Experience with 2xII extender

Khaos

I've been thinking about getting this to use with my 70-200 2.8 since I just can't afford a 400 or bigger at this time.

Now I know it's supposed to be soft, but after looking at Dixies work with it, they don't seem that soft. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=8548

I was wondering if anyone has used it with a 70-200 2.8 IS L?

I know the softness should begin to show when it's pushed all the way to 400 (200), but how much? When do you begin to notice the drop off, at 300 (150) or lower or higher?

If you can post example pics, please do.

Thanks.

Stan

Do a search on extenders, Gus posted a link to a site comparing the 70-200 2.8 with 2x with the 100-400 5.6. The cameras at 400 mm are the same (F/5.6) but the 70-200 is mush softer until they are stopped down to at least f11

Khaos

Well that sucks.

:cry

JimFuglestad

Is this 2xII converter a new one?
I've been wondering the same thing as I need to replace my now in two pieces 70-200. When I was talking with my camera store about replacement, we veered off into discussing the comparison of the 70-200 with 2xII vs. the 100-400. I mentioned that I thought the 2x was much worse than the 1.4 and he replied that this was a new 2x extender. True?

He also suggested that the 2xII would be just as sharp as the 100-400... I'm not sure I was convinced. Think I'm going to try the 100-400 as it's $1,000 less than the 70-200+2xII.

Jim

Khaos

JimFuglestad wrote:

I've been wondering the same thing as I need to replace my now in two pieces 70-200. When I was talking with my camera store about replacement, we veered off into discussing the comparison of the 70-200 with 2xII vs. the 100-400. I mentioned that I thought the 2x was much worse than the 1.4 and he replied that this was a new 2x extender. True?

He also suggested that the 2xII would be just as sharp as the 100-400... I'm not sure I was convinced. Think I'm going to try the 100-400 as it's $1,000 less than the 70-200+2xII.

Jim

Yeah but the 70-200 2.8 with IS is fricking amazing. It's faster, great for indoor sports, low light clubs, use as a portrait lens, etc. The only drawback is its weight. I'm simply amazed with the pics I get everytime I use it. I think the quality of this glass outweighs the range you get with the 100-400.

Andy

JimFuglestad wrote:

I've been wondering the same thing as I need to replace my now in two pieces 70-200. When I was talking with my camera store about replacement, we veered off into discussing the comparison of the 70-200 with 2xII vs. the 100-400. I mentioned that I thought the 2x was much worse than the 1.4 and he replied that this was a new 2x extender. True?

He also suggested that the 2xII would be just as sharp as the 100-400... I'm not sure I was convinced. Think I'm going to try the 100-400 as it's $1,000 less than the 70-200+2xII.

Jim

hiya jim

sorry about your loss! (care to explain??? ) anyhow, based on shot research, i do not think you'll be happier with the 100-400 over the 70-200 f/2.8L i.s. -- i know how much you used that lens, and so my thought would be just replace it. to me, it's one of canon's top zooms, and top lenses overall. and you've done such great work with it. get the 1.4x also.

JimFuglestad

yeah yeah, i know i know...
The thing is... I have such easy access to a 70-200 non-IS and a 70-200 IS. I can also rent when I need one. But getting the reach to 400 is much harder for me to come by. The 100-400 is an exceptional lens as well, just slower.

I did LOVE the 70-200, and am actually looking to maybe get it fixed. It was the dang lens collar that got me in trouble. I had taken it off right when I got it because you just can't set it down very easily. Well, I put it on a couple weeks ago to do some night tripod stuff and hadn't taken it off. I had a burger and beer with a friend of mine whom I was shooting with, changed lensees before going out again, set it on the table while putting my coat on, and the dang thing rocked on the collar but was too close to the edge of the table.... 4 feet straight down onto a bar floor. I'm thankful the 20d is fine.
http://www.pbase.com/image/41217450

andy wrote:

hiya jim

sorry about your loss! (care to explain??? ) anyhow, based on shot research, i do not think you'll be happier with the 100-400 over the 70-200 f/2.8L i.s. -- i know how much you used that lens, and so my thought would be just replace it. to me, it's one of canon's top zooms, and top lenses overall. and you've done such great work with it. get the 1.4x also.

wxwax

JimFuglestad wrote:

The thing is... I have such easy access to a 70-200 non-IS and a 70-200 IS. I can also rent when I need one. But getting the reach to 400 is much harder for me to come by. The 100-400 is an exceptional lens as well, just slower.

I did LOVE the 70-200, and am actually looking to maybe get it fixed. It was the dang lens collar that got me in trouble. I had taken it off right when I got it because you just can't set it down very easily. Well, I put it on a couple weeks ago to do some night tripod stuff and hadn't taken it off. I had a burger and beer with a friend of mine whom I was shooting with, changed lensees before going out again, set it on the table while putting my coat on, and the dang thing rocked on the collar but was too close to the edge of the table.... 4 feet straight down onto a bar floor. I'm thankful the 20d is fine.
http://www.pbase.com/image/41217450

Oh, that sucks so hard it blows. What an awful and expensive feeling that had to be.

FWIW, I'm in the hunt for a 300 f2.8 IS. If I get it, I'll be keen to see how the 2X performs with the faster glass.

Stan

Every month I get a drop out from a magazine for camera equipment insurance, obviously it is too late in Jim's case but I did wonder as my kit grows, whether it was worth the premium, atleast it gives peace of mind. When i travel with my camera, I itemize everything on the travel insurance. What do others do?

rutt

I have both 70-200 f2.8L and 100-400 push/pull. I love both lenses and use them both often. The 70-200 needs no defense, but the 100-400 is oft maligned.

It's a great utility lens. It's no bigger than the 70-200, at least not when it's collapsed. It's pretty easy to hand hold even at 400mm because it isn't very heavy and has IS. If you need to be able to shoot tele and then step back for scenes, it's great. It can pick out a face in a crowd, or step back and get the crowd, too. It even has pretty good bokah, which surprised me. That was my primary worry about this lens.

On the 1Dmkii (and even more on the 1Dsmkii, I suppose), this lens has a great range for hanging around sporting events. Perhaps on a 1.6 sensor like the 20D it would be too long for this.

I took it to the Head of the Charles Regatta last fall and got a lot of shots I really liked. Here are a few that show how flexible (and sharp) it is:







All my shots from this event were with this lens. See them here:
http://rutt.smugmug.com/gallery/262725

Stan

I wasn't in London today but boy it wasn't very good


clue: they won