70-200 f4L & TC's ?

Pricepoint and weight steered me to the 70-200 f4L vs its 2.8L brethren and I am very pleased with the f4's feel and performance.

(very amateur photographer so my being 'pleased' atm mostly regards how light/balanced the lense & body combo is, smooth bokeh in auto settings, very fast and silent AF, smooth MF, sharp & contrasty images compared to my Tamron 24-135 w/in similar focal range.)

My further interest of this lens is regarding the use of 1.4x and 2.0x TC's. The 70-200 f4L manual states compatability with both TC's. But just because you can, doesn't mean you should IMHO.

If image quality is good with the TC's, popping a extra $250 to push the reach of this lens into the 280-400mm range is an exceptional bargain compared to the 100-400L weight/price equivalent albeit were still not talking IS.

Anyone here have the 70-200 f4L and use either 1.4x or 2.0x TC's? If you have sample pictures or know of links to images from that hardware please post! Per your experience, any downside with the use of that combo?

TIA!

I use the 20-200/2.8L and have used it with both the 1.4x and 2x convertors.
As with all lenses the 1.4x images are not degraded at all. The 2x, you can tell - but the shots are more than usable.
As you have the f4 then the 1.4x gives you f5.6 (ish) and the AF will work just fine.
The 2x gives f8 and the AF will likely give up on you.
Go for a Canon 1.4x and enjoy the flexibility and quality it gives.

I use the 70-200/2.8L and have used it with both the 1.4x and 2x convertors.
As with all lenses the 1.4x images are not degraded at all. The 2x, you can tell - but the shots are more than usable.
As you have the f4 then the 1.4x gives you f5.6 (ish) and the AF will work just fine.
The 2x gives f8 and the AF will likely give up on you.
Go for a Canon 1.4x and enjoy the flexibility and quality it gives.

I have the 70-200/4L also, and I tested it before buying it with a 1.4 converter. I didn't keep the test imagges but I could find no loss of sharpness when using the converter. The AF on my 10D worked just fine--just like it does without the converter.

But the AF would not work with the 2x converter, and f/8 is a little slow even for me. Thus, I didn't even take any test pictures to evaluate image degradation.

The 1.4 turns the lens into an approximate 100-300/5.6, similar to the old FD lens that I own and always liked. For the 10D, that is 3.6 times normal to 10 times normal, which is equivalent to about a 150-430 in a full-frame camera. I've never needed anything longer than that.

I haven't bought the converter yet, but it's definitely on my list.

Rick "who tested it to make sure it would work before buying the 70-200/4" Denney

For a side-by-side @ 400mm between 70-200/2.8 with 2x extender and the native 100-400 -->

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/400v400.shtml

jorge wrote:

For a side-by-side @ 400mm between 70-200/2.8 with 2x extender and the native 100-400 -->

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/400v400.shtml

jorge Thank you for that review link! The comparison regarding the 2x converter is very telling. Exactly what I was looking for.

Thanks for the info Rick. I tested the f4 prior to purchase as well and decided it was an exceptional value regardless of viability of using it with TC's. That said, it looks like the 1.4x will give a nice boost for a relatively low cost considering what a "L" zoom in comparable range is going to net me. thank you Rick, jorge and PaulB for the info and link to help me along!

Best Regards,