Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II + Canon EF 2x II Extender
#1
Has anyone tested this combo? Is image quality degraded severely? Does AF still work well? How does this combo compared with Canon 100-400mm L zoom, and Canon 400mm f/5.6L? Thanks.
#2
I'm looking at the Canon 100-400mm lens as well, or the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II with the teleconverter. As the cost is an issue, I thinking the Canon 100-400 might be the way to go as I can get it almost $1000 AUD cheaper than the 70-200mm. (not including the extender). If anyone has any thoughts on the two lenses, that would be greatly appreciated. The lens will be mainly used for my kids outdoor sports (Cricket and Aussie Rules football) where there will be plenty of light.
#3
[quote name='gotheroos' date='20 July 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1279633377' post='1164']

I'm looking at the Canon 100-400mm lens as well, or the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II with the teleconverter. As the cost is an issue, I thinking the Canon 100-400 might be the way to go as I can get it almost $1000 AUD cheaper than the 70-200mm. (not including the extender). If anyone has any thoughts on the two lenses, that would be greatly appreciated. The lens will be mainly used for my kids outdoor sports (Cricket and Aussie Rules football) where there will be plenty of light.

[/quote]



The 100-400 has the advantage of being able to zoom very quickly, and a bit extra reach. The IS is somewhat irrelevant for sports, since you'll want very high speeds to stop the action anyway. Remember that you'd not be able to switch out the extender at the kind of short notice that happens in sports. However, f/5.6 might not be as much light as you'd want on a dark & cloudy day (assuming you get those Down UnderSmile. Have you considered the 70-200 f/2.8?



If you've been taking pictures at such events before, check what apertures, speeds and focal lengths you've been using. Also consider what ISO you may be willing to go up to.



-Lars
#4
I find the 100-400 easy to use outdoors in most daylight conditions, provided you're happy enough with higher ISO. I routinely allow up to ISO1600 on 50D and ISO3200 on 7D. Even on the gloomiest days I can find enough shutter speed with that.



I can't compare that against the other lenses though.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#5
[quote name='actuary616' date='13 July 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1279047008' post='986']

Has anyone tested this combo? Is image quality degraded severely? Does AF still work well? How does this combo compared with Canon 100-400mm L zoom, and Canon 400mm f/5.6L? Thanks.[/quote]



I had the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk I) and used a friend's 400/5.6 and 100-400 IS occasionally. For me, the ultimate combination would be 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) + 1.4X TC + 2X TC. Why?

1. Because I will have a fast lens whenever I want.

2. Because the IQ of the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) is very high and will likely be not that much different with the 2X TC from the IQ of the 100-400 IS.

3. Because I don't like push-pull zoom.

4. Because the IS mechanism of the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) is better than that of 100-400 IS (and infinitely better than that of the 400/5.6... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> )
#6
[quote name='Yakim' date='21 July 2010 - 06:48 AM' timestamp='1279691293' post='1177']

I had the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk I) and used a friend's 400/5.6 and 100-400 IS occasionally. For me, the ultimate combination would be 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) + 1.4X TC + 2X TC. Why?

1. Because I will have a fast lens whenever I want.

2. Because the IQ of the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) is very high and will likely be not that much different with the 2X TC from the IQ of the 100-400 IS.

3. Because I don't like push-pull zoom.

4. Because the IS mechanism of the 70-200/2.8 IS (Mk II) is better than that of 100-400 IS (and infinitely better than that of the 400/5.6... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> )

[/quote]

And did you take into account the AF speed of the 70-200 going down to half speed with the 1.4x TC and down even more with the 2x TC?
#7
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='21 July 2010 - 07:40 AM' timestamp='1279694404' post='1180']

And did you take into account the AF speed of the 70-200 going down to half speed with the 1.4x TC and down even more with the 2x TC?[/quote]



Please note that I did say "For me". I never stated this combo is without flaws. Any choice is personal and has both pros and cons. No doubt that for some, the 100-400 IS will be a better choice. What I am sure of is that "For me", points 1 and 3 are very important. Hence, I will never get a 100-400 IS.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)