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

[eranda]

First post,

hello I am new to this forum and i'd to have some shares about the extender of 1.4x, at the store they offered me 1.4x II and 1.4x III, can somebody give me info the quality to the result of the II and III, as the II is more expensive than III. in this case i need quality not only the updated one.
and the second question is, if I paired the 70-200 f/2.8 USM with extender 2x at the longest focal 400, does the quality is sharp? or do I need to spend another 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM at focal of 400 ?

Grazie..

[Homer]

I have both the EX1.4 II and also the EX 2 iii and used them on my 70-200l 2.8 is II. I found the EX 1.4 OK but was not happy with the EX2 results. I found at fully zoomed that the EX 1.4 was acceptable but the EX 2 was not as good as expected and just not sharp enough.

I just purchased the ef 400mm 5.6 for this exact reason as I wanted the best quality images. I thought about the 100-400 but the image quality gain was not enough compared to the 400l 5.6 and already had the 100-200mm covered by the 70-200 with far better lens then 100-400. The price and quality for the 400mm 5.6 was a no brainer as the next step is 400l 2.8 and do not use it enough to justify the price. Another thing I did not like about extenders is that you always have to add it so makes switching more time consuming and could loose that OMG shot.

Check out the reviews on this site for excellent reviews and also look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml as he also has compared and reviewed them. I also found that I got the best information from this site and forums compared to any others I have visited etc.

Cheers

/ click on

[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

[Joel Eade]

You have good advice already but I will add that after extensive research and personal use the Version III 1.4 isn't much better than the Version II however... the Version III 2X Converter is alot better than Version II.

I have used the Version II 1.4 TC on the 70-200mm f/2.8L many many times and it works very well....it focuses fast and there isn't much loss of image quality. I just acquired the Version III 2X Converter and have not yet tried it on the 70-200 but it does work well on my 500mm f/4L and other users report good results with the 70-200mm f/2.8L as well.

I had Version II of the 2X and sold it because there was too much loss of IQ. It really slows the autofocus down on the 70-200 as well.

As for lens choice, if you plan to shoot alot at 400mm especially birds and birds in flight then you will be happier with the 400 f/5.6 prime lens although you lose some versatility. It will acquire focus much faster and is probably sharper than the 70-200 with a 2X converter.

[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.

[Phyllis2011]

I am here to learn.Thanks for sharing.

[clemmb]

First post,

hello I am new to this forum and i'd to have some shares about the extender of 1.4x, at the store they offered me 1.4x II and 1.4x III, can somebody give me info the quality to the result of the II and III, as the II is more expensive than III. in this case i need quality not only the updated one.
and the second question is, if I paired the 70-200 f/2.8 USM with extender 2x at the longest focal 400, does the quality is sharp? or do I need to spend another 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM at focal of 400 ?

Grazie..

I see you been here since April. My apologies for missing you
It is nice to meet people from other countries, even if it is just on-line
So, welcome

[clemmb]

I am here to learn.Thanks for sharing.

You came to the right place
Welcome to the forum.
If you don't mind, fill out your profile. Its nice to learn a little something about everyone here.

[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.