70-200 f4 IS with a 2x TC - is it useable ?

I'm intending to buy a new Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM this coming weekend.

The idea is to replace my Tamron 70-300mm f4/5.6 DI LD Macro (Canon AF), which has been OK for the past year, but I yearn for better IQ at the longer focal length, and I'm sure the IS will help. From my search on here, this 70-200 is the lens to have.

This of course will leave me a little short in the reach department, so initially I was thinking of adding a Canon EF Extender 2x III, although I'm not convinced this is a wise choice - 1) Cost and 2) Autofocus.

I did look into the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5/5.6L USM Image Stabilized which would work out a little cheaper, but again the comments in this forum swung me round to the 70-200.

Camera is a 550D (T2i) and subject wise, is occasionally motorsport, where I am mostly in the 200-300 area with the Tamron and birds where I max out the Tamron at 300 and usually have to crop in PP. There are other subjects but it is the birding that has influenced my idea to buy a new lens.

So, a few questions.

Is the X2 useable with the 70-200 f4 ?
Are non Canon TC's as good (I know they are much cheaper) ?
Should I get the x1.4 instead and crop an image
Would you reccomend the "optional" tripod mount ?

Or, should I reconcider the 100-400 ?

Lawrence

It will not AF with the 2*( it might with the pins taped on the TC but the IQ will probably be cr*p and it will hunt to focus ,if at all) .
Its fine with a 1.4*TC
The Kenko TC's work fine,and are a lot cheaper than Canon.
You will not need the tripod mount,its quite a light lens
If you want longer than the tamron consider the 100/400 or the 300f4 IS with a 1.4 TC or the 400 f5.6 ( might be a bit long)

Cheers

Chris

Trugga wrote in post #13799476
....
Is the X2 useable with the 70-200 f4 ?
Are non Canon TC's as good (I know they are much cheaper) ?
Should I get the x1.4 instead and crop an image
Would you recommend the "optional" tripod mount ?

Or, should I reconsider the 100-400 ?

..

Not really .. auto focus won't work, plus the image will be crap.
Not in my opinion .. I've tried a few and I find the latest mk2 - mk3 Canon TC's the best out there .. if a little pricy.
Yes .. this works for me .. been shooting with the 70-200 2.8 IS (mk1) + Canon mk2 1.4 TC and found it very acceptable IQ wise. It's just little short (I grabbed the 100-400 for this reason).
Optional tripod mount (inc with the 2.8IS) should be standard when using a TC. There's plenty of cheaper alternatives on Ebay.

I would reconsider the 100-400. Unless you're looking at getting the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS mk2 + Canon mk3 2x extender .. that's you're only two options IMHO

I'd go for either the 100-400 L or if you're stuck on the 70-200 f4 IS then I'd be more tempted to go for a 1.4x TC of whatever make and retain the AF with your lens. The IQ wont be too affected either with the 1.4x. I got a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x TC a couple of weeks ago and the IQ with my 70-200 f4 non IS was awesome, still sharp across the range.

For motorsports and birds, IS isn't going to help a ton (although Mode 2 does work well). You may be better off buying the 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS) for similar money. Remember the 2X TC loses two stops of aperture, making the f2.8 an f5.6, but making the f4 into an f8 (only 1D bodies prior to the 1Dx can AF an f8). If your budget can take it, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is the king here, but it is substantially more money. Should you decide you need IS and you can't stretch your budget, I would get the 70-200 f4L IS and the 1.4 TC (makes it a 280mm f/5.6 on the long end).

I've not got an f/4 70-200, but I do have the f4-f5.6 100-400 and regularly use it at f/5.6 using a x1.4 converter. In theory this should not work, but I've taped the pins and it works fine at what is effectively f/8 or worse, thats the same as your f/4 and x2 converter.

As long as you tape the pins, the camera does not know that its "not possible", so has a go and succeeds. With the pins untaped I believe (my opinion only mind) that the lens reports back to the processor and it just not bother even trying.

Interestingly I do not see any more hunting with the converter than I do without it.

I should clarify one thing -- IS won't help BIF shots. If the birds are sitting on a branch, IS will help a ton (although birders often use a tripod for shots like that). Remember IS won't help much when the subject is moving, it damps your movement. Mode 2 will help when panning moving racecars and birds however.

Trugga wrote in post #13799476
So, a few questions.

1. Is the X2 useable with the 70-200 f4 ?
2. Are non Canon TC's as good (I know they are much cheaper) ?
3. Should I get the x1.4 instead and crop an image
4. Would you reccomend the "optional" tripod mount ?

