Harebrained idea

Given my 100-400mm hasn't been used in over a year (no airshows to go to) I was thinking the other day it might not be the silliest idea to sell it.

Then I started thinking, what do I use if I then go to an airshow? my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS Mk I that I do use a lot just isn't long enough. The thought then started on the 2x TC idea, but as everyone knows, the Mk I doesn't really do as well with a 2x TC as it does with a 1.4x one.

Then I get's the harebrained idea of selling both 100-400mm & 70-200mm and getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MK II and complementing with a 2x TC Mk III

Has anyone who has actually travelled down this particular path got any words of wisdom? I can't get my hands on a 2x TC Mk III without buying one, but i could rent a 70-200mm Mk II for a couple of days...

The reviews I've found (you can Google and find them too) of the TC2X coupled with that lens suggest this might not be a good idea. If it's better than the 2X on what you've got now it's marginally better and very difficult to detect any improvement. The 1.4x tested much better.

The 100-400 is not just an airshow lens (although that is a superb application for it). I just came back from the mountains in Colorado where I attended a landscape class. I used my 100-400 quite a bit. It enables you to isolate features and reach into places you can't do with a shorter lens. Go down to the South Island. From everything I've seen, the landscapes there are spectacular. I've been to Auckland and up to the Bay of Islands so I have an idea of your possibilities.

KCMO Al wrote in post #13008573
Go down to the South Island. From everything I've seen, the landscapes there are spectacular. I've been to Auckland and up to the Bay of Islands so I have an idea of your possibilities.

I used to live in Christchurch, emigrated there in late 70's. I was working for the NZ Dept of Health on a networking project they had going on, I'd done a lot of work with the Arpanet protocols while at Stanford and was tired of the US. Beautiful country, great people. If you go down that way, it's really beautiful west of Dunedin, I still recall Milford Sound as being incredible. The govt gave me a car to use from the motor pool, I drove around a lot and got to see a bit - didn't really have much work to do.

The only thing I miss from the 100-400mm that I don't have with my 70-200mm II + 2x combo is the push pull zoom. I know many don't like it but I find it's great for finding moving subjects and then pushing to zoom in. Whereas I sometimes lose the subject with a zoom ring because it's more awkward to turn the zoom ring while keeping the moving subject in the viewfinder. I'm sure this is just a personal technique issue but it's also something to consider.

Not a good idea!
I have the 70/200 f4 ,the 100/400 and a 1.4TC. Frequently I think sell the 70/200 and the TC as I don't use it very often BUT then I use it and decide to keep it.
If you don't need the cash stay with what you have got, you will regret not having it.

joeseph wrote in post #13007860
Then I started thinking, what do I use if I then go to an airshow? my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS Mk I that I do use a lot just isn't long enough. The thought then started on the 2x TC idea, but as everyone knows, the Mk I doesn't really do as well with a 2x TC as it does with a 1.4x one.

Really? Define everyone. I certainly don't feel that way.

I'm very happy with the results I get with my 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 2X II converter:

There have been several threads discussing using the 70-200L Mk-II and the 2xTC-III as a replacement for the 100-400L with pictures to support their points. I was impressed enough with the results to purchase the 2XTC-III (replacing my -II) and have been pleased with the results. It does make for a pretty long lens, but is certainly easier than carrying both big lenses (hard to leave the 70-200L-MkII at home).

However, I haven't had the urge to sell my 100-400L yet ...


-howard

interesting thought... I just listed my 70-200 2.8 plus my 1.4x extender .....looking to trade it for a 100-400mm i shoot mostly sports and never can seem to get enough reach..

I have the 70-200 2.8 MK II with the 2X TC III and I love it. However, if you plan on using it for air shows, or fast action, forget it. It focuses way to slow. I brought it to the air show in Chicago and had to remove the extender. Still got decent Shots

KCMO Al wrote in post #13008573
The 100-400 is not just an airshow lens (although that is a superb application for it). I just came back from the mountains in Colorado where I attended a landscape class. I used my 100-400 quite a bit. It enables you to isolate features and reach into places you can't do with a shorter lens.

I very much agree. A long lens, 300mm+ can get you landscape views that you cannot imagine looking with just your bare eyes because it gives you a very different perspective even if you could actually walk up to that distant location. Long lens may be heavy to carry if walking a long way or even up hills but it can possibly deliver views that shy away from the average person.

I visited Big Bend NP a couple of years ago and used a 20mm focal length once or twice, and most time was using 35m as a shortest length (on a 28-75) and often using 75mm or 150mm to "get away" from the scrub and clutter around my position. I also used my Bigma 50-500 to bring me to views I could not get to, though I did not hike with it because I had too much other weight (2 SLRs, 3 lenses, granola bars and water).

Here are examples of long focal length landscapes (shot on film don't know actual length)

Thanks for the input folks, I suspect that I'll just ponder the possibilities until I can get my hands on some glass to do a back-to-back test. Interesting to hear the focussing speed is slow - I'd expect it to be slower with a TC but not to the point where it would be unuseable for airshows.

John - that's a cracker of a shot!