Critical View of 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III

[Sabaki]

I often hear people citing the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii with the 2X TC III as a serious option as a wildlife lens and I don't quite agree.

I believe that the setup is touted as you end up with the best 70-200 out there which can double as a telephoto but I find the image quality to be a compromise.

The images I have seen, has me place both the 100-400 and definitely the 400 f/5.6 as better options.

Now an admission: I'm not a technical guy and cannot breakdown my feelings on the TC'd 70-200 into tech-talk but I find the overall IQ as poorer.

Am I wrong? Is the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii a match for the 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6?

I'm interested in hearing opinions on this but let's keep it sentiment free ie "I own that setup and I love my photos"...

Thanks peeps

 

[Loswr]

The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.

What I don't like about the 70-200 II + 2xIII is the handling – too long and front-heavy.

 

[Sabaki]

The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.

What I don't like about the 70-200 II + 2xIII is the handling – too long and front-heavy.

But to be fair, the 100-400 performs at its worst at 400mm. Something else about the 100-400, is it my imagination, or do those manufactured recently, seem to be just better?

I do agree that the ergonomics are less comfortable too.

 

[Plainsman]

I often hear people citing the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii with the 2X TC III as a serious option as a wildlife lens and I don't quite agree.

I believe that the setup is touted as you end up with the best 70-200 out there which can double as a telephoto but I find the image quality to be a compromise.

The images I have seen, has me place both the 100-400 and definitely the 400 f/5.6 as better options.

Now an admission: I'm not a technical guy and cannot breakdown my feelings on the TC'd 70-200 into tech-talk but I find the overall IQ as poorer.

Am I wrong? Is the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii a match for the 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6?

I'm interested in hearing opinions on this but let's keep it sentiment free ie "I own that setup and I love my photos"...

Thanks peeps

Rather than listen to "opinions" just take a look at the iso 12233 crops on digital picture.

They are a pretty reliable guide and clearly show the hit you take when mounting a 2xTC on this otherwise excellent zoom.

 

[Loswr]

But to be fair, the 100-400 performs at its worst at 400mm.

Does yours? Mine was pretty sharp through the range, if anything sharpest at the long end (where I used it most). As I stated, mine were on par. When I tested them with my ISO 12233-type charts (I have the same QA-77 ones used by TDP), the 100-400 was very slightly sharper. In real world use (birds, mostly), there was no meaningful difference in IQ.

Keep in mind there is copy variation with lenses. Check the three copies of the 70-200 II with the 2xIII on TDP's ISO 12233 crops for an example.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.

What I don't like about the 70-200 II + 2xIII is the handling – too long and front-heavy.

But to be fair, the 100-400 performs at its worst at 400mm. Something else about the 100-400, is it my imagination, or do those manufactured recently, seem to be just better?

I do agree that the ergonomics are less comfortable too.

I think exposure, lighting and technique have a lot to do with the lens at 400mm. I have had nasty looking 400mm shots, but mostly due to light issues.
This one is at 400mm, f11, 1/250th, ISO 400

P-47 takeoff at sunset Chino POF 0957 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

 

[frozengogo]

The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.

What I don't like about the 70-200 II + 2xIII is the handling – too long and front-heavy.

OK, so here is my dilemma, buy the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III or the new 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have a 5dII and will be using the setup to shoot cheerleading at night football games or cheerleading competitions is a gym. I’m concerned with having to set the iso too high in order to get a good shutter speed at night or in the gym. I wouldn’t need the 2xTC all the time, it just depends on how close I can get to the action.

 

[gregorywood]

The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.

What I don't like about the 70-200 II + 2xIII is the handling – too long and front-heavy.

OK, so here is my dilemma, buy the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III or the new 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have a 5dII and will be using the setup to shoot cheerleading at night football games or cheerleading competitions is a gym. I’m concerned with having to set the iso too high in order to get a good shutter speed at night or in the gym. I wouldn’t need the 2xTC all the time, it just depends on how close I can get to the action.

