70-200L 2.8IS

hi,stuck.Thinking about buying the above lens + 1.4 and 2 extenders.What would image quality be like compared to 100-400L?Main use son playing football(full size pitch day time),bit of wildlife and general.Thought process is get the lens i want , cheaper with two extenders than buying 100-400L as well for the extra reach.Would drop two stop with x2 but same as 100-400L.Am i on the right track? thanks in advance.

ps should i wait till release of mk11 incase price falls?

200mm + 1.4x = no problems
200mm + 2.0x = fine for sports, getting iffy for wildlife, depending on how critical you are.

I even stack both on some times for 560mm. Super crispy? No, but it gets me the shot that I wouldn't get otherwise.

I also have the Sigma 120 - 400mm 4.0 - 5.6 and I'll even stack the converters on that. 1120mm? Dude! Extra crispy sharp? No, but again, lots of zoomy action that's fun. Have photos if anyone cares.

Biffbradford wrote in post #9608607
200mm + 1.4x = no problems
200mm + 2.0x = fine for sports, getting iffy for wildlife, depending on how critical you are.

I even stack both on some times for 560mm. Super crispy? No, but it gets me the shot that I wouldn't get otherwise.

I also have the Sigma 120 - 400mm 4.0 - 5.6 and I'll even stack the converters on that. 1120mm? Dude! Extra crispy sharp? No, but again, lots of zoomy action that's fun. Have photos if anyone cares.

Didn't know you could stack them.Nice photos.

Biffbradford wrote in post #9608607
200mm + 1.4x = no problems
200mm + 2.0x = fine for sports, getting iffy for wildlife, depending on how critical you are.

I even stack both on some times for 560mm. Super crispy? No, but it gets me the shot that I wouldn't get otherwise.

I also have the Sigma 120 - 400mm 4.0 - 5.6 and I'll even stack the converters on that. 1120mm? Dude! Extra crispy sharp? No, but again, lots of zoomy action that's fun. Have photos if anyone cares.

nice pics .I didn't know you could stack them.

When you use the 1.4TC with the 70-200 f/2.8 it makes it basically an f/4 lens then. I don't own the 2x TC, but if you stack them I believe you will lose 2 more stops. The AF would probably work in most bright light situations, but likely fail in dim light.

You can only stack them in a certain order - lens/2x/1.4x. They don't fit the other way around.

I have both lenses and the 1.4x extender. Both are fine lenses. I haven't noticed a big difference in the 70-200 with extender and the 100-400. With the 70-200 you have use of F2.8 which will come in handing during night and low light shooting.

I'm assuming you're shooting with a Rebel 450. Keep in mind the 100-400 is not designed to work with the 1.4x extender and a non- 1d series body.

The 70-200 f2.8 IS works very well with the Canon 2X II extender...

sportsshooter50 wrote in post #9609977
I have both lenses and the 1.4x extender. Both are fine lenses. I haven't noticed a big difference in the 70-200 with extender and the 100-400. With the 70-200 you have use of F2.8 which will come in handing during night and low light shooting.

I'm assuming you're shooting with a Rebel 450. Keep in mind the 100-400 is not designed to work with the 1.4x extender and a non- 1d series body.

Thanks for advice,correct it's a 450d.How will extender not work on a non 1d body?I was thinking about 100-400L with extender but think cheaper to go with 70-200L with 1.4+2 extenders.Cost approx £400 compared to £1000 for 100-400L

thanks

JWright wrote in post #9610608
The 70-200 f2.8 IS works very well with the Canon 2X II extender...

Very sharp,What distance were you away from the bird?Thanks i think you;ve made my mind up 70-200L 2.8 is with extenders.

jc450d wrote in post #9612593
Very sharp,What distance were you away from the bird?Thanks i think you;ve made my mind up 70-200L 2.8 is with extenders.

I was probably ten to fifteen feet away from the bird. This was at a zoo, but this Heron was a wild one hanging out around the outdoor restaurant.

To answer your other question, the 70-200 f2.8 IS with the 1.4 and 2X extenders will auto focus on a non Series 1 body.

I originally bought the 1.4 extender to use on my 100-400 when I needed extra reach, but it requires taping over three of the pins on the extender to maintain AF on a non-Series 1 camera and even then it's iffy. After my wife took a liking to the 100-400, I bought the 2X extender specifically for use on the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

With rare exception, I wouldn't buy a lens with the intention of using a tc on it; especially for things like sports that require good af (which would be hampered by the addition of a tc) or wildlife which usually requires good resolving power for feather/fur detail. In my experience, a tc rarely performs well unless it has lots of light to work with.

Fwiw, I own the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, a 1.4xTC and I also own the 300 f/4 IS & 100-300 f/4. Of these 3 lenses, i would say that the 300 f/4 IS is the most versatile. It does pseudo macro, it goes long for wildlife & sports, and with its sharp wide open performance and IS it's a great stage/concert lens as well. With the tc it's 420/f5.6 with IS. And yes, I'd rather add a tc to a prime lens than a zoom.

If your interested in a great sports lens, then the 100-300 f/4 by sigma is a killer. I like the IQ of the 300 f/4 IS a lot, but I looove the IQ of the 100-300. Color, contrast and great control of CA(PF in particular) are the reasons why. Oh, and it's nearly as sharp as the 300 f/4 IS - so close that it's a non issue - and all this in a zoom with blazing fast AF.

Personally, I would rather have one of the latter two lenses for your stated uses. YMMV