70-200 f/2.8 & 2X TC combination "Test"

Not for me anymore, either. Those shotsare only slightly ( quarter stop exposure & USM) tweaked from the camera.

Are they as good as a 400mm prime on a MK III? Well, no. But the 2X TC costs a lot less than the 100-400 or a 400 prime, I don't have to carry them, & shooting through a hole in the fence where I can't pan, the AI Focus locks on very well. I only deleted a few shots due to my errors in catching the cars in the frame in time.

Some Minor League baseball shots with the 2X TC at ISO 800 - 3200:
70-200 + 2X TC.
St. Louis Minor League Playoffs - 70-200 + 2X TC.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #4816088
Guess what? The sun came out!!!
None of these have been sharpened.

2X TC (f/5.6 effective) 1/2000 ISO 1600 vs. f/2.8 1/2000 ISO 400
In the first composite image, above is the 200 + 2X TC shot. Below in a black border, is the 200mm shot blown up to match the size of the TC shot. Not impressive.


I think I can live with the TC combination at the cost of an extra stop down to retain quality.

.

Just to clarify, and I've re-read this a few times, the top picture is with the 2x, and the black border is without and cropped. The bottom picture looks 1,000x better, so by reading this, the pics show it's better without the 2x, but you say otherwise.

Of course it will be better without the 2X. What I said was, "I think I can live with the TC combination at the cost of an extra stop down to retain quality."
Only you can decide for yourself, but look at the link (again?) in post #29.

I've been considering this myself- the pussey willows almost have me convinced!

Please be sure to post these examples in this TC archive post!
https://photography-on-the.net …2&highlight=tel​econverter

Thanks for the reminder!

PhotosGuy wrote in post #5715337
Stopped down one stop, it's not terrible. It does lose contrast, but that's why we have PS?

I need (1) another option to the 100-400 I don't have that's (2) pretty good outdoors & (3) faster without the TC than the f/4 for indoors. So it's a compromise I think I'll be able to live with. We'll see this Summer.

Frank,
I have to agree 100% with you on this. It is a good compromise; I had the 300 f4 and the 1.6 and it was hard to see the difference in IQ between my 70-200 f/2.8 w the 2XII, it was very slight, and the 2X on the 300 had no AF. Plus I felt I could cover so much more ground with the 70-200 2.8 with the option to zoom in or out if needed. Now that I've sold the 300, this weekend at the races will be shot only with the 70-200 f2.8 & 2XII. I sure would love the 400 f2.8 some day though.

Jeez, I need new glasses! I didn't relize this thread was from last November. Ha, oh well.

Me, too! But I won't get one unless I think it will pay for itself. That tends to keep me from buying equipment & having to hire someone to lug my extra crud around.

No sweat, actually 1/08!. I reference it & it keeps getting bumped, anyway.

Frank,
Have you used the 400 f/5.6? I was thinking of renting one to try it out, seems as though it would be a good lens, on a bright day of course for the money.
Didn't mean to switch gears here.

No, just the 100-400, unless you want to count the 600 f/5.6 that needed a gun bearer to carry it for me?

I'd expect that you would like the flexibility of a zoom better. Sometimes they get really close at Willow Run.

I think I can live with this combo too. At least for now. I don't have the extra cash to blow for a really long lens plus I just don't shoot that many long distance things to justify the cost of a lens in the 400+mm length. Yet...

Jon.

I've been thinking about this combo since I already have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk1 and the local camera shop has a 2xii extender for $200. I can't see myself adding the 100-400 for $1200 just to get 400mm, since it won't do what my 70-200 does. Reading the various TCON threads, it seems that my choices are really to either:

1. upgrade to the Mk2 lens with 2Xiii for $1400 or so
   
2. get the 2Xii for $200 and live with what I get
   
3. do nothing, and crop more.
   

The fact that this question of using the 70-200 MKII with a 2XTC keeps coming up, tells me that it does a pretty good job, otherwise it would have been dismissed as too big of a compromise already. I don't remember prior versions of the 70-200 having as many people saying "you know, while in theory this shouldn't produce acceptable images, I'm having trouble telling the difference between this and my 100-400 etc."