200 2.8L w/ 2x converter vs 400 5.6

Anyone have experience with both? I'm considering buying the 400, but someone has suggested the 200 with the 2x converter as an option. From everything I've heard & read both lenses have similar sharpness & autofocus performance. I'm assuming that a 2x converter on the 200 would degrade both these qualities to some extent, I'm just wondering how much.

IMO after numerous testing unless you have the 5D MKII + 70-200/f2.8 MKII + new Canon 2x III version TC you will NOT equal the IQ performance of the bare 400/f5.6 prime or the 100-400L at 400mm.

I suggest you seriously consider the 400/f5.6 prime along with a monopod or the Canon 300/f4 IS + a 1.4 TC if you dont own the above mentioned combo.

Regards whatever your decision,

Silverfox1 wrote in post #12875730
IMO after numerous testing unless you have the 5D MKII + 70-200/f2.8 MKII + new Canon 2x III version TC you will NOT equal the IQ performance of the bare 400/f5.6 prime or the 100-400L at 400mm.

I suggest you seriously consider the 400/f5.6 prime along with a monopod or the Canon 300/f4 IS + a 1.4 TC if you dont own the above mentioned combo.

Regards whatever your decision,

Agreed. I found the same thing when I had a chance to play around with a 200 f/2.8 prime, and subsequently bought a 400mm f/5.6. Also, consider that the 400mm f/5.6 prime will take a non-reporting 1.4TC fairly well in a pinch (YMMV, I've had good luck on my 7D). The 400 5.6 is just such a slick little lens IMO.

Agreed, optically the 200/2.8 deals with 2X very well but is not going to be as good as a 400/5.6, probably not much worse than the 300/4+1.4X if stopes down a bit, but the AF is very much slowed by the 2X.

Mtf compare of 300+1.4x and 200+2x
http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …LensTests/400mm​/index.htm

Even if they're reasonably good, you're not going to get equal results. If you had the 200 2.8 and wanted a quick way to get to 400mm, that would be a different story...

2x is for rare occasions. I know someone witll come post some very nice shots using 2X TC but I would take bare lens of longer focal that I need than 2xTC on any lens.

Can I piggyback on this thread and ask whether there is any quality difference between the 70-200 f/2.8L at 200mm with a 1.4X and a 200 prime f/2.8L with a 1.4X on it? I have both.
Thanks,
John

If you have both then surely you can try it for yourself

Well, of course I can, and will. But surely it is ok to ask for an opinion on the forum? I hope so!
John

john-in-japan wrote in post #12995675
Can I piggyback on this thread and ask whether there is any quality difference between the 70-200 f/2.8L at 200mm with a 1.4X and a 200 prime f/2.8L with a 1.4X on it? I have both.
Thanks,
John

I have both and the Canon x1.4. The 200 2.8 takes the extender very well indeed with little perceptible loss of IQ. As for the 70-200, it takes the extender very well in the mid-range, but is slightly soggy at both ends of the zoom range. I borrowed a x2 MkII and tried it for a week on the 70-200. Horrible, mushy - though you find contrary opinions on that round here.

john-in-japan wrote in post #13002274
Well, of course I can, and will. But surely it is ok to ask for an opinion on the forum? I hope so!
John

Of course it's OK - I was just baffled why you were asking when you have the gear yourself I'd think the results that you get with the kit would be more important than what other people (with other needs and expectations) think!

I have the 200mm 2.8 and the 400mm 5.6, and have borrowed the Canon 2X from a fellow photographer. The 200mm 2.8 is my favorite lens, but something has to give when you use a 2X. Despite a decent result from the 200mm 2.8 + the 2X, it doesn't match the fine performance of the 400mm 5.6.

nightcat wrote in post #13002487
I have the 200mm 2.8 and the 400mm 5.6, and have borrowed the Canon 2X from a fellow photographer. The 200mm 2.8 is my favorite lens, but something has to give when you use a 2X. Despite a decent result from the 200mm 2.8 + the 2X, it doesn't match the fine performance of the 400mm 5.6.

TBH, i dont get much better results using the 2X on my 70-200MKII maintaining AF versus MF with the 2X on the 400/f5.6 at 800mm below. Its fun to play around with providing your expectations are not set too high.

https://photography-on-the.net …p=12549321&post​count=1850

Regards, Ron

tomj wrote in post #12875452
Anyone have experience with both? I'm considering buying the 400, but someone has suggested the 200 with the 2x converter as an option. From everything I've heard & read both lenses have similar sharpness & autofocus performance. I'm assuming that a 2x converter on the 200 would degrade both these qualities to some extent, I'm just wondering how much.

I have a 200 f/2.8 prime and the 1.4x Mk II.

There is a loss of contrast from the extender. Sharpness and colors look good to me. There is some (PP correctable) vignetting when on a FF camera. None on 1.3 and 1.6 crops. Overall the extender performs better than I expected.

I have no doubts the 400mm prime will be better but then you lose the 200mm focal range.