initial thoughts on the new Canon 2X III

[kubelik]

hi everyone,

for anyone who's looking into picking up the new Canon Extender 2x III, I've paired it up with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM and put together some intial thoughts on the combination over on my blog:

http://teatrayinthesky.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/tuesday-gear-day-%e2%80%94-canon-extender-ef-2x-iii/

I hope to add more entries soon after some zoo-testing.  if anybody is really dying to see the tree bark-and-branch images I omitted from the blog entry, I've got no problem emailing them to you, or posting them here

[WarStreet]

Thanks for the info. This is helpful since I am interested to get the 2x III for the same lens too. I would need to use it 400mm wide open.

[kubelik]

I've gone ahead and updated the blog entry with full-size samples taken at f/5.6, f/8, and f/11 with the lens at tree branches and bark, as well as 100% crops.  you're welcome to download the full-res files and take a look for yourself. 

do note that I messed up somewhat by leaving IS off, so the f/11 shots taken at 1/200s aren't as sharp as they should be.

[GMCPhotographics]

Sorry bud, but not a lot of difference to the mkII version.

[kubelik]

Sorry bud, but not a lot of difference to the mkII version.

mostly I'm excited about the combination of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II and the 2x III.  compare that to the older 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and the 2x II ... it's a pretty significant difference.

I never shelled out for the 2x II because that combination was so dumpy.  you're right in that, if you already have a 2x II, it looks pretty decent on the new 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II as well.

[neuroanatomist]

I agree, at least based on the ISO 12233 charts - the 2x III is a very slight improvement over the 2x II when used on the 70-200 II.  When I look at the 1.4x II vs. III it almost seems to be a wash.

Even though Bryan's charts with the 70-200 II + 2x III show a performance hit from the TC, looking at kubelik's shots the combo delivers good IQ in the real world.

[UngerPhotography]

I haven't used the MkIII yet, but I was surprised at how well the MkII did with the new 70-200. It's no 400 prime, but it does do a great job for your normal print sizes. I am looking to get the 2x MkIII for possibly going to Yellowstone this summer. I'd love to use the 500 prime with 1.4x, but that is way beyond my budget.

[kubelik]

I haven't used the MkIII yet, but I was surprised at how well the MkII did with the new 70-200. It's no 400 prime, but it does do a great job for your normal print sizes. I am looking to get the 2x MkIII for possibly going to Yellowstone this summer. I'd love to use the 500 prime with 1.4x, but that is way beyond my budget.

For a trip like yellowstone, it could be worth it to rent a supertele.  I don't know if you've been to yellowstone before, but in my two trips I've found 500mm on a full-frame to be the minimum.  There'll be times that you get lucky (usually with bison) walking right up alongside the car, but often you'll want serious reach.  A 500 with 1.4x sounds pretty ideal

[UngerPhotography]

I haven't used the MkIII yet, but I was surprised at how well the MkII did with the new 70-200. It's no 400 prime, but it does do a great job for your normal print sizes. I am looking to get the 2x MkIII for possibly going to Yellowstone this summer. I'd love to use the 500 prime with 1.4x, but that is way beyond my budget.

For a trip like yellowstone, it could be worth it to rent a supertele.  I don't know if you've been to yellowstone before, but in my two trips I've found 500mm on a full-frame to be the minimum.  There'll be times that you get lucky (usually with bison) walking right up alongside the car, but often you'll want serious reach.  A 500 with 1.4x sounds pretty ideal

I plan on spending at least 2 months there, so renting is going to be out of the question.

[kubelik]

ah ... well I'm sure the 70-200 f/2.8 II with the 2x III will serve you well in yellowstone.  that's exactly what I'm bringing down to Ecuador this year.  was debating renting a 500 f/4 but I'm not sure about the cost or the weight of hauling it around.

[CR Backup Admin]

ah ... well I'm sure the 70-200 f/2.8 II with the 2x III will serve you well in yellowstone.  that's exactly what I'm bringing down to Ecuador this year.  was debating renting a 500 f/4 but I'm not sure about the cost or the weight of hauling it around.

70-200mm with 2X is not long enough for wildlife in Yellowstone unless you are photographing the elk on the lawns, or buffalo that come up close.  Even 100-200 yards away is a long ways.

Here is my 70-200mm with 1.4X and the animal looked to be quite close.




On the other hand, a 70-200mm zoom isn't the best choice at Old Faithful.

70mm backed off a long distance such that it was difficult to keep the crowd out of the image.

[UngerPhotography]

I am possibly considering investing in a 7D and 2x III. For about $2000, I get a fast camera with good AF and 1.6x crop factor. Combined with the 70-200 and 2x III, that gives me a reach of 640mm. Ideally I would like to save up for the next 1D, or whatever it is they come out, but I think that will still be out of my pay reach for a while. At least with this combo, I can get some great shots and use it for wildlife as well as sports and build up my career before diving into the Canon top of the line.

[kubelik]

scales, in a perfect world, we'd all get to have 500mm f/4's and TC's to boot.  but realistically, money is money and I think a 400mm lens on a crop body is pretty decent for yellowstone.

I've seen not only bison and elk, but bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, and a fox, all within yards of main roadways (and pictures to prove it; although unfortunately I was using the nasty BigmOS that trip).  almost all in Lamar Valley; that's definitely the place to be for wildlife.  even stuff that's out on the grasslands, you'll at least have a fighting chance to get a decent shot at 640mm equivalent.

the other alternative is to get one of the big sigma zooms ... but other than the 100-300 f/4 (which doesn't give you much of a reach advantage at all), I haven't been satisfied at all with their image quality

[CR Backup Admin]

scales, in a perfect world, we'd all get to have 500mm f/4's and TC's to boot.  but realistically, money is money and I think a 400mm lens on a crop body is pretty decent for yellowstone.

I've seen not only bison and elk, but bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, and a fox, all within yards of main roadways (and pictures to prove it; although unfortunately I was using the nasty BigmOS that trip).  almost all in Lamar Valley; that's definitely the place to be for wildlife.  even stuff that's out on the grasslands, you'll at least have a fighting chance to get a decent shot at 640mm equivalent.

the other alternative is to get one of the big sigma zooms ... but other than the 100-300 f/4 (which doesn't give you much of a reach advantage at all), I haven't been satisfied at all with their image quality

I live less than a days drive away, and have been there a few times. I also have to make do with a 70-200mm L plus TC's.  What I am saying is that he should not have too high of expectations.  If he is able to spend a few days and be at the right places, the odds go up.  Certainly a 500mm f/4 plus TC would get more good captures, but the price is out of my reach for the few uses it would get each year.

He also needs to take a wide angle lens.

[UngerPhotography]

I have the Canon 24-70 for the wide.

My main reason for going is for landscape photos. I'd just also like to be able to take some good wildlife as well. If it's not in the cards for this trip, then it will just have to wait.