70-200 f/2.8 L USM paired with canon extender 1.4x or 2.0x ?

[neuroanatomist]

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II will hold up to the extenders better than any other 70-200mm version, especially to the 2x extender. Unlike Homer, I'm fairly happy with the IQ of the 70-200 II + 2x II extender (although the 100-400mm is just slightly better at 400mm). Personally, I chose the 100-400mm over the 400mm f/5.6L for two main reasons: the 100-400mm has IS (and for static subjects at 400mm, I will often want to shoot at much slower than 1/800 s or so), and the 100-400 is also much shorter for travel because it retracts.

I use the 70-200 II with 2x as a substitute for the 100-400mm when it's raining, or when I'm mainly going to shoot with the 70-200 (e.g. outing with kids) but might want the extra reach without carrying two big white zooms. Are a couple of samples of the combo (click for larger), one on APS-C and the other on FF:


EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 400mm, 1/160 s, f/5.6, ISO 3200


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 260mm, 1/250 s, f/5.6, ISO 400

[jrw]

If you are looking for ways to get the most bang for your buck and get into telephoto territory there are a few ways to get there. The 70-200 f2.8 works better with the 1.4x extender than the 2x. Of that, there is no doubt. The 70-200 paired with the 2x is acceptable to me when the subject is quite close and I'm trying to fill more of the frame. With smaller targets at longer distances I find that it doesn't work as well.

Another alternative to getting to 400mm territory is to use the 300 f4 with the 1.4x. The images will be better than the 70-200 with the 2x, similar to the 100-400, slightly behind the 400 f5.6. In return you will have IS as well as the native 300 mm focal length which is somewhat better than the 100-400 at 300mm. Of course, if you went with the 300 f2.8 there would be another jump up in IQ but it costs much more and weighs more. It also works quite well with the 2x extender.

In reply to v2 or v3 of the telextenders, you'll need to consider your current lenses and any planned upcoming lens purchases. Some lenses seem to work better with one or the other version. The ISO resolution charts under the 'Tools' menu would be a good place to start comparing different combinations.

[vandring]

When you refer to the f.28, does the 1.4x work as well even if it's not the f.28 II? I shoot sport photography with the 70-200f.28 IS and am wondering how to get more reach with little loss of quality and blurred background. Thanks!!

If you are looking for ways to get the most bang for your buck and get into telephoto territory there are a few ways to get there. The 70-200 f2.8 works better with the 1.4x extender than the 2x. Of that, there is no doubt. The 70-200 paired with the 2x is acceptable to me when the subject is quite close and I'm trying to fill more of the frame. With smaller targets at longer distances I find that it doesn't work as well.

Another alternative to getting to 400mm territory is to use the 300 f4 with the 1.4x. The images will be better than the 70-200 with the 2x, similar to the 100-400, slightly behind the 400 f5.6. In return you will have IS as well as the native 300 mm focal length which is somewhat better than the 100-400 at 300mm. Of course, if you went with the 300 f2.8 there would be another jump up in IQ but it costs much more and weighs more. It also works quite well with the 2x extender.

In reply to v2 or v3 of the telextenders, you'll need to consider your current lenses and any planned upcoming lens purchases. Some lenses seem to work better with one or the other version. The ISO resolution charts under the 'Tools' menu would be a good place to start comparing different combinations.