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

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

Hi Adrian - Gone internetional have we? Away from our own site?

My -70-200 IS L works well with the 1.4x although I do not use this combination and have only tested it. I like the 70-200 for general walk-about in big cities etc - I like to make use of it's controlable DOF at the larger aperture.
However, I find the 100-400 IS L is very usable and probably would take the 100-400 if I have to limit weight when humping (no pun intended).

Given such a decision I would stick with the 100-400 for the time being.

Regarding the 1.4x - I find it as much use as the Angle Finder C or a chocolate tea pot.
I can really recommend the 70-200 with the 12mm extension tube - I like this combination - nice for flower shots.

the 100-400 is still sharper than the MKI+extender.
Is it bad? Nope. Would I sell a 100-400 for it? nah, unless I really can't stand carrying both around.

forthewinwin wrote in post #10244105
the 100-400 is still sharper than the MKI+extender.
Is it bad? Nope. Would I sell a 100-400 for it? nah, unless I really can't stand carrying both around.

I think you are agreeing with my opinion that both compliment oneanother - although I can't quite put it to eloquent words.
It remains to be seen when Canon will bring out a redesign for the 100-400 IS L. I'm saving for that uprade.

JWright wrote in post #10240081
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...

John
How do they compare for speed of focussing and sharpness?? Out of curiosity have you still got both of them?

@Ray I have heard talk for over a year now that the 100-400 is going to get an upgrade with F4 throughout......I would be very sorely tempted as I would be happy with f4 throughout

Thanks to everyone so far for their input

adrian5127 wrote in post #10244205
John
How do they compare for speed of focussing and sharpness?? Out of curiosity have you still got both of them?

@Ray I have heard talk for over a year now that the 100-400 is going to get an upgrade with F4 throughout......I would be very sorely tempted as I would be happy with f4 throughout

Thanks to everyone so far for their input

Adrian - IMHO the 70-200 is very sharp - possibly as good as/better than the 24-105 IS L.
The 7D with micro adjustment makes both lenses even better - I found the 100-400 lacking untill I was able to micro adjust it.

I dread to think what a 100-400 will cost if it is upgraded to f4. Anyway, surely that will make it a new lens completely. A 400mm at f4 will cost an arm and a leg for the UV filter to protect the lens. I think we will both have to wait till you get promoted to chief plod and I get awarded compensation for false arrest - Hey - that gives me an idea.

It seems like we will both h

hmmmmm don't give me ideas I know where you are going, problem is my wish list keeps getting longer!!

adrian5127 wrote in post #10244205
John
How do they compare for speed of focussing and sharpness?? Out of curiosity have you still got both of them?

You can compare the sharpness by looking at the two images I posted above. As far as the focusing speed is concerned, I've never really made much of a comparison. My 100-400 is eleven years old and has seen quite a bit of hard use. I would imagine it's slower to focus than the 70-200, especially since the 70-200 is f2.8. I have both lenses and each does well at what I use them for. I now use the 70-200 a lot more than the 100-400.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #10244347
I dread to think what a 100-400 will cost if it is upgraded to f4. Anyway, surely that will make it a new lens completely. A 400mm at f4 will cost an arm and a leg for the UV filter to protect the lens. I think we will both have to wait till you get promoted to chief plod and I get awarded compensation for false arrest - Hey - that gives me an idea.

Skip the filter... You really don't need it. The hoods that come with these lenses are more than sufficient for protection.

JWright wrote in post #10244581
Skip the filter... You really don't need it. The hoods that come with these lenses are more than sufficient for protection.

Belt and Braces

what is the result F stop with the 2x extender ?

2x extender X 200mm =400mm total

400mm x 1.6 crop sensor of 7D =640 mm

is this correct ?

I would add, the 70-200/2x converter requires good technique and conditions. Perhaps this is the reason many are unsatisfied with results.

Tapeman wrote in post #10244907
I would add, the 70-200/2x converter requires good technique and conditions. Perhaps this is the reason many are unsatisfied with results.

why are people unsatisfied with the results?

Do the photos look dark ?

f/5.6

picard wrote in post #10244917
why are people unsatisfied with the results?

Do the photos look dark ?

Well it's not going to be as good as if you were shooting without the TC. Looks softer, more CA and less contrast.

I suppose it can work if the image you are capturing isn't that small. If it's still pretty small like what I was trying to shoot it could be worse. Also I really didn't expanded that much effort to PP that shot.

Check this thread for some of my shots w/ a 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS + Canon 2x TC Mk II.

It's my understanding that the 100-400 will be sharper, but not by a whole lot. The thing is, for what a used 100-400 costs, I got my 70-200 f/2.8, Kenko 1.4x TC, and Canon 2x TC Mk II. To me, the added versatility is worth more than the slight trade-off in sharpness or IQ.