Canon 200 f2.8 with 2x Tele or Cheap Super Telephoto?

I'm looking in the future to get into birding and super telephoto photographing.

I'm curious what would be better, a cheap super telephoto that is compact like the Tokina 80-400, or a Canon 200 f2.8 (not 70-200 as the 70-200 is damn heavy) and a 2x teleconverter?

I'm not looking to store a huge lens like the 100-400L is or Bigma in my bag, not only for weight, but because the thing is physically huge.

Has anybody used the 200 f2.8L with a 2x teleconverter (I'm looking at a kenko 1.4x and 2x for price)? The 200 f2.8L seems like the king of currently manufactured 200mm lens. I realise it would be a prime and not a zoom, but that would probably be fine.

BTW, off topic, but what would be sharper / better, a 200 f2.8L with 1.4x teleconverter, or 135 f2L with a 2x?

You can pair the 200/2.8 with a 2x but the AF is slower and the quality will suffer. It's ok if you need to get the shot you want for one or two times but if you are going to use it on a regular basic, I'd get a longer lens. Or just use it with the 1.4x

How about the 300/f4 IS? You can put a 1.4x on it and it's still good.

4x4rock wrote in post #2151607
You can pair the 200/2.8 with a 2x but the AF is slower and the quality will suffer. It's ok if you need to get the shot you want for one or two times but if you are going to use it on a regular basic, I'd get a longer lens. Or just use it with the 1.4x

How about the 300/f4 IS? You can put a 1.4x on it and it's still good.

The f4 IS is kind of pricey, and I like the idea of f2.8 at 200mm with a light lens. The 300mm is quite heavy too.

I'm also curious how the 200 2.8 compares with the Tokina 80-400 or something like Tamron 200-500, because they are cheaper super telephotos I was considering more-so. The Tokina 80-400 more then any other super telephoto casue it's light and small (something which the Tamron doesn't.)

I wan't very happy with my 200mm f/2.8L + EF 2x (both were MkI). The lens alone was excellent.

How about the 400 5.6? It's a good bit smaller and lighter than the 100-400 and relatively inexpensive. Bear in mind you generally need at least 400mm for birding (often a lot more) so starting out with a 200mm lens and intending to add TC's doesn't seem like a good plan IMHO. HTH!

nitsch wrote in post #2152664
How about the 400 5.6? It's a good bit smaller and lighter than the 100-400 and relatively inexpensive. Bear in mind you generally need at least 400mm for birding (often a lot more) so starting out with a 200mm lens and intending to add TC's doesn't seem like a good plan IMHO. HTH!

The primes are all just too big and heavy for me . The tokina 80-400 looks like the best choice, but I don't know how well it preforms. It's very small and light though.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2151570
I'm looking in the future to get into birding and super telephoto photographing.

I'm curious what would be better, a cheap super telephoto that is compact like the Tokina 80-400, or a Canon 200 f2.8 (not 70-200 as the 70-200 is damn heavy) and a 2x teleconverter?

I'm not looking to store a huge lens like the 100-400L is or Bigma in my bag, not only for weight, but because the thing is physically huge.

Has anybody used the 200 f2.8L with a 2x teleconverter (I'm looking at a kenko 1.4x and 2x for price)? The 200 f2.8L seems like the king of currently manufactured 200mm lens. I realise it would be a prime and not a zoom, but that would probably be fine.

The 200 2.8 works well with the 2X although the AF will be slower and less reliable but you would be better off with either the 300 f4 + 1.4X, 100-400 or 400 5.6, these are the classic starting birding lenses, the minuimum useful focal length is probably 400mm.

The 200 2.8 is an excelent lens and well worth having even if you get one of the others above. Its good for genral wildlife work and as a compact and lightweight longer lens for landscape work. With the TCs it does give emergancy longer lens capability when you are travelling light but I would not recommend it for the main application of birding.

If it is birding you are focussed on I would suggest the 100-400 or 400 5.6, myself I use the 300 f4 + 1.4X as I also use the 300 with tubes for Dragonflies etc.

I understand both the 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 work well with the 1.4X and 2X although you end up with manual focus in some configurations, not sure how people feel about the 100-400 with converters.

