07-21-2010, 05:48 AM
[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)' /> )
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)' /> )