60D+70-200+TCIII

Hopefully I'm pretty specific enough on these questions that I don't get beat up on for starting another 70-200 thread. I have heard and read amazing things about the 70-200 2.8 IS MKII with the 2X TC III and decided that is the path I want to take. I picked up the lens last week and haven't taken off the camera since then. I keep hearing things like all the focus zones don't show up with the 2X and the AF don't work with certain bodies, so I want to know on my camera (60D) if that is true? I'd also like to know if there is a huge difference with the MKII or the MKIII? Any lens sample pages? I'm torn on this because I have found the MKII going for $240 down the street from me and think that for the price I might just get it, but I just want to make sure it's what I want. I hike and backpack a bit so I want to keep it light plus I just dumped a bit of money into the 70-200, so getting a 100-400 isn't a option. Mostly going to use this for animals and birds while hiking. Thanks for any help!

AF not working on certain bodies only comes into play when the TC + lens combination will drop the maximum aperture to f/8 or below; in which case you'd need a 1D series body.

For the 2.8 MkII and a 2x TC, your maximum aperture will drop to f/5.6, which should still AF on your 60D. There shouldn't be a huge difference in the MkII and MkIII TCs because the main upgrades there are designed for the latest versions of the long, telephoto primes (300, 400, 500 and 600).

As for results...good luck. Lens and body variation could have a drastic effect on the output once you throw the TC on there. I would definitely do some test runs of the combo before buying the TC if there's any way to do so.

I went through exactly the same thought process as you. I have the 60D and the 70-200L II but was craving a little more reach. I also found the 2x II for about $250 in comparison to near $500 for the III so I bought the II.

Focus is sloooow when there is anything but the best of light and a contrasty subject. Not that handy for fast moving birds etc. The IQ isn't that great - it's useable but you can forget cropping your picture. Here's an example (click on the pic to go to flickr and view the full-size):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/13392981@N03/6​877349949/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/13392981@N03/6​872628537/

Keebert wrote in post #13897442
Focus is sloooow when there is anything but the best of light and a contrasty subject. Not that handy for fast moving birds etc. The IQ isn't that great - it's useable but you can forget cropping your picture. Here's an example (click on the pic to go to flickr and view the full-size):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/13392981@N03/6​877349949/

Your shutter speed is far too slow, 1/80s based on the EXIF data. Your ISO is already at 1600 and IS isn't going to help much with a rapidly moving subject - the reason the fast big whites exist.

I've got now doubt that AF and IQ suffer with a TC, but I doubt the IQ suffers as bad as the above shot in most cases.

2x is desperation. Big quality hit. 1.4x can generally get passable results.

From what I've read/seen, there is a definite IQ difference between the 2x II and 2x III, however the only noted difference between the 1.4x II and 1.4x III is slightly better IQ at the edges (with no substantial difference otherwise that would merit the extra couple hundred dollar increase). If you're going with a 2x, I'd only go with the 2x III for the definite IQ improvement. The IQ on this lens is phenomenal and will be very noticeably degraded with the 2x II. Personally, I use a 1.4x II and love it. There is very little IQ degradation with this combo.

Snydremark wrote in post #13897343
There shouldn't be a huge difference in the MkII and MkIII TCs because the main upgrades there are designed for the latest versions of the long, telephoto primes (300, 400, 500 and 600).

While the lack of real noticeable difference is true for the 1.4x III vs. II comparisons, there is a definite IQ improvement of the 2x III over the II.

2X = bad image quality. Enough so you'd notice it on any lens.

The only reason to mount one is to get a shot you otherwise have no way to get at all.

Think wildlife at a mile away, a framed sunset where quality won't matter so much, a volcano you can't be close to.

The only decent results I ever got with a 2X were broad daylight, front lit subjects, high contrast.

phreeky wrote in post #13898027
Your shutter speed is far too slow, 1/80s based on the EXIF data. Your ISO is already at 1600 and IS isn't going to help much with a rapidly moving subject - the reason the fast big whites exist.

Thanks for the coaching - I'm clearly still a amateur so appreciate the guidance. I probably should have shot raw, not bump the ev +2 and fixed in post.