Anyone Use 200mm f2.8L with 2x Extender?

[Daniel Browning]

Oh and yes, they are both pretty large and heavy. Obviously nothing compared to the fixed 400mm and up lenses, but compared to what you're probably used to. You're left arm will surley get stronger. lol
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

The 400 fixed is lighter than the two zooms under discussion. Here are the weights of each lens in pounds:


1.7: 200mm f/2.8


2.3: 200mm f/2.8 with 2X TC


2.8: 400mm f/5.6


3.0: 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS


3.2: 70-200 f/2.8 IS


3.8: 70-200 f/2.8 IS with 2X TC


I don't want to be a broken record, but the 400mm f/5.6 is really a great deal if you want the absolute highest quality: it can match the $6,000 super telephotos, which are in a totally different class than the $1,500 zooms, despite the fact that it's cheaper.

[LoneSierra]

Well, depends on which lens you're looking at. I wouldn't ever dream of getting a fixed 400mm 5.6 when you can have a 100-400 with the same aperture size.


So, I was refering to the 400mm f/2.8. That baby is 11lbs! He ain't heavy, he's my brother.

[Colin]

I don't know if I'm 2nding or 3rding or what...ing..


but I way agree...


best off getting the naked lens. If you want a teleconverter, that's fine, but a 70-200 with even a 1.4x teleconverter, let alone 2.0x teleconverter, is a highly compromised animal. The first time I tried a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I said "Wow, this is nice." The first time I popped in a 1.4x teleconverter, I said, "Wow, autofocus sucks" When I looked at the images wth the 1.4x, I said, "Well, it's still a lot cheaper than getting the 100-400 zoom." I tried a 2x converter with the 70-200, at a concert and a couple pool parties. The viewfinder was dim, and the autofocus excruciating, but the reach was great. Saw the pictures, and never putthe teleconverters on the 70-200 again got a 400mm f/5.6L. I keep the teleconverters around for the 400mm prime in situations where I don't need autofocus, and I simply have no other option for longer focal lengths, and sometimes for Macro stuff, but for all but a few days out of the year, they sit on the shelf.


I'm not saying that they're not a cost effective way to change focal length, but between a teleconverter and a simple crop, unless the teleconverter/lens combination is exceptiionally acceptable, I think we're often better served by just cropping. If you were to assign a lens a resolution value in the same way that we consider sensor resolution in megapixels, in that analogy, a 2x teleconverter will give you 1/4 of the real optical information, and then add it's own distortion on top of that. Now, if you've got phenomenally more detail than the camera body can capture to begin with, then maybe that works out, but my experience with the 70-200 confirms that Bryan has a sometimesirritating habit about being right.... I know somebody will be happy with the combination, and to be fair, it does what it's supposed to do. You can still get a great picture with a teleconverter, but it's because you got a great picture.


I really love my 70-200. It's the second to last lens i'd give up, right before the 24-105, but only because I'm willing to sacrifice reach for speed and lower light performance, if required, for what I like. The 100-400 isn't quite the same performer as the 400 f/5.6 prime at 400mm, but then again, if you have a 24-105 combined with a 100-400, you've got pretty darn good performance over a really wide range in only a couple of lenses. Compliment that with a 50mm f/1.4 and the 100mm Macro for a bit more, and you're really well rounded.


I'm bleeding into a different thread, arent' I []

[Steve Eisenberg]

Thanks everyone for the great advice. I believe I might be a fixed focal length kind of guy. Lighter, sometimes cheaper. I already have the 50mm f1.4 and the 100mm f2.8 Macro. I've been using an OLD 75-300mm 4-5.6 USM (circa 1995), always at 300mm. So the 400mm f5.6 with my XTi would probably be great.


BTW John, either your're telling us your generation, or just watched the Flower Power Infomercial! []

[LoneSierra]

"We're going to travel back in time to a generation of love, drugs and rock and roll."


"That's right Kelly (fake smile), these were a different time!"


haha Actually, my generation is supposed to like rap....I just happen to enjoy everything from the 80's back.


Now, let me go get those pics up right now.

[LoneSierra]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.55/100_2D00_400-resize-2.jpg.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.55/100_2D002D00_400-resize.jpg.jpg[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.55/70_2D00_200-resize.jpg.jpg[/img]



1. f/5.6 500 ISO 200 400mm
2. f/7.1 500 ISO 320 400mm
3. f/2.8 250 ISO 800 200mm


All I've done is re-size them from over 4000 pixels wide to 800 and drop the file size from 5mb to 70k. lol


The one thing to keep in mind here, I was inside the store, and their windows were not even remotely clean, so the outdoor shots might look like the have a little haze to them for good reason, but it's not the lens. Looking back I wish I would have grabbed a shot inside with the 400mm just to show the clarity.


They are all hand held shots at full zoom with IS active.


Isn't that shot from the 2.8 a goregous shot? Completely un-edited.


So there's a little comparison for ya!