70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII + 1.4x II (or III) vs. 300mm f/4

From what I understand, this new 2.8 MkII performs very well with the 1.4x II and III extenders, the III obviously being best, but I'm curious how they stack up to the optics of the 300 f/4. Anyone with experience in comparison of the three options? This will mostly be used for sports, so AF is rather key. Although, I suppose I could take a slight hit on AF if one of the optics is definitely superior.

This is a very good question.. I am curious about this as well.. I will be watching. I am wanting to get this same setup at some point.. Need to save some pennies first..

I have used the 70-200L + 1.4x combo. Very pleased with it. Here is a shot taken under ISO800 with an overcast sky. Flash was used and it may helped a little for the slight punchy look.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.oneimagingp​hotography.com …D#1339461338_7z​qnq3p-A-LB

I sold my 70-200ƒ4IS AND 300ƒ4IS to fund the 2.8II. The TE proved itself to me on a 135L compared to a 200 2.8L. So, yeah, the 2.8II and 1.4 (II) is a high-quality combo. I'd say no loss, except the stop. But you can put the 1.4 on a 300 and get a near-400 with IS that Canon doesn't offer.

TooManyShots wrote in post #12605680
I have used the 70-200L + 1.4x combo. Very pleased with it. Here is a shot taken under ISO800 with an overcast sky. Flash was used and it may helped a little for the slight punchy look.


With the 300L, you can't go wide. If you always need 300mm focal length, you should get the 300L, is cheaper.

Well, I would pick up a cheap(er) 300 f/4 to hold me over for a while if the 1.4x didn't perform as well. Which 1.4x were you using there? Also, which version of the 70-200 were you using?

They are both good choices.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark II is incredibly sharp, with or without TC.

Here's a picture using that combo:

Fligi7 wrote in post #12605722
Well, I would pick up a cheap(er) 300 f/4 to hold me over for a while if the 1.4x didn't perform as well. Which 1.4x were you using there? Also, which version of the 70-200 were you using?

Version 2. I think people would only notice better IQ with the 2x converter, markIII version. With 1.4x, both mark II and III are pretty much the same in terms of IQ.

Just so we're clear, I'm talking about a 300 f/4 NON-IS, not the IS. I don't need the more expensive IS for sports photography.

All day 70-200

Fligi7 wrote in post #12605869
Just so we're clear, I'm talking about a 300 f/4 NON-IS, not the IS. I don't need the more expensive IS for sports photography.

Where would you get the non-IS version of the 300mm f/4??
And why are you asking about comparisons between a $2500 lens + TC and a $1300 lens when the $1300 already is too expensive?

The 300mm f/4 non-IS is much older (IIRC) and does not perform nearly as well as the IS version. Doesn't matter if you use IS or not, it's a different lens generation almost.

int2str wrote in post #12606286
Where would you get the non-IS version of the 300mm f/4??

From someone selling theirs.

int2str wrote in post #12606286
And why are you asking about comparisons between a $2500 lens + TC and a $1300 lens when the $1300 already is too expensive?

What are you talking about? I'm not sure where you're getting that info.

int2str wrote in post #12606286
The 300mm f/4 non-IS is much older (IIRC) and does not perform nearly as well as the IS version. Doesn't matter if you use IS or not, it's a different lens generation almost.

Can you provide something to back this information that it doesn't perform nearly as well as the IS? The 70-200 2.8 non-IS MK1 is a very old lens but that doesn't mean it performs poorly as compared to the 2.8 IS Mk1 with a TC. From what I've read, the F/4 non-IS is rather comparable to the IS.

I love my 70-200 IS II ... ! So much so that with a full frame (5D2) and a crop (7D) it has become my goto lens pretty much negating the need for my beloved 24-70mm.

Incredibly flexible depending on your camera... I'm sure the 1.4 extender works wonderful with it. It's probably what I will invest in once the 24-70 is gone.

int2str wrote in post #12606286
The 300mm f/4 non-IS is much older (IIRC) and does not perform nearly as well as the IS version. Doesn't matter if you use IS or not, it's a different lens generation almost.

I disagree. non IS is very very good. Hard to find them and I don't think canon services them but you talking $700 or so.

OP - What camera you using and what sport?

The 70-200 f2.8 IS MKII + 1.4x TC MKII is a great combo. I'd pick that over the 300L f4 IS, especially if cost is not a factor.

I wouldn't pick the combo if I needed 300mm. They are completely different lenses. If you can afford the combo it is probably better, but that is over twice what the 300 would cost. What FL do you need more? Do you want to spend 2700-3000 dollars?

For the price of the "Combo" you could get a 300 and a couple other nice primes too. Just something else to consider...