I can say from my own experiences trying to shoot in night soccer games or indoor soccer games that my 70-200mm f/4L IS and my 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS both are less than optimal on either the 7D or 6D. I'm often between ISO 3200 and 6400 to get reasonable stop-action. I've come to the conlusion that I need to get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and f/2.8 is a minimum for night or indoor action. Stills might be another story, but the action is the things that becomes the determiner. It's too bad that there isn't an affordable 200mm f/2 solution. The price gap is so large going from f/2.8 to f/2.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.

What I don't like about the 70-200 II + 2xIII is the handling – too long and front-heavy.

OK, so here is my dilemma, buy the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III or the new 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have a 5dII and will be using the setup to shoot cheerleading at night football games or cheerleading competitions is a gym. I’m concerned with having to set the iso too high in order to get a good shutter speed at night or in the gym. I wouldn’t need the 2xTC all the time, it just depends on how close I can get to the action.

I'd not use any lens slower than f/2.8 if I had a choice. Some of us can't afford a 300 or 400 mm f/2.8, so its going to be a compromise between high ISO and acceptable shutter speed.

Cropping your 70-200mm f/2.8 images may very well be better than cranking up the ISO.

Its possible that you could gain a little with a 7D MK II, but not a full 1.6 as far as IQ goes. The much smaller pixels are easily blurred, so shutter speed should be 1.6 higher which means you are cranking up ISO again. In bright sun, there is more of a advantage with a 7D.

 

[Random Orbits]

OK, so here is my dilemma, buy the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III or the new 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have a 5dII and will be using the setup to shoot cheerleading at night football games or cheerleading competitions is a gym. I’m concerned with having to set the iso too high in order to get a good shutter speed at night or in the gym. I wouldn’t need the 2xTC all the time, it just depends on how close I can get to the action.

+1 to what others have said already. I've used the 70-200 II indoor at 3200 and 6400 ISOs at f/2.8. Being focal length limited may affect the types of shots you get, but it's a good trade most of the time. And if you really need the FL, then that is when the TCs come into play, but at least you have that choice.

 

[frozengogo]

Thanks. I was really leaning to the 70-200, but wanted to check my thinking.

 

[Loswr]

Thanks. I was really leaning to the 70-200, but wanted to check my thinking.

Yes, for that use the 70-200/2.8 is a better choice, IMO. I sometimes also take my 135/2 to indoor action events.

 

[Sabaki]

But to be fair, the 100-400 performs at its worst at 400mm.

Does yours? Mine was pretty sharp through the range, if anything sharpest at the long end (where I used it most). As I stated, mine were on par. When I tested them with my ISO 12233-type charts (I have the same QA-77 ones used by TDP), the 100-400 was very slightly sharper. In real world use (birds, mostly), there was no meaningful difference in IQ.

Keep in mind there is copy variation with lenses. Check the three copies of the 70-200 II with the 2xIII on TDP's ISO 12233 crops for an example.

Hey Neuro

I own the 400 f/5.6 but I've used a few 100-400's as we're a fairly large birding community and we often look at each other's kit.

Some of the guys own the older models of the 100-400 and I've found on those, the performance at 400mm is not great at all. Certainly not L level.
Some have recently got into birding and they've purchased their lenses in the last 3 years at most. The performance is different at 400mm on these newer iterations. I've heard of "phantom" upgrades so perhaps that could account for the difference in performance.

 

[bholliman]

OK, so here is my dilemma, buy the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III or the new 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have a 5dII and will be using the setup to shoot cheerleading at night football games or cheerleading competitions is a gym. I’m concerned with having to set the iso too high in order to get a good shutter speed at night or in the gym. I wouldn’t need the 2xTC all the time, it just depends on how close I can get to the action.

+1 to what others have said already. I've used the 70-200 II indoor at 3200 and 6400 ISOs at f/2.8. Being focal length limited may affect the types of shots you get, but it's a good trade most of the time. And if you really need the FL, then that is when the TCs come into play, but at least you have that choice.

Yes, for that use the 70-200/2.8 is a better choice, IMO. I sometimes also take my 135/2 to indoor action events.

