Extender with 70-200 f/2.8 IS ver1

So I'm covering an extreme sporting event in Arizona very soon and am contemplating renting an extender. The 2 options I have are the 1.4II or the 2.0II. Either of these would be coupled to my 70-200 f/2.8 IS ver1. I'd like the option of longer reach as I feel I may need it.

I do have a 100-400 f/5.6, 6.3 also but I like the image quality from the 70-200 better (maybe it's in my head who knows)

Suggestions ? Are either of those 2 extenders worth it ?

Unless you need to be at f/4 I don't see much value of shooting your 70-200 with converters. I used to have the 70-200 v1 and took a lot of photos with both MK II extenders. If I had the 100-400 I probably would have used that if I wanted the reach.

I have the 70-200/2.8 "Mark I" and both the extenders you mention.

I will occasionally use the zoom with the 1.4X II. Image quality is acceptible to me. However I have 300/4 and 300/2.8, so normally just use those instead and they both deliver better IQ than the zoom + TC. Both the 300s also work very well with 1.4X, and the f2.8 works very well with the 2X II.

I would expect your 100-400 to give better results at most focal lengths, than the 70-200 + TC would. By any chance, you don't have a "protective filter" on it, do you? The 100-400 is known to not "play well" with filters. So long as you have good light, I'd probably just try using that instead (I'm not a big fan of push/pull zooms, so don't have one).

I will not use the 2X II on my 70-200/2.8.... there is just too much loss of IQ for my tastes. I understand the 70-200 Mark II and 2X III are a better combo, but it's a pricey combo and I still see some people not infatuated with their results.

Try out the 1.4X II on your zoom. I think you'll find it acceptible. But that combo only gets you to 280mm, so you will probably still want to have the 100-400 handy.

I personally can live with the results with the 1.4X. I do not like the results with a 2X (mine is a Kenko Pro), it is a just-in-case I can't get the image any other way. I have not just-in-case in years. Though I have used the 2X on a macro to get me to twice life size.

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS v1 and the 300 ƒ4. As for extenders - x1.4 II and x2 III.

I'll happily use the x1.4 on either lens with acceptable results. The 300 4 takes the x2 quite comfortably, but I'd only use the zoom with the x2 in extremis - edges and corners are still soft at ƒ8 and focus acquisition is . . . well, leisurely.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16317075
I have the 70-200/2.8 "Mark I" and both the extenders you mention.

I will occasionally use the zoom with the 1.4X II. Image quality is acceptible to me. However I have 300/4 and 300/2.8, so normally just use those instead and they both deliver better IQ than the zoom + TC. Both the 300s also work very well with 1.4X, and the f2.8 works very well with the 2X II.

I would expect your 100-400 to give better results at most focal lengths, than the 70-200 + TC would. By any chance, you don't have a "protective filter" on it, do you? The 100-400 is known to not "play well" with filters. So long as you have good light, I'd probably just try using that instead (I'm not a big fan of push/pull zooms, so don't have one).

I will not use the 2X II on my 70-200/2.8.... there is just too much loss of IQ for my tastes. I understand the 70-200 Mark II and 2X III are a better combo, but it's a pricey combo and I still see some people not infatuated with their results.

Try out the 1.4X II on your zoom. I think you'll find it acceptible. But that combo only gets you to 280mm, so you will probably still want to have the 100-400 handy.

Thanks for the info. No filters of any kind on my 100-400, I'll have to do a dot tune calibration on it then.

It's a pretty important event I'm covering, outdoors in the Arizona sun, so I'd like to have everything spot on for when I need it, unfortunately I'm probably going to need up to 400mm for this.