Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L with TCs

[Dave Throgmartin]

I've currently been using the Canon 55-250 on the T3i camera and while the lens does well at times, I have found the autofocus performance and overall image quality lacking other times.


I've considered looking at the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 to improve my images. I'm confident that as is the lens would be excellent for sports, near wild life (I've set up a bird feeder) and some other general use. How does it take to converters especially on a Rebel body? I see the ISO crops on this site and generally they look good even with the 2X extender used.


Does the autofocus suffer with the 1.4X or 2X TCs to the point where it is as slow or worse than my 55-250? Does the contrast with the 2X suffer to the point the images will still be lacking?


Would it be wiser to just save up and get the 100-400 L? It is quite a large lens compared to anything I'm using now and especially for a Rebel body.


Dave Throgmartin

[Fast Glass]

The 200mm f/2.8 is a very nice lens, but how much will you be using the 400mm focal length? Be forewarned, birding is very adictive! If you plan on spending a fair amount of time birding then the 100-400mm will be much better suited. If not then the 70-200mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and mark II version would be a much more versatile if you decided on waiting and saving up for a nicer lens. The 70-200mm II actually has better IQ then the prime. Off the top of my head I believe the 2x will slow down the AF speed about 2 times slower. Don

[Rocco]

Dave,


I went through a similar dilemma. I had (have) a Tamron 70-300mm and felt like I needed more reach. I had considered what Fast Glass had offered as a suggestion, the 100-400mm L. Ultimately I decided to keep my Tamron and purchased the Canon 400 f/5.6L prime in stead.


I never touch my Tamron anymore. I was in love with it, but have recently noticed how soft it gets at the long end of the focal range. Although I know with a certainty that my 400mm is a tad bit sharper than the 100-400mm @ 400mm, I now wish I had made that my choice. I can never bring myself to put the Tamron back on my camera.


So my advice, Don't get the 200mm with the 2x. Ditch the 55-250 and get the lens that I should have. (Still LOVE my 400, but the 100-400 would have been more practical.)

[Fast Glass]

As Nate said and I agree for a birding only lens the 400mm f/5.6 is a better lens, but more critical about suport. As a all around telephoto lens the 100-400mm is a better choice. But even for birding IS is very helpful.


John.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Thanks guys. I was looking at the 200mm as an economical way to produce "pro" quality images. My thinking was that the 200 would be fantastic for sports, and other general every day type of use. I like the fast aperture and think that

[M_Six]

Dave,


I've been renting the 200 f2.8 for about 10 days and I find that although it's sharp as a tack, the lack of versatility is making me reconsider. I was also looking for a less expensive way to get a sharp, long lens with speed, but I find the 200mm to be too long for a number of shots I've wanted. I think I'm going to wait and save up for the 70-200 f4 IS. It's not as fast for sure, but the IS should mitigate some of that and the versatility will make it a much more useful lens. It may be worth your time to rent one first just to see how it fits.





Mark