Canon Extender on 70-200 Is f/2.8II

How is the quaility of photos useing the Canon Extender EF 1.4 or 2X III on the canon 70-200f2.8 IS II? Is it worth the $$? Thanks

1.4xIII is only slightly better than the MkII. 2xIII is big time better.

The 1.4TC (either MII or MIII) will give you a:

98-280mm f4 IS L lens and the image quality reduction will be minimal generally speaking. If stopped down a little chances are you'd not even be able to tell that the TC is added (Image quality wise).

the 2*TC (MII or MIII) will give you a:

140-400mm f5.6 IS L lens which is on par, image quality wise with the 100-400mm; with both showing significant improvements in sharpness when stopped down to around f7.1/f8.

In general it depends what you are after, I personally consider the 1.4TC to be well worth adding in any situation that calls for it; whilst the 2*TC is also valid to add if you want that 400mm range whilst also keeping a very usable level of image quality (it won't be beating a 400mm f5.6, but then the 100-400mmL can't either).

The 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII is one of the few zooms that I rate capable of taking a 2*TC and retaining a usable image quality

I love the 2x III, but I lost the end cap that fits the lens. Anyone know what it's called and where I can find one? It is not the same as a body cap.

Let me put it this way, using my 1.4x II, I basically no longer use my 300 f/4L IS. I get the same or better IQ, I get the versatility of a zoom in that range and I get better IS.

J.

I found the results from using the Mk2 + 2x TC to be quite disappointing and no where near as good as my 100-400. I didn't bother trying the 1.4 TC

Snydre that is surprising because most of the reviews I've read have the two setups fairly evenly matched. It could be that you've got some unholy uncommonly good example of the 100-400mm (I've seen some strange ones, esp one which was far below normal sharpness at its short end, but a bit above average at the long end)

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=869226
Is a comparison I've often sourced for comparing the two lens approaches - are you saying that your 100-400mm is equal to or better than those results or that your 70-200mm results were lesser (could always be that the TC + lens were slightly missmatched with calibrations and resulted in less than ideal performance)

Overread wrote in post #13183669
Snydre that is surprising because most of the reviews I've read have the two setups fairly evenly matched. It could be that you've got some unholy uncommonly good example of the 100-400mm (I've seen some strange ones, esp one which was far below normal sharpness at its short end, but a bit above average at the long end)

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=869226
Is a comparison I've often sourced for comparing the two lens approaches - are you saying that your 100-400mm is equal to or better than those results or that your 70-200mm results were lesser (could always be that the TC + lens were slightly missmatched with calibrations and resulted in less than ideal performance)

Yes. I took the "pump" and the 70-200 + TC (2, different copies even) out, set up a tripod and took a couple of shots with both. Manually focused in Live View for both, so no AF weirdness; both set to f/5.6 because that's how I shoot the 100-400 98% of the time.

Point of focus for both was the single, green leaf at the top of the vine; near the bottom, center of the trunk. With both copies of the TC this was the best focus I could get.

70-200 MkII + 2x TC MkIII:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/5329​626868/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/5329​015605/

Hmm the 100-400mm is reported to retain the edge at the wide open, but only just; that first shot does look poor and the difference between the two is very noticeable. I wonder if it wasn't a case of backfocusing on the 70-200mm + TC combo which throw the tree body out of focus or simply a calibration error between the two units which resulted in less than ideal performance.

I need to test 2xTC II on my 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. My 100-400L was real good. I don't have it right now to compare.

I have been contemplating picking up the 2x III to pair with my 70-200mm II. Most of the reviews and thoughts I have read on this combo online is positive.

Overread wrote in post #13184006
Hmm the 100-400mm is reported to retain the edge at the wide open, but only just; that first shot does look poor and the difference between the two is very noticeable. I wonder if it wasn't a case of backfocusing on the 70-200mm + TC combo which throw the tree body out of focus or simply a calibration error between the two units which resulted in less than ideal performance.

My suspiscion is that my body and lens are JUST within tolerances, together; and throwing additional elements in there is just enough to throw the whole shebang out of whack. But, since I already have the 100-400, it wasn't worth my while to struggle with shippinv things around to figure that out.

Here's one I took. A long exposure with 70-200 2.8 II with X2 MK III.

Might not be very telling as its a long exposure but I took this without a remote so not as sharp as it could be.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/picsbykev/61851​25792/

I have to agree with Snydremark & his opinions.

When i conducted testing various extenders with the 70-200MKII mated with the current generation of crop bodys the 100-400 UY sharp copy i had at the time produced better IQ at 400/f5.6 versus the 70-200 MKII at 400/f8.0 with the 2X TC`s.

IMO the only bodys mated to the 70-200MKII + the Canon 2X III extender that come close or equal to the 100-400 zoom at 400/f5.6 are the sensors in the 1D MKIV, 1DsMKIII, & 5D MKII. These bodys still wont beat the IQ of the 400/f5.6 bare prime and until i see someone that claims they do post back to back 100% crops of the same subject matter, same exact distances, camera settings, tripod mounted, Liveview, delay timer, etc. my personal opinions wont change. And im not talking about dollar bills or test charts indoors. Also IMO stationary subject captures outdoors from 25ft. at 400mm with 100% crops is my preferred testing method. By no means am i in any way attempting to tell folks how to spend their hard earned money but only posting my personal findings.

I have seen some very nice photos below by Cicero using the 1D MKIV & 5D MKII mated to his 500/f4 IS + various brand 2X extenders but this thread pertains to the 70-200MKII.

https://photography-on-the.net …p=12445643&post​count=1529

https://photography-on-the.net …p=12238874&post​count=1333

Regards, Ron

I think anyone would be shocked if the 70-200mm MII and 2*TC could come close to the 400mm f5.6 prime lens on its own. I think its just asking way too much of the optics with the TC involved; Even the designed for 100-400mm can't do that and I suspect the only zoom that would is a 200-400mm (ie cutting out part of the zoom range).