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 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 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!