70-200 2.8II + 2xIII Sample Pic

I really want (yes, childish want not need) to buy the 400 5.6. But with results like this from my 70-200 I'm having trouble justifying it to myself.

This was taken at 400mm, nearly 100% crop, 7D through trees on an overcast day at 1250 ISO, 1/200, 5.6. Zero sharpening done, tweaked color and contrast (it does tend to wash out a touch, but not too bad and can be corrected in PP)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I want that same lens, lol, it's cheaper then the 70-200 IS 2.8 MK II! Haha...

Great shots, but yes, color does look a lil washed out on my I pad...

More shoots please. I just bought 400 5.6 but now thinning about returning it and get 2x iii

wrxrocks wrote in post #13956191
More shoots please. I just bought 400 5.6 but now thinning about returning it and get 2x iii

Your wish is my command. The dang 150k attachment limit really reduces the quality, but here it is...

I may still get the 400, but like I said, this combo is making it hard...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

What's the AF performance like?

There's very mixed opinions getting about regarding this combo. Either copy variation or differing expectations.

rockygarcia wrote in post #13956325
Your wish is my command. The dang 150k attachment limit really reduces the quality, but here it is...

I may still get the 400, but like I said, this combo is making it hard...

Setup a flickr account.

all things said and done, for a stationary or slow moving object, the tc combo will give you more keepers in all but excellent light, b/c of the excellent IS. it will also have a shorter MFD and slightly better magnification. shooting fast moving objects, or birds in flights, the prime will SMOKE the tc combo in keeper rates. even the 100-400 will be much better. I have both (100-400, and the 70-200 tc combo, albeit version II). the autofocus will simply not keep it, and the advantages of IS become much more marginal. the 400 5.6 primarily makes sense as a light, and reasonably inexpensive BIF lens. If you are not shooting BIF, or fast moving objects, and already own the 70-200 II, I think 2xIII makes a lot of sense.

kevindar wrote in post #13956751
all things said and done, for a stationary or slow moving object, the tc combo will give you more keepers in all but excellent light, b/c of the excellent IS. it will also have a shorter MFD and slightly better magnification. shooting fast moving objects, or birds in flights, the prime will SMOKE the tc combo in keeper rates. even the 100-400 will be much better. I have both (100-400, and the 70-200 tc combo, albeit version II). the autofocus will simply not keep it, and the advantages of IS become much more marginal. the 400 5.6 primarily makes sense as a light, and reasonably inexpensive BIF lens. If you are not shooting BIF, or fast moving objects, and already own the 70-200 II, I think 2xIII makes a lot of sense.

I agree mostly but I actually have found the af on the 70-200 MK2 + tc to be faster than 100-400 (and I have tried two different 100-400's). The IQ I have found is a smudge better for the 100-400 tho (although the IS is way worse, doesn't really matter for fast moving objects).

I bought the 2x II a month ago. At $250, I can't really complain. At 100% it's a little soft but then it's a a TC! I would not spend $500 on the 2x III, I'd rather spend $1000 on the 400 or the 100-400.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/13392981@N03/6​772814530/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/13392981@N03/6​909331701/

rockygarcia wrote in post #13956325
Your wish is my command. The dang 150k attachment limit really reduces the quality, but here it is...

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

I may still get the 400, but like I said, this combo is making it hard...

that squirrel doesn't look very sharp!

watt100 wrote in post #13957289
that squirrel doesn't look very sharp!

Yes, i agree. Cute but very stupid animals... LOL

nice shots, 2x whatever looks good on that lens.

I have both the 400 f/5.6 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II/2xIII. The prime is great for birds in flight or stationary objects in good light. Lack of IS makes it difficult to shoot anything handheld in low light. It depends on how steady your hands are. A tripod or monopod can make up for the lack of IS. The 70-200/TC combo gives me very sharp images in good light and acceptable images in poor light, thanks to the IS. The loss of saturation/contrast is easily fixed in PP. Autofocus speed remains good with stationary objects. This combo is essentially useless on BIF or any moving objects. My keeper rate is near 0%. Could be me, but I get a high percentage of BIF keepers with the prime. I have even attached the 2xIII to the 400 prime and got some very good images of stationary subjects in good light. I would love to post some examples but the size limit degrades the images to the point they are no longer useful as examples.

watt100 wrote in post #13957289
that squirrel doesn't look very sharp!

He is a bit obtuse.

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #13957751
Yes, i agree. Cute but very stupid animals... LOL

I've eatten vegitables sharper that this guy!