100-400 or 2x converter?

[Joel Bookhammer]

Hey everyone, I currently own a 70-200 2.8 is which is an awesome lens. Ive been wanting to get a longer focal length for wildlife shots such as elk and whitetail deer. The 70-200 has worked great for the elk but I would still like a longer focal length. So my question is would it be worth it to get a 2x converter and pair it with the 70-200? Whats the IQ like if anyone has tried this combination? I know that the 2x would make it roughly 5.6 instead of 2.8, so would it be worth it to get a 2x converter, Or shell out more money for the 100-400?

[MVers]

Hey everyone, I currently own a 70-200 2.8 is which is an awesome lens. Ive been wanting to get a longer focal length for wildlife shots such as elk and whitetail deer. The 70-200 has worked great for the elk but I would still like a longer focal length. So my question is would it be worth it to get a 2x converter and pair it with the 70-200? Whats the IQ like if anyone has tried this combination? I know that the 2x would make it roughly 5.6 instead of 2.8, so would it be worth it to get a 2x converter, Or shell out more money for the 100-400?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





No to the 2x+70-200/2.8 combo. Mounting a 2x on any 70-200/2.8 will yield very poor results, even mounting the 1.4x is iffy. Save up and invest in the 100-400 or 400/5.6, you will be much better off.

[Vlad Xp]

After viewing Mvers' bird pictures ("/forums/p/397/1913.aspx#1913) from today I was just thinking about getting a 2x converter today and mounting it on my 70-200 2.8 IS L. However, after reading this post, checking the price on the converter, and reading Bryan's review ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-2x-II-Teleconverter-Review.aspx) on it, I'm begining to change my mind. Have you (Mvers) actually tried that combination?

[Colin]

First I got the 70-200 2.8 IS. I smiled when I first used it.I LOVE the images I get.


I tried the 1.4x converter, and immediately said, "Well, this sucks with autofocus." I looked at the images, and felt mixed about it. It was okay, but I wondered if going telephoto would be better served with a longer lens.


I got a 2x converter, operating on the kick that a 140-400 5.6 lens would be not that different than either the 100-400 or a 400 5.6, and while I liked the longer reach I got, I have to say that the images were universally poop. Blurry, low contrast, LOTS of Chromatic Abberation. I eventually got a 400 5.6, and have been very pleased with it, despite it's lack of IS. That's a bad ass telephoto for the money.


I sometimes use the 2x converter with the 400mm if I'm getting pictures that involve the moon or the sun as the primary subject, and I simply can't afford the price of an 800mm 5.6 (or for that matter, any more gear in the near future). With post processing correction, it does okay. I'm really glad I got the 400mm 5.6. The 70-200 2.8 with a 2x converter is crap.


If I had more disposable income, I'd pick up a 100-400 to boot, but it's still real money, and right now I've got next to none of that :P

[MVers]

Have you (Mvers) actually tried that combination?


The 2x TC (or any TC for that matter) was not designed for use on zoom lenses, rather on tele-supertele prime's. I can't say I have used that combo extensively but I have used it once (2x) on my 70-200/2.8IS and as I said the results were nothing short of terrible. I never expected them too look good, but I didn't think they would look as bad as they were. I also tried out the 1.4x and was not enamoured by the results either. OTOH, now that I have an MKIII I have been debating picking up the Tamron 1.4x Pro since I will have AF with my 100-400--we'll see.

[Joel Bookhammer]

Thanks for all of the input, I currently have a sufficient stock pile of money, but it is going to school or I would go and buy some more equipement. But who knows maybe I will splurge again and go with the 400 5.6. Once again thanks!