383 posts Joined Aug 2010 Location: USA More info | 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
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Quizzical_Squirrel Senior Member 489 posts Joined Aug 2009 More info | Aug 09, 2010 15:57 | #10 My opinion is only of interest if weight may be an concern.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
inverseSquare Senior Member 367 posts Likes: 3 Joined Jun 2007 More info | 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. motionimages.co.uk
LOG IN TO REPLY |
KCMO Al Goldmember ![]() 1,115 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO More info | 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
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 09, 2010 16:37 | #13 Have you seen this comparison? 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
LOG IN TO REPLY |
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. Nikon Z6, 20mm f/1.8 S, 35mm f/1.8 S, 50mm f/1.8 S, 85mm f/1.8 S, 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR, Flashpoint Flashes
LOG IN TO REPLY |
timnosenzo Cream of the Crop 8,833 posts Likes: 14 Joined Sep 2005 Location: CT More info | Aug 09, 2010 19:10 | #15 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. connecticut wedding photographer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in 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! |
| ||
Latest registered member is Eddy3 688 guests, 316 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |