Anyone have experience with the Canon 200/2 with the new 1.4x III TC?

JimKarczewski

Assuming I can afford it, I'm seriously considering the 200/2 for football, tack that on to a 1D and I'll get a 260/2, add the 1.4TC and I'll get roughly a 360/2.8. For wildlife I can go a bit further and get a 2x and make it a 400/4 or 520/4 on a cropped body.

That being said, is it a pipe dream to think about using a 200/2 with the new 1.4TC? Reason of my thinking is not having to buy a 300 and 400 separately since Canon is jacking the prices into the stratosphere with these new II lenses.

ThatCanonGuy

While I have no experience with the superteles, I can say that the quality will be lower since the TC multiplies all the flaws in the lens by 1.4x. Then again, that lens doesn't have that many flaws to begin with

I doubt it will be as good as a 300 2.8, but $500 for the TC vs $5000 for the 300? I'd go with the TC.

JimKarczewski

That was my thought, for around $6,500 (200 + 1.4x and 2x TC's) I can get 3 lenses worth oh.... about $14k ($7200 for the new 300 and $6k for the 400/4)

I'm going to rent the 200 and the 1.4 for my trip at the end of sept, so I'll try them first hand and see what happens...

ziggy53

JimKarczewski wrote: »

... I'm going to rent the 200 and the 1.4 for my trip at the end of sept, so I'll try them first hand and see what happens...

Renting is an excellent way to determine basic suitability. Do remember that AF acquisition speed is sacrificed using a telextender.

DsrtVW

I cannot speak of the Canon lens but I use that set up in Nikon and I have had great results. I had 1.7 TC and 2 TCe III (Nikons lastest TC with aspherical glass)I almost always use the 2x TC I sold my 1.7. Nikon 200mm f2 is a fantastic lens adding the 2x TC to it does not effect the quality that you could notice unless you are a avid pixel peeper. AF performance is not affected.
I had the same reasons I could get a super tele for a reasonable price compared to the 400mm f2.8 and 500mm f4s