5. Or, should I reconcider the 100-400 ?

Lawrence

1. Usesable? Yes, but IQ Will suffer
2. I use the vivitar 2x TC on my f4 IS and I like it. The TC does not report to the camera so I get to keep AF. Like I said there is a drop in IQ but not so much that the images are unusable crap
3. A1.4x TC will give you less IQ degradation but you will be cropping a bit more. You have enough MP where I think that may be the better option
4. The tripod mount is a great option IF you know you're going to be using a tripod. The f4L IS will not be to bad if you mount it to a tripod via the body but the tripod mount for it will balance out the package far better. Honestly for that look into the cheap Chinese metal knock offs. The canon one is so over priced!!
5. For your needs I think the 100-400 would be the better choice

Lowner wrote in post #13800139
. In theory this should not work, but I've taped the pins and it works fine at what is effectively f/8 or worse, thats the same as your f/4 and x2 converter.

As long as you tape the pins, the camera does not know that its "not possible", so has a go and succeeds. With the pins untaped I believe (my opinion only mind) that the lens reports back to the processor and it just not bother even trying.

Tape the pins?? How?? I'd like to know more info on this as I too have the 70-200 f4 and the 2x TC..

DOuFINKimSEXY,

Taping the pins simply means placing a piece of sellotape over three of the pins on the front of the converter, so no electrical connection is made between the lens and the converter.

holding the converter so the pins are facing you and at the top of the converter, its the three (3) pins on the left hand end. The most anticlockwise might be another way of explaining which pins I mean. The piece of tape I've used is small, say 20mm x 9mm (not critical), just make sure that you don't accidentally cover any of the other pins.

It's on the web in lots of places in more detail if you are concerned, but it really is quite easy. It's also very quickly removed if you ever need to.

Lowner wrote in post #13800139
I've not got an f/4 70-200, but I do have the f4-f5.6 100-400 and regularly use it at f/5.6 using a x1.4 converter. In theory this should not work, but I've taped the pins and it works fine at what is effectively f/8 or worse, thats the same as your f/4 and x2 converter.

As long as you tape the pins, the camera does not know that its "not possible", so has a go and succeeds. With the pins untaped I believe (my opinion only mind) that the lens reports back to the processor and it just not bother even trying.

Interestingly I do not see any more hunting with the converter than I do without it.

Whereas my experience is that the AF is completely cruddy using a 1.4x on the 100-400. In all but the very best light it gives up without hitting the focus. And trying to get birds in flight is totally impossible.

There's a reason why Canon tries to stop AF with an f8 lens - because it just don't work proper.

Frank,

Yes, its very odd that our experiences are so different. But I can imagine that Birds in flight, being a far smaller "target" is harder than say a MotoGP bike or F1 car. I'm guessing here, but maybe your experience is more due to the difficulty of holding the target with the AF point than a problem with the AF itself ? Lord knows I've got enough out of focus shots for that reason myself!

I'd stick with a 1.4x just to retain AF.
As far as brand, I'm perfectly happy with my kenko pro300 DGX:

Actually, i find the IQ from my 70-200 f/4L IS + Sigma 2x TC(400 f/8 MF) is every bit as good as my 300 f/4L IS + Sigma 1.4x TC(420 f/5.6 AF). The Much better IS compared to the 300's version, likely has something to do with that, but i got used to MFing.. even panning BIF. The only reason i bought the 300, was it was the cheapest way for me to get 400 w/AF and IS... and 600mm(2xTC) if needed.

70-200 f/4L IS w/Sigma 2x TC. Handheld and MF. My processing isn't much good, so this could be a really good shot, with better PP. ~50% crop

Circling Osprey

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/1tanker/4806747​089/

Either a 100-400 sounds better, OR alternatively keep the Tamron 70-300 for the shorter stuff (and when VC is necessary) and grab a Canon 400 F/5.6. Alternative is the 300 F/4 IS and a Kenko TC if you absolutely need IS.

The advantage this has (over the 100-400) is that < 300mm the VC on the Tamron will be far superior to the IS of the 100-400, you'll have a lighter/smaller lens when you don't need > 300mm, and (often a surprise) the Tamron actually has a larger aperture at the shorter focal lengths. At 400mm you've also then got a lighter and nicer handling lens, and an awesome hood design

Some disadvantages though, which I think are worth mentioning so that you're best informed:
- Need to bring two lenses if you want the full range
- Need to switch lenses if you want to go between the range of FLs (i.e. cannot go between 400mm and shorter FLs rapidly)
- The 400mm prime is a longer lens and wont fit in most messenger style bags