70-200 2.8 II and a 2X extender or 70-300L

After reading a thread about the 70-300L a few days ago I stopped in and looked at one today in PA.
Nice lens.
I have a 70-200 2.8 II and I can see that the new 7-300 looks and works nice (IS is nice).
I wonder I would get the same IQ from my 2.8 II with a 2X extender at 150mm as I would with this new L lens???

What do you all think?

Karl

I don't know because I've not compared to anything but my 400 f5.6. But what I'll say is that the TC2 III on the 70-200 II is better than I expected. From a sharpness standpoint, the 400 Wide open is a better, but stopped down 1/3 it starts to get closer faster. I've not really give the AF a run, so I can't comment on that.

Well.

for the money, the 70-300L is really really good.

But that F2.8 zoom is just extra juicy!

I use the 2x on my 70-200 2.8 and it's awesome, clear and sharp, I did look at the 70-300 but was put off by the shop!

If you already own the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, I would highly recommend just getting the 2x III extender over the lens..............I did, and I am extremly happy

So the New 2X III will give me great pic's with my 70-200 2.8II without any issues??
Sure beats buying another L lens. Any other comments?
Thanks.

The 70-200 2.8 II works really well with 1.4x which gives you almost 300mm @f/4
I use mine with Kenko 1.4x and I am really impressed with the quality.
The advantage of 70-300L are weight and size.

Also if you are using an FF body now, buying a 1.6x crop might be an option too to get that extra "reach"

I think the small size and versatility is why so many are liking the 70-300L.

I'm torn because the 70mm is what I'd like to retain for a walk around. This is why I find this variable aperture lens appealing.

I guess a TC x2 is a nice addition.

KarlGB77 wrote in post #13041565
So the New 2X III will give me great pic's with my 70-200 2.8II without any issues??
Sure beats buying another L lens. Any other comments?
Thanks.

haven't tried the 70200 II but:

using a 2x TC III on a 300 2.8 IS I get quality maybe almost like a tamron 70-300 VC, so not bad at all, but not as good as the 70-300L

so I doubt the 70-200 II + 2x TC could match the 70-300L, i'd be shocked

it might be the only zoom that could handle the 2x TC OK though
I'd think it works better with 1.4x III though

my 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC III is definitely worse at 280mm than 70-300L at 280mm both wide open, although slightly better than 70-300 non-L

my 70-300L is actually better than bare 70-200 f/4 IS near 70mm and 200mm

70-200 f/4 IS does do better than resizing form bare or 1.4x tc using the 2x tc but there certainly is a noticeable loss in image quality

I use both and the 70-200 is big - so big that I use my 70-300 as a walk around and the 70-200 as an event/wildlife alternative. You don't attract as much attention with the 70-300 as you do with the 70-200 and if you add a 2XTC you'll have trouble even turning around without hitting bystanders.

Both lenses are excellent and both are extremely fast on the 7D.

a24udi wrote in post #13041283
I use the 2x on my 70-200 2.8 and it's awesome, clear and sharp, I did look at the 70-300 but was put off by the shop!

Good to know. Thank you

KarlGB77 wrote in post #13041565
So the New 2X III will give me great pic's with my 70-200 2.8II without any issues??
Sure beats buying another L lens. Any other comments?
Thanks.

Shot this wide open (f/5.6) 70-200mm 2.8 IS II + 2x III extender. 1/50sec (IS is wonderful!) ISO 400

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I have done just as well in terms of IQ with rabbits on the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS + Canon 2X III combination. Hard (if not impossible) to judge a web size image like this though - the fur on the rabbit's chest (the lighter patch below the chin) looks like it could be really great, and focal length could be something. The coarser fur of rabbits makes it a bit hard to judge sharpness - that could eb amazingly sharp but looks not exactly like it. Other than that I do think the bokeh is a bit nasty and the pic could have been taken at a slightly faster shutter speed to lower some of the eye-catching brown highlights in the grass.

I've been able to get sharp shots pretty reliably at 1/50, and even lower down. I know that I've gotten some sharp enough shots at 1/8 and even 1/5 with the bare lens.

It does seem that that 70-200mm II is sharper in the corners, and sharper (a bit) throughout (not really visible in shots without the TC however) and if you are more interested in wide as opposed to tele photos for your everyday shooting it makes more sense. Unless you have a real need for a longer zoom lens the 70-200mm is your choice and unless the 400mm focal length turns out to really limit you, staying with what you have seems the right choice by default. There are many times I wish the 120-300mm f/2.8 OS had the weight of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II - it's about twice as heavy.

70-300L I would forget about - part of the reason I avoided it was because it has nothing in the way of autofocus capability on non-1D series bodies because the effective aperture becomes too narrow.

My personal thought is that at $3700 the Sigma 120-300mm OS + 2X Extender III combination ain't cheap at all, but where else do you get a 600mm-equivalent telephoto zoom with f/5.6?

I've owned the 70-300 L and it's a great lens, but I replaced it with the 70-200 and 1.4x tele. I think this is a better choice for me as I can use the 70-200 on it's own for the f/2.8. I would get a 400mm lens of some sort, either the 400mm f/5.6 or the 100-400mm before buying a 2x tele. Try a little research on this and other forums, the 2x tele on the 70-200 works, but not as well as the 1.4x tele.

Edwin Herdman wrote in post #13042107
70-300L I would forget about - part of the reason I avoided it was because it has nothing in the way of autofocus capability on non-1D series bodies because the effective aperture becomes too narrow.

?

focuses as well and as fast as my 70-200 f/4 IS on 7D or 5D2

(with extension tubes I'm not sure it focus quite as well though)