Agreed. I decided to go with a 70-200 2.8 II and TC's since I frequently shoot between 70-200 and infrequently at longer focal lengths. When I shoot indoor sports I use my 135L and 70-200 + 1.4x TC. The 70-200 with TC's gives you great flexibility and a wide aperture if you need it.

 

[docsmith]

Am I wrong? Is the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii a match for the 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6?

I owned the 100-400L I for years before I got the 70-200 II. But the 70-200 II + 2xTC has replaced the 100-400L when I travel. In my opinion, it isn't quite as good, but it is very close to the 100-400L I @ 400 mm and I love the 70-200 II w/o the TC enough to make it worth putting up with the ergonomic issue and maybe a very slight, potentially unperceivable hit to IQ. That said, when I am home and if I want 400 mm, I take the 100-400L, but that is mostly for the ergonomic issue, not IQ.

So, are you "wrong" meh....I wouldn't fault someone for going either way.

 

[DiSnapper]

I often hear people citing the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii with the 2X TC III as a serious option as a wildlife lens and I don't quite agree.

I believe that the setup is touted as you end up with the best 70-200 out there which can double as a telephoto but I find the image quality to be a compromise.

The images I have seen, has me place both the 100-400 and definitely the 400 f/5.6 as better options.

Now an admission: I'm not a technical guy and cannot breakdown my feelings on the TC'd 70-200 into tech-talk but I find the overall IQ as poorer.

Am I wrong? Is the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii a match for the 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6?

I'm interested in hearing opinions on this but let's keep it sentiment free ie "I own that setup and I love my photos"...

Thanks peeps

I shoot with 70-200 2.8 ii and 2x iii combo on 7D. 2x extender tends to slow down the speed at with AF focus and it take very little hit on IQ front when compared to 70-200 ID.

 

[gekko]

I have a 7D and the 70-200 2.8 II with the 2XIII TC. My idea was to use this as a 400mm doing BIF. First of all, the TC makes the autofocus much slower, and second, the images never seem to be sharp. I have AFMAed the combination, and it is as "in focus" as it can be, but the images are never really sharp using the 2X TC. Without the TC the images from the 70-200 are excellent.

It came to the point where I wouldn't even bother using the TC combination because I knew the images wouldn't be keepers anyway. I ended up buying the 400mm 5.6L and the enthusiasm is back. This tele is razor sharp and focuses very much faster than the TC combination.

 

[Arctic Photo]

I don't have any of the 400mm options you mentioned, but I do have the 70-200 with the 2x extender. I shoot with a 5D MkIII.

I only bought it for the extra reach for occasions when I might need/want it. I haven't used it much, seems that over 200mm isn't my game so to say. But when I have used it I haven't been very satisfied with what I get. AF is slower and hunts a lot. As much as I love the 70-200, I am not satisfied at all with what I get with the extender on. But I won't invest in a 100-400 or longer prime anyway as I wouldn't use it that much. I guess it would take some more learning to be able to shoot at longer focal lengths so surely I will have to put in some work there also.

We have a safari trip planned within a couple of years and that will be my lens-extender combo, it will still be quite a solid combination I think.

 

[hendrik-sg]

maybe for indoor sports, if 200mm is not enough, instead of buying a new 100-400 and a 135 you can stretch your Budget to get a 300 2.8 IS, for maybe 3000-3500 this should be available used.

Thats a fantastic lens, with great AF and better you crop a Little than have 2 stops more ISO and worse AF on a 5.6 zoom. The newer 300 2.8 ii would bave even better IQ and AF, and most important better IS, but for sports when you can use a tripod this is maybe not woth 2x the price

 

[nc0b]

After I bought a new 400mm f/5.6 and a mint 300mm f/4, I never used my 2X TC III again. I had no complaints with the image quality with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II + 2X TC III, but the focus speed was quite slow, and the focus could get completely lost in the sky for BIF. I don't own any big whites that work well with the 2X, so I sold the converter. The new 100-400mm will be interesting, but I am quite happy with the old primes.