70-200 2.8 IS MKII + 2X MKIII vs. 400 5.6

Has anyone compared the difference between shooting with the new 70-200 with a 2X TC vs. the 400 5.6? With the great deal going on at B&H for the 70-200, I was thinking I might be able to get away with selling my 400 5.6 and using a TC.

I haven't seen that particular comparison; but the combo didn't stack up well compared to my 100-400, when I tried it.

The problem you run into is that any body used to show you the comparison is not YOUR body; and since bodies have variation in them as well as lenses, the results are not going to mirror what YOU get out of your own setup.

I read a test on a italian magazine that compares, 70-200 is II + 1.4x III and 2x III with 300 f4 and 400 5.6.
Lenses were tested by Centro Studi Progresso Fotografico, the most reliable source nere in Italy.
They stated for either combination 70-200 + extender is little sharper in the center and a little less at the borders.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0
This shows the 400 5.6 being sharper at 400 5.6 than the 70-200 with the 2x III

Everything I've read also indicates this is the case, the 70-200 with a 2x TC is not as sharp as the 400 prime.

Thanks Sirrith, that is exactly what I was looking for. Don't think I'll sell my 400 just yet.

Chris wrote in post #13470088
Thanks Sirrith, that is exactly what I was looking for. Don't think I'll sell my 400 just yet.

You're welcome

I don't think I'd trade a prime lens for a TC myself

I did a comparison. I bought the 70-200 f2.8 IS II and the TC2XIII to see if it would work as a replacement for my 400mm F5.6. I no longer have the 400mm F5.6. The 400 was a little sharper wide open, but stopped down 1/3 it got very close. I never checked the AF speed or Tracking ability on my 7D. Your mileage may very. It's damn nice to have IS and shooting prop airplanes at air shows would have the advantage of slower shutter speed. There is a couple of threads on this subject, one started by be me, you could do a search.

I own both lenses and TC's. The 400 is optically better than the 70-200 II with TC's. If you shoot BIF, the focusing on the 70-200 gets annoyingly slow. Sure do love the IS though.

You may want to check out this review: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com …s-from-the-non-believers/

The 70-200 2.8 L IS II + 2x or 1.4x III gets some high marks from him.

OK however good 70-200mm f2.8 IS II is, I will take 400mm f5.6 anytime over it if I am shooting any birds in flight, period. Heck I will pick 400mm f5.6 over 500mm f4 for that.

bobbyz wrote in post #13471570
OK however good 70-200mm f2.8 IS II is, I will take 400mm f5.6 anytime over it if I am shooting any birds in flight, period. Heck I will pick 400mm f5.6 over 500mm f4 for that.

That's fine and all but I just wanted to throw out what seems like a pretty good review about the combo. I've got a 70-200 II and it looks like I'll be renting both the 1.4 and 2x III in the near future to test it out and see if its a good option vs spending another 1k+ on a lens I would rarely use.

If rarelyy using then for sure zoom with TC is more versatile. I was talking about folks who serious in shooting birds etc.

Well I'm pretty sure Arthur Morris is a serious bird shooter too and he seems to do well with it so I would think it could be a good options for those who are serious and those who just do it occasionally.

doubleo6point9 wrote in post #13472442
Well I'm pretty sure Arthur Morris is a serious bird shooter too and he seems to do well with it so I would think it could be a good options for those who are serious and those who just do it occasionally.

I have followed Aurther Morris for a long time. Love his work. I started bird shooting after buying his book. Some of ther things he says, well what can I say, he is paid by canon. What else you expect him to say, shoot Nikon? Want serious recommendations, head over to naturescapes.net.

If the focal length you want is 400mm, get a 400mm lens. Don't rely on extenders or converters to get you to the focal length you need.