2.0 TC III On 70-200 MII too slow for airshow?

I sold my 2.0 TC M II with the expectation of purchasing an M III...

My immediate reason was for an air show, but after reading some threads referring to the AF being to slow for air shows, I am now concerned if I should go for the 1.4 mk iii or the 2.0...

Will the 1.4 be good enough for air shows on an 5d3??

Any photo examples of air shows with the 2.0??

Thanks!

Why not rent a 100-400 for the weekend? I can assure you it works very well at air shows.

cicopo wrote in post #16737692
Why not rent a 100-400 for the weekend? I can assure you it works very well at air shows.

I know right? , I reserved one 2 weeks ago for a car race, but when I went to pick it up, they would not take a debit card. Only a credit card. I said that my BOA is the same. So it was cash only. I had the cash, but did not want to give them 400 to hold over the weekend.

I took all my credit cards 2 years ago and cut them up. I have been cash/debit only ever since and almost debt free..

So that's a great idea, but not possible on principal.

Rent online. I am sure they will with you a lot better.

I use my 70-200 IIm with the 2X iii and 5d mk iii for shooting planes. Works fine for me. When I use that combo I make sure I am in ai servo and I will adjust ISO to get the faster shutter speeds. At 400mm both set ups will have the same f stop.

These pictures were shot with a 5d mk iii and a 70-200 iii with 2X iii.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1363704

I've had pretty good luck using the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the 2x MKIII extender. AF is probably slower than the 100-400.

sjammer wrote in post #16737771
I use my 70-200 IIm with the 2X iii and 5d mk iii for shooting planes. Works fine for me. When I use that combo I make sure I am in ai servo and I will adjust ISO to get the faster shutter speeds. At 400mm both set ups will have the same f stop.

These pictures were shot with a 5d mk iii and a 70-200 iii with 2X iii.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1363704

Thanks!! The photos you linked too supported my decision to continue with the purchase of 2.0 mk iii..

As, I've never tried the 100-400, I wonder how much slower??

Using the converter in the yard today, it seemed pretty fast with a little pre focusing..

I haven't used the 100-400 either. From what I've read it's not as fast as the 400 f/5.6, but OK.

If you are passionate about shooting airshows you'll want something better (and more expensive).

I'd try the 200/extender combo first.

Now that you've settled on the lens choice remember to shoot prop planes at under 1/320 & jets at over 1/1000. Meter for the plane & not the sky or use EC to get good exposures of the plane itself.

cicopo wrote in post #16739882
Now that you've settled on the lens choice remember to shoot prop planes at under 1/320 & jets at over 1/1000. Meter for the plane & not the sky or use EC to get good exposures of the plane itself.

Thanks! And it sounds like f8(ish) is a sweet spot by reading several reviews and sites..

-AP- wrote in post #16739428
Thanks!! The photos you linked too supported my decision to continue with the purchase of 2.0 mk iii..

As, I've never tried the 100-400, I wonder how much slower??

Using the converter in the yard today, it seemed pretty fast with a little pre focusing..

the teleconverter may also affect image quality
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15006715#po​st15006715

I can't answer on the f stop to use because I shoot air shows (full scale & radio control) with both the 100-400 & 28-300 in Tv mode & use ISO & EC to try to stay under f16 (to reduce the effects of dust on the sensor showing up). With R/C I've got up to 4 planes in the circuit & I'm shooting against the bright sky , the dull background & a mix constantly. EC is my best friend.

watt100 wrote in post #16739903
the teleconverter may also affect image quality
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15006715#po​st15006715

Thanks... I'm not sure the image of the tree represents a proper exposure for the focal length. I would have bumped the ISO and SS before claiming it was a poor lens and not a setting.. Particularly with so many other high quality images represented with the combo... Also, my main concern was with the AF and not the image quality. I did have a mk ii which I sold off to get the mk iii. so my hope for the money was a marginal bump in quality from what I had, but the af speed became a concern after reading a few threads and reviews..

Thanks again!

-AP- wrote in post #16739950
Thanks... I'm not sure the image of the tree represents a proper exposure for the focal length. I would have bumped the ISO and SS before claiming it was a poor lens and not a setting.. Particularly with so many other high quality images represented with the combo... Also, my main concern was with the AF and not the image quality. I did have a mk ii which I sold off to get the mk iii. so my hope for the money was a marginal bump in quality from what I had, but the af speed became a concern after reading a few threads and reviews..

Thanks again!

no problem, if you think a 2X extender /teleconverter is good for air shows then go for it


60D
100-400
400mm
(cropped)

-AP- wrote in post #16739950
Thanks... I'm not sure the image of the tree represents a proper exposure for the focal length. I would have bumped the ISO and SS before claiming it was a poor lens and not a setting.. Particularly with so many other high quality images represented with the combo... Also, my main concern was with the AF and not the image quality. I did have a mk ii which I sold off to get the mk iii. so my hope for the money was a marginal bump in quality from what I had, but the af speed became a concern after reading a few threads and reviews..

Thanks again!

As the original poster of those...good catch However, there are no settings at all that would have made that image any better. I was manually focusing in LV, and that was the sharpest focus it would achieve with that combo; and was plainly visible even through the viewfinder.

I would also agree that the majority of folks seem to be getting better results with the combo; that was more of a cautionary example of what *can* happen when throwing a TC on a shorter lens vs using a lens that inherently has the focal length you're needing.

From my experiments with it, though, the AF *speed* didn't drop enough that I would have hesitated to take the combo to an airshow or two if the images had come out better.