• The Canon Rumors Forum has officially been shut down as of July 10, 2026.

    All data will be deleted on September 16, 2026.

    the ad free experience will return by July 17, 2026.

2x EF Extender III or ???

Status
Not open for further replies.

vmk

Nov 12, 2012
38
0
4,841
I Have 70-200 f/2.8L II USM, and i need little longer zoom .

Is it worth buying 2x EF Extender III for 70-200 f/2.8L II USM (or) would it be better to go for 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus

Body: 5D Mark III

Please provide your valuable suggestions.

Thank you
 
Seeing as you already have the 70-200 f/2.8L II covered, it would be cost effective to go with the 2x EF Extender III.

During one of my visits to a Formula One race, I shot back-to-back using the 100-400 and the 70-200/2x combo. I found the two configurations to be comparable in both IQ and AF performance. I will say however I much prefer carrying the 100-400, for it's lightness and compactness (1380g), over the prominently protruding 70-200 + 2x (1815g combined!).
 
Upvote 0
As mentioned above, image quality (IQ) was a toss up; neither showing a perceptible advantage or disadvantage during my real-world use; they were both impressively sharp for the occasion. I was not able to readily discern which lens took which shots during post-process.

There would be no difference in terms of noise, as that's solely the function of your camera and what ISO-sensitivity you're operating at. Both configurations also have a comparable max aperture of f/5.6 (the 100-400 is negligibly ahead at f/4.5 on the wide-end).

Here's a quick summary for you ...

EF 70-200 f/2.8L II + 2x EF Extender III
Pros:
Flexibility to break down from f=140-400mm to f=70-200mm
2X Extender costs ~3x less than EF 100-400L

Cons:
Massive. Physically longer and heavier
As a combo, starts off less wide at f=140mm

EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L
Pros:
Compact. Physically lighter and much shorter (when collapsed).

Cons:
Stuck with f=100-400mm
~3x more expensive than the 2X Extender
 
Upvote 0
In my experience, the 100-400 @ 400mm has a very slight sharpness edge. The 70-200 II + 2xIII has very slightly better bokeh (but honestly, neither lens delivers especially well there). The 100-400 will AF very slightly faster.

One other consideration - the 70-200 + TC is weather sealed, the 100-400 is not fully sealed (lacks a mount gasket).

In your place, I'd get the 2xIII.
 
Upvote 0
Do you already have the 1.4x III tele? If not, the only thing you need to keep in mind is that the 2x tele is a special beast, and it is fairly limited in where you can use it - f2.8 lenses (or 135/2 or 200/2). There isn't as much of a market for them on the used side, so make sure you really want it first.
 
Upvote 0
I have the 70-200 and 2x iii extender and recommend the combination. The only issue for me with only one body has been that if I want to swap between 70-200 and 140-400 in the field (which I usually do) taking the extender off and on can be a bit of a hassle. With a second body I would definitely think about swapping the extender for the 100-400.
 
Upvote 0
I just went through this myself and purchased the 2x EF Extender III.
I was considering the EF 400 f/5.6 not the 100-400 but same issues basically and am glad that I got the converter.

It is a lot heavier combo than I thought but for occasional use it is a great option and I'll probably get the 1.4x before I get another longer lens.

You could always see if you can borrow one or go to a nice local shop and try it out, maybe rent with rental amount to purchase if you decide to do that but from all the advice of others a lot more experienced with these I went with the converter first.
 
Upvote 0
vmk said:
I haven't had any extenders before, this will be the first one

Will go for 2xIII ...

Honestly, the 1.4xIII would be a better start.

There isn't another way to 400mm that is between $1500 (100-400 / 300f4 +1.4x / 400f5.6) and $3k. There is lots of hope for a 300f4 IS 2, and a new 100-400 but both with have a price point much higher than current.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.