Reference pics using 7D ii, 70-200 2.8 with TC 2x iii?

[sanjosedave]

My ability to return the Canon TC 2x iii has passed. I haven't been able to get an image that isn't soft.

Does anyone have any tips on how to use the combination to get the best image possible?

I've been shooting wide open to blur the background. Mostly birds/wildlife. Thx

 

[Loswr]

Tried AFMA with the combo?

 

[Don Haines]

what lens are you using?

A crop camera and a 2X teleconverter needs a really sharp lens to work well....

 

[Loswr]

Good point. I assumed the 70-200/2.8 IS II, the non-IS would be a bit soft, the IS MkI would be worse.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have the 2X TC MkII and the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI, I never use them together as the IQ and focus is well below useful. I also have the 1.4TC MkIII and that is very good on the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI.

 

[Don Haines]

Good point. I assumed the 70-200/2.8 IS II, the non-IS would be a bit soft, the IS MkI would be worse.

personal experience with the 70-200F4 IS, which is actually a tiny bit sharper than the F2.8 IS II on the long end, is not to use the 2X teleconverter with the 7D2. The 1.4X increases the resolving power on distant objects, the 2X makes things worse than the 1.4X.... of course this is not the F2.8 version of the lens (whichever version he has) and with the version II teleconverter, but it does show some of the limitations of teleconverters on cameras with smaller pixels....

 

[Ozarker]

I regret spending the money on my 2x III. I've tried it on my 400mm f/5.6L (manual focus only with the converter) and my 70-200mm f/2.8L II and it just doesn't impress.

I need to try it on my 135mm f/2L and see how that works. I think that would make it an f/4? That is the only lens I have that I think it would be useful for. That makes the lens an apparent 432mm f/4 (on crop) and a lightweight combination faster than the 400mm f/5.6L

However, I have not AFMA any of the above combos... and I should get around to that. I won't for the 400 f/5.6 though.

 

[Loswr]

I regret spending the money on my 2x III. I've tried it on my 400mm f/5.6L (manual focus only with the converter) and my 70-200mm f/2.8L II and it just doesn't impress.

I need to try it on my 135mm f/2L and see how that works. I think that would make it an f/4? That is the only lens I have that I think it would be useful for. That makes the lens an apparent 432mm f/4 (on crop) and a lightweight combination faster than the 400mm f/5.6L

However, I have not AFMA any of the above combos... and I should get around to that. I won't for the 400 f/5.6 though.

The 2x TC's are really best suited to only a few lenses. A 2x TC will give good results with the 'great whites' (200/2 through 600/4, ok with the 800/5.6), and the MkIII TCs should be paired with the MkII lenses. The 70-200/2.8L IS II does well with the 2xII/III, results are equivalent to the original 100-400L. The 100-400 II is better, and either 100-400 handles better than the 70-200 II + 2x, so the only reason for the latter combo is if you already own the 70-200 II and only occasionally need 400mm.

You likely will not be happy with the 135L + 2x.

For combos that should give good IQ with a 2x, it's definitely important to AFMA the combo if you're going to use phase AF, the TC can significantly change the optimal adjustment value.

 

[tomscott]

Here are a few with my 70-200mm MKII with a MKII (not MKIII) tele converter so technically should be softer and I've never had an issue with it. I shot motorsport with it for 4 years and have been published in all sorts of magazines etc. Infact my profile picture is of me at Silverstone a few years ago with a 5DMKIII and 70-200mm MKI non IS and 2x converter.

Here are a few with my 7DMKII

Common Rabbit, Thacka nature reserve, Penrith, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Robin, Thacka, Thacka nature reserve, Penrith, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Charolais, Thacka, Penrith, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Swaledale Sheep, Martindale Valley, Ullswater, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Canada Goose, Ullswater, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Wren, Martindale Valley, Ullswater, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Stags, Red Deer, Martindale Valley Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Stag and his Doe's, Red Deer, Martindale Valley Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Non of these are soft. But its a def a combo that takes time to get the most out of. Some of those were shot at 400mm (640mm on 7DMKII) and at 1/60th.

Click on the flickr images and zoom in.

