Canon Teleconverter 2.0, yes or no?

I have a EOS 20d and use the 70-200 f/2.8L IS regularly. I love the camera and lens and now would like to have more mm. The 400 f/5.6 is getting my attention but is their a cheaper way to get reasonable results? I have never had a teleconverter before. Is the Canon 2.0 teleconverter an option or not? What kind of results can I expect to achieve? Anything I need to know that I don't know?

If there are reasons that the teleconverter is not advised as an option are there any other less expensive lenses that would be an acceptable alternative?

Thanks

Do a quick search, youll turn up heaps of results.

From memory, ive read that the 1.4x is a better choice for the 70-200.

IMHO the 2X is only "good" on the fast primes.

I don;t use it ever on the zooms.

On the other hand, no Canon zoom will offer as good results with the 1.4X as the 70-200mm. that is a good combo.

Agree with others, the 1.4X is the one to use with that lens. I have both teleconverters and will only use the 2X on a prime. The 1.4X works will on all the 70-200 variations.

I would agree with these comments. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 2x teleconverter. I've never been really happy with that combination. I would like to try the 1.4x teleconverter as I've heard the results are much better with the 70-200.

Now, if you buy a 300 f/2.8 prime, the results with the 2x teleconverter are rumored to be fabulous.

Thanks,
I'm doing the search now.

I wouldn't use it on the 400 F/5.6L, too much degragation of quality

Thanks,
It seems that others have the same opinion as you.

Why aren't you happy with the combination of the 2.0 with the 70-200? Others have said the same thing for the most part. Does the image quality drop off at the edges or what?

The 2X takes a noticeable hit off the image quality of the 70-200. It's an excellent zoom lens in terms of IQ. With the 1.4X, it retains very good quality, but the image gets a little soft with the 2X. If you're not going to print very big, it's OK, but the 70-200 with the 2X isn't as sharp as the 100-400 zoom, nor is it as sharp as the 300/4, 300/2.8, or 400/5.6 prime lenses without the teleconverter.

It's not horrible, but you give up a fair amount of sharpness with the 2X on the zoom.

Thanks for the words.
I better start saving my pennies to go the route of the 300mm with the 2x. I was hoping for a less expensive alternative. For now the 1.4 combination with the 70-200 seems to be the reasonable first step for me.

Tom,

Thanks for the explanation.
I appreciate everyone's help and experience. Now I don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Thanks again to you all

Are we all talking about the Canon 1.4x and 2x. How about the Kenko's.

I saw one report that the Kenko is a David and Goliath type of thing. The Kenko gets beaten but not by much. In my case a little bit of picture softness might be okay as I am not one of the 'heavy hitters." I think I am going to try out the Kenko and bank the difference hoping to get the 300 2.8 or 4.0 on down the line depending on funds, (and the wife). ha.

I have both Canon converters and have used them on both versions of the 70-200 f2.8L
The 1.4x does not hurt the IQ much. The 2x requires being opened up a stop and very carefull focusing (ususally manual) to get decent results. I use both converters frequently and when I can afford a better way to get out to 400mm or longer I'll get something else. In the meantime they'll get used.