70-200 2.8 II -2x telecon. -air show shooting

Hello,Ive read quite abit on telecons.I like what ive read so far on the pros an cons of using one.Ive got a blue angels air show coming up in may.Last year i shot it with my 55-250 lens.Got pretty good results after alittle cropping an poping.Now im dieing to try the 70-200 along with my 7d at the show.

I understand ill lose some fstops with a converter but add focal length.Some versions allow AF to work i believe.I guess my main question is say with the latest 2x converter an my setup can i still get focus on the blue angels and get some keepers.Shoot in burst mode 3.5 or 8 fps using jpegs.I wouldnt only use it for airplanes but thats a good starting subject i enjoy shooting.Ive read that converters lose some sharpness.But im not prining anything bigger that say a 8x10 or smaller for framing.

Thanks for advice upfront.

You will lose some sharpness but it still works rather well IMO.

70-200f2.8mkII with mkIII tc is very close to 100-400L IQ at 400/5.6

Focus will be slower but should be OK in decent light.

RobDickinson wrote in post #13954335
70-200f2.8mkII with mkIII tc is very close to 100-400L IQ at 400/5.6

Focus will be slower but should be OK in decent light.

close?
maybe .... or maybe not!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=0

watt100 wrote in post #13954517
close?
maybe .... or maybe not!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=0

Yes, close:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=0

watt100 wrote in post #13954517
close?
maybe .... or maybe not!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=0

Yes close (as above). The mkII 2.0tc seems much poorer in these tests.

You'll be at 400mm f/5.6 compared to 250mm f/5.6. It won't be any worse than last year, and will quite likely be a lot better. Even if you had to bump the ISO a little, you won't have to crop as much. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

RobDickinson wrote in post #13954551
The mkII 2.0tc seems much poorer in these tests.

yes, 2x teleconverters don't have the best reputation for sharpness!

The TCs don't work for me, with the MkII, but might work fine for you. You're rolling the dice on copy variation between 3 components, though; body/lens/TC...so YMMV. A number of people get reasonable results out of the combo.

Also depends on if your shooting jets or props.

Jets you just want (usually) a really fast shutter speed so shooting wide open (400/5.6) and 1/1000th+ So the lens needs to be OK wide open.

With props you will really want to shoot < 1/400th, 1/200th or slower ideally and pan. This is where the 70-200mkII new 4 stop panning IS will come in very handy!

watt100 wrote in post #13954517
close?
maybe .... or maybe not!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=7​&APIComp=0

That comparison is flawed with the x2 II. There are three sets of tests with the the 70-200 II and set 2 (the one in the link) is terrible. Sets 1 and 3 show not that great a difference between the 2x II and 2x III. IIRC both MkII and MkIII teleconverters have identical glass, the difference is in the electronics which gives faster focusing with the new Mk II super telephoto lenses (300/2.8 and up).

This link compares the x2 II and x2 III on the same 70-200 (copy 1) at 400mm.

This linkcompares copy 2 and copy 3 both with the 2x MkII at 400mm. For some reason, copy 2 shows very poor performance with the 2x.

This linkcompares the 1.4x MkII and MkIII and it looks like the MkII is actually slightly better.

Keebert wrote in post #13954794
IIRC both MkII and MkIII teleconverters have identical glass

Your wrong. They have totally different construction. They are not the same.

2.0TC mkII :
Lens Construction (group) 5
Lens Construction (element) 7

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

If this is the one time you'll attend an airshow this year and you don't intend to feed yourself off the results, go with the TC.

If you have any passion for aviation shooting, invest in the proper tools for the job.

Bottom line: Nothing tops raw reach but you can "get away with one" if it's a once a year thing.

Copy variation with a zoom and a 2x TC will be interesting, just like people have alluded to in the comparison links. If it's what you're going to do then I strongly suggesting buying it ASAP to test/practice with it.

The 2x III isn't exactly cheap. Mediocre results from the combo would be more than disappointing IMO. At over a third of the prices of a 400 F/5.6 that will deliver exceptional results with super AF and is lovely to handhold for a day you can guess which way I'd go. Some people don't like shooting airshows with a prime but you get used to it.

Thanks for all the replys,I checked that comparison between the 2 and the real 100-400.Interesting outcome.Since the 100-400 or even just the 400 is out of the question,with alot of May sun shining in North Carolina an i stopped it to F8 or F10(with the 2x iii ) would i get decent sharpness out of this combo?Like i said earlier maybe a 8x10 but no wall prints.So i wont be pixel peeping as much.Thanks

p.s.I even considered renting it for 4 days.some rental sites had it shipped to-from for $50 or so,which would cover the air show.i quess then i could see if was a worth while purchase.