2xIII and 200 F2 combo w/ samples... is it decent?

I caved. Picked up a 2xiii. So... I need to figure out the "sweet spot" on this combo for the AF because my 200/2 bare uses a +11 mfa and it varies slightly w/ my 1.4xiii. Wanted to have a cheap fixed 400mm for the remainder of baseball to see if I would be OK to swap my 200 out for a 400 2.8. So this was my solution.

Overall I'm pretty impressed.. focus speed is really quick but I haven't tried it with sports yet. as far as IQ it does take a hit of course AND if it misses focus and/or has too bright of exposure it kind of suffers from some ghosting pretty bad and also the CA is pronounced.

I did a quick bare 200 vs 2x and here are a few raw samples: https://www.dropbox.co​m …BYSWs3-iC-Aa60bh0D2a?dl=0

any opinions?

Can’t really tell by your test subject.
In my experience, the 200/2 can handle the 2x decently, but stopping down 1 stop (i.e. shooting 400/5.6) provides better results. At this point, it is hard to resist to a 400L/5.6 which is much smaller and lighter.

True but the 2x was only 330 vs the twice the price of the 400. Trust me I thought about it.

Seems to me it does ok but if it misses focus just slightly and or the out of focus areas kinda get mushy.

Have you considered trying the Yongnuo 2.0x III copy of Canon's III? It's $180. Would be super interesting to see.

I think from your tests, it looks fine. Depth of field at F4 & F5.6 will make it a lot easier to nail focus anyways. The question is really going to be how the III handles AF on a moving subject (especially coming straight at you). Tested live yet?

Very best,

No I just got it. Son has a game on Monday but it’s a night game so I will be shooting bare at f2. I think next Thursday is a day game.

Talley wrote in post #18463311
Seems to me it does ok but if it misses focus just slightly and or the out of focus areas kinda get mushy.

It is definitely ok, but keep your wide-open sharpness expectations low.
Again, if you can stop down to f/5.6, sharpness will be very good, but not as good as the EF 400/5.6.
You still have the amazing IS, though, which is a great advantage over the EF 400/5.6 when you need it.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18463435
It is definitely ok, but keep your wide-open sharpness expectations low.
Again, if you can stop down to f/5.6, sharpness will be very good, but not as good as the EF 400/5.6.
You still have the amazing IS, though, which is a great advantage over the EF 400/5.6 when you need it.

Thank you..

Ya my main objective is just shooting at a fixed 400mm and a 2x was the easiest way for me to do this. I can offload it later and my loss is minimal. I can only afford one great white so thinking about moving to the 400 2.8 and 70-200mk2 combo. I can do this for relatively no investment loses since I have a friend who would sell me his IS V1 for 3500.

Talley wrote in post #18463494
Thank you..

Ya my main objective is just shooting at a fixed 400mm and a 2x was the easiest way for me to do this. I can offload it later and my loss is minimal. I can only afford one great white so thinking about moving to the 400 2.8 and 70-200mk2 combo. I can do this for relatively no investment loses since I have a friend who would sell me his IS V1 for 3500.

If you're planning on having a 400mm, I would definitely swap out the 200 F2L IS for the 400 F2.8L IS. I know you've already used it, so you know how responsive and sharp it is.

Have you considered going middle of the road with a 300 F2.8L IS? Let's you get closer and wider when needed. Still handles a TC like a dream. Lighter and less imposing looking too.

Ugh, then again, Sigma's 120-300 F2.8 OS is a great lens for this too. Ugh.

Very best,

I had the 300 IS v1 and went to the 120-300. It was a decent compromise. If I were to switch to a 300 now it would be the IS II for it's stellar optics. I thought about it. 300 is more suiting but moving forward I probably get more use from the 400.

Talley wrote in post #18463516
I had the 300 IS v1 and went to the 120-300. It was a decent compromise. If I were to switch to a 300 now it would be the IS II for it's stellar optics. I thought about it. 300 is more suiting but moving forward I probably get more use from the 400.

So what had you go from the 300L to the 120-300?

I'm curious because you're at 200 now, and looking to go to a 400 which is only going to be 400 or longer. But before you had 300 and you traded it to have something wider at the end of the day, and then after that, went wider with a 200 at the end.

