70-200mm IS MkII with Teleconverter or 100-400mm

I've been changing my kit around and I now have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS and the 1.4x II teleconverter. Of course this is a lot to carry so I'm wondering if I should get a 2x converter and forgo the 100-400 or buy it when I need to travel lighter an keep the 100-400mm. I've only had the MkII Version of the 70-200mm a few weeks so I don't know how well it performs with the 2x converter. Any one have some experience here? Also, with this lens is there a big difference between the II and III version of the teleconverter?

I am in the same boat. However, it seems to me keeping the 100-400 will be the better option. Extenders seem to lose their value more compared to lenses. Also, I think the 100-400 is a wee bit sharper than the 70-200 with an extender at 400mm. Also, getting the mark iii extender is nearly half the price of the 100-400.

I'm in the same boat almost but was debating the 2X TC III combo. I just posted a quick review here if you want to see some samples: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1122159

Actually for this comparison is a 70-200 f2.8 + 1.4x + 7D also a consideration? It gives the equivalent of f/4 out to 450mm? This prices out the same as owning the 70-200L IS plus the 100-400mm. I actually have done this as well and toting the 7d is no more of a burden than the 100-400mm.

swldstn.
I am actually considering the same in adding a 2x Extender III to my line up.
I also know that I will not be selling or replacing the 100-400 L.
By adding the 2x Extender, this would allow me the option of more reach added to the 70-200 II, this would come in handy when I do not want to lug around my big back pack all day long.

You may as well save a bit of money and get a mkII extender, from what I have read the mkIII only really offers any improvements when using some of the new telephoto primes. I just bought a 1.4 extender and went for the mkII

Thanks for the input on the 2x converter. What about the two body concept and using the 1.4x and the 1.6x crop factor to give you 157-450mm equivalent? At f/4! The 7D body is about the same cost as 100-400mm used. I know I'd rather carry another backup body than the 100-400 just have the spare in place. Of course I can get the same benefit from the 100-400mm with the 1.6x crop of 160-640mm. Here I don't use the teleconverter because of the loss of autofocus.

Where are you traveling to? If its a Safari, please choose the 100-400.

swldstn wrote in post #13496967
Actually for this comparison is a 70-200 f2.8 + 1.4x + 7D also a consideration? It gives the equivalent of f/4 out to 450mm? This prices out the same as owning the 70-200L IS plus the 100-400mm. I actually have done this as well and toting the 7d is no more of a burden than the 100-400mm.

Why flip bodies? Isn't going to crop sensor just a trick for a lens to appear longer. Isn't it the same if you crop a full frame sensor image?

ChewieT wrote in post #13497569
You may as well save a bit of money and get a mkII extender, from what I have read the mkIII only really offers any improvements when using some of the new telephoto primes. I just bought a 1.4 extender and went for the mkII

I did the same a few months back. But I believe the 2x extender III is better than II. Still, I don't think any 2x extender is good. If you will need the longer focal length often, use the longer lens. If it's weight, leave the 70-200 home.

mcluckie wrote in post #13497934
Why flip bodies? Isn't going to crop sensor just a trick for a lens to appear longer. Isn't it the same if you crop a full frame sensor image?

If you crop the equivalent out of a 5DII FF, you'll wind up with an 8 megapixel image vs an 18 megapixel from a 7D/60D/T2i/T3i. There's a difference.

frankk wrote in post #13497998
If you crop the equivalent out of a 5DII FF, you'll wind up with an 8 megapixel image vs an 18 megapixel from a 7D/60D/T2i/T3i. There's a difference.

That is true but for many (if not most) 8 megapixels is plenty enough resolution to accomplish everything they need. If the extra resolution isn't needed, you're better off cropping (not to mention, cropping is free).....just something to keep in mind

frankk wrote in post #13497998
If you crop the equivalent out of a 5DII FF, you'll wind up with an 8 megapixel image vs an 18 megapixel from a 7D/60D/T2i/T3i. There's a difference.

Isn't that 13 mp? I'm sure you have the math on this, but isn't that 1.6 of 21mp? (I really don't know how you got 8mp.) And then there are all those existing FF v 7d threads on here, of which I won't get involved anymore...

mcluckie wrote in post #13498430
Isn't that 13 mp? I'm sure you have the math on this, but isn't that 1.6 of 21mp? (I really don't know how you got 8mp.) And then there are all those existing FF v 7d threads on here, of which I won't get involved anymore...

Here's my math:
FF is 36x24 or an area of 864.
Crop is 22x15 or an area of 330.
330/864 is 38%.
38% of 21 is 8.

So the cropped FF is 3432x2340 (8mp) vs a crop sensor at 5184x3456 (18mp).

BTW - I agree that for basic size prints and web images, it's not much of a loss.

Definitely don't want to go down the FF vs Crop route. I have both and use each for its strengths.

mcluckie wrote in post #13497934
Why flip bodies? Isn't going to crop sensor just a trick for a lens to appear longer. Isn't it the same if you crop a full frame sensor image?

Actually it's not. I won't go through the math here but if you wanted the same size image printed the 7D would actually give you more pixels since the crop has higher pixel density than the full frame cropped down from a 200 x 1.4 = 280mm focal width. The 5Dmk2 pixel is 6.4 um and the 7D pixel is 4.3 um. So for the same are as the crop frame you get (22.3 x 14.9)/(0.0043^2) pixels instead (22.3 x 14.9)/(0.0064^2) or 17,970,254 pixels for printing the area vs. 8,371,630. Of course the 400mm on the full frame would be 21,026,304.