Everyone is always saying how bad the 2x tele makes the 70-200. Well, I did the experiments for myself today.
I will post pictures later on. Ok, the 70-200 f/4 IS has to manually focus with the 2x. No big deal, I have a brightscreen and magnifier on my camera, easy task.
I got what I consider sharp and clean images at 400mm just fine. The images were in focus just fine as well. Aside from the slow aperture and manual focus, I honestly did not see any downsides that would prevent a solid image from working in print just fine.
Maybe at 200x pixel peeping its not as good, but seriously, the image was nothing I wouldn't present to a client. Film was never this sharp anyways.
I tested against the 1.4 as well. Looked the same just about. The 2x actually had slightly less color contrast. Just slightly though. No problem, just punch it up one notch in camera or in raw.
Personally, Im definitely getting the 1.4 to go with my upcoming 70-200. I think I might just go ahead with the 2x as well for landscape work. I see no reason that would lead me not to use it. And manual focus is not that big of an issue. And with the brightscreen...a dimmer viewfinder didnt even occur to my mind. Looks same as the f/4 virtually.
Pixel peepers and various review sites made the 2x sound like the quality went down the hill. Even the store guy was like yeah I wouldnt use the 2x with this lens. Why not???? Works great, and looks perfectly fine. Very usable! Im gonna be pretty happy with a 400mm lens that is handholdable and weighs nearly nothing more than a 24-105.
f/8? I will probably be using it at f/11 anyways! I do not shoot sports and have other lenses for low light. I am buying this for architecture, construction, and nature, so no "but you cant shoot basketball at f/8 in a gym!" comments! HAHA, i cant remember the last time I went to a sporting event!