Canon extender thoughts?

Having just bought a 70 - 200mm F2.8 MKIII IS lens, for my EOS 5D MKII, I wondered about getting an extender the 2x MKII.

Has anyone any experience with extenders with this set up?

I had wanted the MKII, saved the cash then Boom - unfortunately Canon stopped supplying it, everyone did, so I had to get the even more expensive MKIII version, nice though, not used it in anger so far.

I do realise that although it will become 140 - 400mm, I will then have at best max f5.6 to play with. I also have heard that auto focus is sometimes a bit questionable with an extender. Not sure about IS either.

It would likely be used with at least a monopod if I did take a punt.

Thoughts and tips gratefully read. Thanks.

I would never use a 2x teleconverter unless I had a big white prime and even then i'd use it rarely. I do use a 1.4L III with my 100-400L II or 70-200L f4 II but again very sparingly and mostly for static landscape type shots, and that's mostly because of IQ reasons.

here is one of those rare exceptions at 560mm (100-400L II @ 400 + 1.4 TC III) that i shot last week in Arches NP.

IMAGE LINK: https://erader.zenfoli​o.com/img/s/v-3/p3345233406-5.jpg

ed rader wrote in post #18835935
I would never use a 2x teleconverter unless I had a big white prime and even then i'd use it rarely. I do use a 1.4L III with my 100-400L II or 70-200L f4 II but again very sparingly and mostly for static landscape type shots, and that's mostly because of IQ reasons.

here is one of those rare exceptions at 560mm (100-400L II @ 400 + 1.4 TC III) that i shot last week in Arches NP.

IMAGE LINK: https://erader.zenfoli​o.com/img/s/v-3/p3345233406-5.jpg on zenfolio

Dang, Ed!! That is one hell of an image there...nicely done!

I agree with Ed on his points. Early on, I gave the 70-200 MkII and 2.0x MkIII a go to see whether I could satisfactorily replace my 100-400 MkI with that combo for some weight/space savings. The answer was a very solid and resounding *NOPE*; the combo wouldn't produce image quality that I was happy with or even willing to 'settle' for, no matter what I did (microadjust, RAW editing, anything).

I use the 1.4MkIII on both my 70-200MkII and 100-400 MkII with reasonable results that make me happy; but, still, never when I've got a shot that I have my heart set on nailing.

thanks man and I couldn't have done it without tracking apps and a lot of legwork . A few years it was the 135L and 1.4TC as a replacement for the 70-200L and now everyone talks about the 70-200L + 2X tc. I never see anyone using these combos in the field. must be an internet thing

used to have the 70-200 II and a 2X II
also had a 100-400

if I didn't want to carry both those lenses, I was ok with using the 2X to give me that reach, and I didn't mind the results

I do have a few pics from that combo that I look at and wonder if I would have been better off with the 100-400 for that shot... but no regrets... it works...

now I only use it/them for the 300L

Snydremark wrote in post #18835969
Early on, I gave the 70-200 MkII and 2.0x MkIII a go to see whether I could satisfactorily replace my 100-400 MkI with that combo for some weight/space savings. The answer was a very solid and resounding *NOPE*; the combo wouldn't produce image quality that I was happy with or even willing to 'settle' for, no matter what I did (microadjust, RAW editing, anything).

Same experience here with my 70-200 II and 2xII.

But the lens works well with my 1.4xIII.

Thanks for all the replies, looks like it's pretty variable then.

Shame, I was thinking of the weight and carrying around the glass I already have without adding a 100 - 400 mm or just a 400mm.

It's a shame you can't borrow (easily) kit before buying.

Maybe I'll put the £400 odd for the 2x, to something like the Sigma 150 600.

Shame you couldn't have told the gawkers to hide a minute (No offence if they're chums/family)
That picture would look even more like a big blue eyeball amazing!

the 100-400L and 70-200L f2.8 are the same size and weight. the trick is to figure out which one to carry.

I have shots with no one in them, or I could have easily removed the people but I left them in for perspective .

IMAGE LINK: https://erader.zenfoli​o.com/img/s/v-3/p3346914227-5.jpg

here you go

IMAGE LINK: https://erader.zenfoli​o.com/img/s/v-3/p3349861982-5.jpg

ed rader wrote in post #18836944
I have shots with no one in them, or I could have easily removed the people but I left them in for perspective .

IMAGE LINK: https://erader.zenfoli​o.com/img/s/v-3/p3346914227-5.jpg on zenfolio

North Window?

yes it is

ed rader wrote in post #18837117
yes it is

Great image! Was there this week for the first time. Definitely hard to not have people in the pics, but agree on it giving perspective.

I had thought about an extender to pair with the 100-400II, but don’t think it would keep up well enough for BIF.

I've gotten some decent images with a 2x extender...as I've been keeping in mind limitations (IE 2 stop drop in performance). When I've compared a 2X software crop vs using extender, I still side with extender (and you'd be hard pressed to see a difference at web resolutions). I still carry my 2X extender if all I have is the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II in my bag for my long lens. But sure, I bought and will lug a 150-600mm lens for even better reach and tack sharp 500mm images.