How good is a canon 70-200 2.8 is with extenders ?

Has anyone used the 70-200 2.8 is mkI with the x2 extender.

I really like this lens and thinking of getting one but would have to sell my 100-400 to do so. I have used the 70-200 and really like it but would miss the extra reach, with a x2 extender ( not including crop ) it would be a 140-400 at 5.6 with extender.

Has anyone used this combination and if you can how does it compare to the 100-400.

Thanks

100-400mm is better I don't have the pics though. I used to have but I don't know where they are.

I first had the 70-200 and the 2x extender. I wasn't happy at all with the combo, so I purchased the 100-400. I'm one of those that do not like to sell any of my equipment, but I did get rid of the 2x extender after holding onto it for a few years trying to justify its existence. That was a happy ending.

I have had sucess with the 70-200 2.8L IS and non IS versions using both of Canon's converters.

People often ask, "do you lose IQ and do you lose AF speed? You do lose some. If you are shooting at 400mm all the time the 100-400 is probably the best choice, or the 400 5.6.

Before I could save up for my 300 I used those combos a lot. In good light I recommend you have both converters and a 70-200 until you can budget for longer glass.

Thanks a bit of contradicting advise, I might be able to get my hands on the 70-200 with extender and have a chance to do a like for like comparison which might be the best way forward

I think there is no contradiction. 70-200mm f2.8 IS or non-IS is good with 2X II extender. 100-400mm is better though.

Thanks I think I read one of the posts too quickly, I suppose the easiest way is to have both but that will involve saving and patience......

we have tried the 70-200 MK I lens with a Canon 2x MK I TC. Is was ok, but not super sharp. We were happier with a Tamron 1.4X though. We are trying to figure out whether we want a 100-400 or 400 prime now.

I've got both--the 1.4 is pretty darn good on the 70-200.

The 2x not so much--I got better results shooting with the 1.4 and cropping a little more

I know this might be pushing my luck but does anyone have some comparison shots with these combinations??

I have to study for a job interview this week but if no one offers you any I can do it for you coming weekend. I have to warn you it's not pretty.

Here's an example of my GF taking a spill on the hills:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …in/set-72157623545494329/

Sebastian
Thanks for the offer and good luck for the job. Off to bed now as it is late this side of the pond and will look at them tomorrow

adrian5127 wrote in post #10232618
Has anyone used the 70-200 2.8 is mkI with the x2 extender.

I really like this lens and thinking of getting one but would have to sell my 100-400 to do so. I have used the 70-200 and really like it but would miss the extra reach, with a x2 extender ( not including crop ) it would be a 140-400 at 5.6 with extender.

Has anyone used this combination and if you can how does it compare to the 100-400.

Thanks

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and have used it with the Canon 2X Extender II. I'm happy with the results...

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

Are those crops? I find for me that while viewing normally it can look ok at 100% it looks pretty soft.

These are crops. I crop for composition only and don't do 100% crops for purposes of determining softness. My concern is how the finished image looks on my website. The second image made it into Volume 3 of the POTN book so I figure it must be good enough...