Very best,

hmm lets see my progression

70-200 F4: first tele
70-200 F4 IS: wanted IS
70-200 2.8 OS: wanted 2.8
70-200 VC: wanted sharper
70-200mk2: wanted best
300mm 2.8 IS V1: wanted 300 2.8 for sports/long
120-300 OS: more of a budget move... sold the 300L for profit landed a great deal on the sigma, IQ was close and had zoom
200 F2: Always wanted it... with 1.4xIII had same/better IQ than 120-200 and proved more versatile (F2)

In the mean time since the VC my buddy has owned his 400 2.8 IS V1 so I'v borrowed it a dozen times a year since. Somewhere during the 120-300 I repurchased the 70-200 F4 IS for a lighter option.. that didn't last long. 120-300 is nice and it's IQ is "acceptable" but the rendering of the 200L and other great whites always leave a smile. What I've found is 70-135ish 2.8 is kinda boring... 200 2.8 kinda boring. I like 200 F2 and 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 performance. It's the sweet spot. 400 would actually be too long for most of the things I do. 200 is perfect for alot of things. 300 is nice to get some distance back. Honestly if the 2xiii works out for my longer needs I may be "good to go". We'll see.

120-300 is a great lens... but once I bought the 200L I kept the 120-300 for another 16 months and only used it for one game. I never picked it up beyond that. what is funny is the 120-300 is still like my #2 or #3 most used lens in my lightroom catalog and I didn't use it for 16 months lol.

To me it's a size thing too. The 200L is very compact when bare. Fits in multiple bags. Fits in my trifecta 10 mounted! which is awesome. Such a great lens... just heavier. The 300/400L's get to be bigger and will take up alot of room. I'm sure you give me a 35/85/200 I'd be happy enough with that. Anything more for me is being spoiled. Even my UWA I just don't use that much unless we vacation. I tend to make lens choices based more on investment/equitable factors over most. I've lost alot of money on 3rd party glass, lost only little bit on canon glass.... I've made money on most all my L high dollar glass. Kinda gotta stick to what works. I'm a gear whore first... byproduct is using the gear and getting decent snapshots.

For recitals, plays, choir, baseball, misc other items the 200L has worked out very well for me. I can throw on the 1.4xiii for hardly any loss and it's really a rock solid combo. The 2xiii we'll see how it works out.

Honestly if I just moved to having 2 cameras and went with a dual 5d4 and an 85/200 combo I'd probably never need much more than having a 35 on tap for wider. I'm slowly moving toward fuji anyway for my wider needs. That would be ideal for me to have dual 5d4 and each dedicated to the 85/200... never swap lenses anymore.

Seems sticking with a TC is a good way to get what you want/need, without having to bear the financial and weight cost of getting a 400 F2.8L which will have very limited uses as you pointed out. The 200 F2L will handle TC's great. I wouldn't worry about the minor sharpness difference or speed difference to a physical 400mm of any kind, you just stop down to F5 or F5.6 and you're good to go, with stabilization. That's even if you need 400. You will likely use the 200 bare, or a 1.4x TC more often for baseball and stuff like that where the field is short while the kids are young. 400 will make more of an impact in the older league years where you may have them farther away more often and less easy access, but that's quite a bit of time before then. Until you're at a point where you need the reach, having to go away from where you normally are at the games for your shots, just to have room to use the 400 with a full body shot at an angle that is nice with their face, may just become more of a chore. I'm not there yet either with mine though, my girls are young still.

Very best,

At sons game. It’s night time. We talking F4 1/320 and 25600

Not ideal conditions but AF is actually really amazing. iQ st least from back of screen is impressive for what it is

CheshireCat wrote in post #18463218
Can’t really tell by your test subject.
In my experience, the 200/2 can handle the 2x decently, but stopping down 1 stop (i.e. shooting 400/5.6) provides better results. At this point, it is hard to resist to a 400L/5.6 which is much smaller and lighter.

It's much bulkier if you want the 200/2 and the 400mm, though. The 2xIII is much smaller than the 400/5.6, as small and light as it is.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18465877
It's much bulkier if you want the 200/2 and the 400mm, though. The 2xIII is much smaller than the 400/5.6, as small and light as it is.

Sure, provided you have the money for both.
I was talking about the 400/5.6 alone, but Talley mentioned "night time" which rules the 400/5.6 out (also because AF precision will suck).