Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark II

Geese in formation on a brisk morning

^^ you are sure loving that ND filter aren't you!

Look great!

Is there an image example thread dedicated to this lens used with a teleconverter? I did a couple searches but couldn't find one if it exists. In case anyone happens to subscribe I'd appreciate the link thanks.

If I can be choosey one dedicated to the MkIII converters would be nice. Mounted on a 7D..

Some animal landscapes...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/16866094@N06/8​221572017/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/16866094@N06/8​221552331/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/16866094@N06/8​222634610/

ions wrote in post #15296359
Is there an image example thread dedicated to this lens used with a teleconverter? I did a couple searches but couldn't find one if it exists. In case anyone happens to subscribe I'd appreciate the link thanks.

If I can be choosey one dedicated to the MkIII converters would be nice. Mounted on a 7D..

I guess I *could* do that for you as I'm doing my crosswalk series. But it's just so much more convenient with the 100-400, considering the overall aperture is the same.

I might have some time to test out the 70-200 + 2xiii converter for you this afternoon. Or if not, I should be able to shoot some tomorrow. I'll try and get back to you on that.

Hehe..

Thanks Julian. This is the rub: I'm considering my telephoto options. They include buying a 400 5.6, they're priced relatively well on the used market and perform well. It wouldn't have IS though. A 100-400 is also an option but if it's found that it's not that much better than the 70-200 MkII, say better enough to make up the price difference between the cost of a 2x teleconverter and the 100-400 then the teleconverter may be a better option for me. I've played with a 100-400 a few times and ... hmmm just wasn't comfortable, I don't like lenses that telescope for some reason...just a thing I guess.

Really, what I want to do is buy a good long telephoto but I don't feel comfortable, nor am I yet really in the position to do that. So, toying with the range to see if I like shooting at those longer lengths, for example can I get anything out of them? This is my plan before plunking down an awful lot. Yes, I could rent to see how I like a long telephoto before I buy, and likely will, but for now I want a slower experience. So, since I plan to step up to a big boy telephoto anyway I'm leaning toward the teleconverter which could stay in my bag and be used later on say a 500/600 f4 instead of buying a lens I'd only sell later...

This is for birding/wildlife mostly.

Preliminary report: I'm not liking the results on my 70-200/2.8ii + 2xIII for the time being. I'll post some comparison shots when I get home and have the photos uploaded. The AF speed was pretty spiffy even with the 2x converter. But IQ certainly suffered (by quite a bit IMO). I find the 100-400 IQ superior to my 70-200 + 2x.

I also took the 2x converter off and compared the two at 200mm. And the 70-200 w/o the converter provided better IQ (as expected).

The 2xiii played a lot nicer with the 200L vs. the 70-200/2.8ii. At least this appears to be the case with the copies that I have (2xiii, 70-200, 200L).

If you want, I can also try to do a comparison between the 100-400 vs. 70-200 + 2x vs. 200 + 2x for you but you'll have to wait until Thursday/Friday, that's when I expect Canon to ship my 200 back to me.

ions wrote in post #15297097
...This is for birding/wildlife mostly.

If this is the case, go with the 400 5.6 - sharp, fast focus, light and 400mm.

328iGuy wrote in post #15294772
^^ you are sure loving that ND filter aren't you!

Look great!

haha yeah so far I'm loving it.. hoping to stack my CPL on top and try out some more outdoor shots soon!