I think the wieght of these lenses is less of an issue when wildlife is your primary motivation. Just don't lug them with you for landscape and going round the local church.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2151570
BTW, off topic, but what would be sharper / better, a 200 f2.8L with 1.4x teleconverter, or 135 f2L with a 2x?

The 200 w 1.4X would be sharper I would think comparing the Canon MTF charts. The 200 w 1.4X would have much faster AF I am sure.

Lester, I plan to keep all my equipment in my bag at all times, and I really want to avoid the weight. Perhaps a 400 in the future, but for now I really don't want any lens above 1.6lbs or so. I don't mind lugging a monopod around, but it's ridiculous for me to always have to use one, or else suffer sore arms.

I've used the 200mm f/2.8 and Canon 2x tele for this 20D handheld shot through plate glass.
The lens alone is superb and I'm quite happy with this combo too.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2151570
I'm not looking to store a huge lens like the 100-400L is or Bigma in my bag, not only for weight, but because the thing is physically huge.

Just FYI, the 100-400mm is lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. (though as you say, the 200mm prime is much lighter than either)

I am in complete agreement with Lester on his recomendations..

The 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 are also very light weight as compared to something like the Bigma or any of the monster primes, and as stated, they and the 100-400mm are far better suited to your intended task.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2153727
Just FYI, the 100-400mm is lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. (though as you say, the 200mm prime is much lighter than either)

I am in complete agreement with Lester on his recomendations..

The 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 are also very light weight as compared to something like the Bigma or any of the monster primes, and as stated, they and the 100-400mm are far better suited to your intended task.

Yup, that is true, but I just don't have the patience to be dealing with heavy stuff, I want to pack as light as possible. I'm not sure how serious I am with wild life, but I want to do some birding, zoo and duck shooting per example. The tokina 80-400 looks inetresting because of size, but who knows.

Dusty, that looks good, any more examples? What is the autofocus speed like and bokeh?

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2153669
Lester, I plan to keep all my equipment in my bag at all times, and I really want to avoid the weight. Perhaps a 400 in the future, but for now I really don't want any lens above 1.6lbs or so. I don't mind lugging a monopod around, but it's ridiculous for me to always have to use one, or else suffer sore arms.

I can understand that, I am not a fan of overlarge lenses, this is why I have a 100mm f2.8 macro and 200mm f2.8L instead of the 70-200 2.8L.

However, you do get to the point where you can't take all your kit with you.

I have several bags and loads of thes bags for various things; ie macro load, general load, wildlife load, landscape load, minimal load.

There is no point of me draging my MP-E 65mm and macro flash if I am on a landscape shoot. However I will almost always have my 100mm macro with me just in case.

Again, if I am walking around doing landscape I will not have the 300 f4L IS with me, but the 200 2.8L and both TCs would normaly be stuffed in the bag along with the EF-S 10-22, 17-40 and 100mm macro, depending on the bag I might have the 24-105 as well.

If I am walking round a city I will probably want a simple light system for security and comfort, perhaps just the EF-S 10-22 and 24-105 f4L IS, possibly a 28/1.8 for low light where I need to keep the shutter speed up.

I would say if you want something a bit longer but not too heavy get the 200 2.8L II and possibly one or both TCs, just be prepared to crop those bird shots. Get the 300 or 400 as a special function lens sometime.

The 200 is a darn sharp lens, here is a shot through my kitchen window handheld and cropped to about 30% of the frame width.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Nice shots.

My ideal lens setup hopefully in the future for now (obviously will upgrade, but these are what I want to stick with length wise excluding super telephoto)
Sigma or Tokina 12-24, Sigma 24-70, Canon 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 135 2.0L, 200 2.8L, 70-200 F4L.

I don't think that'll be a problem weight wise or fitting in my bag though.

BTW, I'de had never guessed the second shot was ISO 3200.

What about the new Sigma 80-400?

angryhampster wrote in post #2153839
What about the new Sigma 80-400?

Unforteuntly it's got no chance in my bag at 1600g, at that point I'de be taking a 400 F5.6 already.

BTW, I just checked, all the lenses I just listed are actually lighter then I thought all together.

They are only 9 pounds, which I'de say isn't too bad. They all are rather small lenses too so fitting them in my bag would probably not be difficult.

Oh, and that Sigma is about 3.5 pounds, so more then 1/3 of what all my lenses together would weigh if I bought all I listed.