Here are a few with my 5DMKIII and 40D from earlier in the year

Sideways Action, Historic Formula 1, Silverstone Classics 25th Anniversary by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Courage C26S, Group C, 1989, Sarthe, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

BMW E30 M3, No.83, Tim Harvey, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Williams FW07C, Leyland #37, 1981, driven by C. D'Ansembourg, Legends of Modern F1, Silverstone Classic 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Jordan 194, Benetton #3, 1994, driven by Tony Worswick, Legends of Modern F1, Silverstone Classic 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

I have also used the combo for birds in flight and although it is slow I've had great success with it.

Puffin in flight with a mouth full of Sand Eels, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Gannet in flight, Farne Islands, Sea Houses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Puffin in flight with a mouth full of Sand Eels, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

also i find the detail more than acceptable

Razorbill, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Shag, cliffside, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Puffin with a mouth full of Sand Eels, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Guillemot with fish, Farne Islands by Tom Scott, on Flickr

I also had the 70-200mm MKI non IS and shot it with the MKII extender with my 5DMKIII and 40D no problem at all.

Jaguar XJR-14, No.8, Warwick, Group C Endurance, SIlverstone Classics 2013 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

The nice thing about the 70-200mm and the 2x combo is that you can take it off and have a 2.8 lens and up to 320mm on a crop body. I love the look of F2.8 especially with vehicles at events. When shooting for magazine or newspaper the IQ is more than acceptable. Had great success with it over the years until I caved this year and bought a 100-400mm.

Carrying 2 bodies a 16-35mm 24-70mm 70-200mm F2.8 and 100-400mm (roughly 12kg) 25 odd miles a day when shooting motorsport events is rough on your back and arms so the 2x was always a great tool and a lot of follow motorsport photographers do the same. When your trackside you don't need big 400 F2.8s unless you are looking to freeze action and isolate but they tend to be fairly boring images compared to panning images although they certainly have their place. Zooms are more useable as subjects come toward you.

I now have the 100-400mm MKII and it is sharper but the 70-200mm with a 2 x is still a great combo imo.

For the above with people that can't get good images and its 'too soft' I have to call rubbish on those statements, if you use the combo enough and know how to get the most out of it then you can create some amazing images and the above images maybe not amazing but show you can get good results out of the combo on higher and lower pixel density cameras.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I regret spending the money on my 2x III. I've tried it on my 400mm f/5.6L (manual focus only with the converter) and my 70-200mm f/2.8L II and it just doesn't impress.

I need to try it on my 135mm f/2L and see how that works. I think that would make it an f/4? That is the only lens I have that I think it would be useful for. That makes the lens an apparent 432mm f/4 (on crop) and a lightweight combination faster than the 400mm f/5.6L

However, I have not AFMA any of the above combos... and I should get around to that. I won't for the 400 f/5.6 though.

The 2x TC's are really best suited to only a few lenses. A 2x TC will give good results with the 'great whites' (200/2 through 600/4, ok with the 800/5.6), and the MkIII TCs should be paired with the MkII lenses. The 70-200/2.8L IS II does well with the 2xII/III, results are equivalent to the original 100-400L. The 100-400 II is better, and either 100-400 handles better than the 70-200 II + 2x, so the only reason for the latter combo is if you already own the 70-200 II and only occasionally need 400mm.

You likely will not be happy with the 135L + 2x.

For combos that should give good IQ with a 2x, it's definitely important to AFMA the combo if you're going to use phase AF, the TC can significantly change the optimal adjustment value.

Agreed, based on how the 135L looks on APS-C, I wouldn't get hopes up with using it with 2xTC.
(e.g. My Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC on my 60D outresolves my 135L on my 60D at identical f-stops.)

 

[scyrene]

Imho (and from what I've read), it's worth stopping down when adding the 2x converters, even if it's by less than a full stop. I pair mine with the 500L and stop down from f/8 to f/10 - this improves sharpness a bit, without hitting the diffraction limit (but that would vary depending on your body).

 

[AlanF]

Here are a few with my 70-200mm MKII with a MKII (not MKIII) tele converter so technically should be softer and I've never had an issue with it. I shot motorsport with it for 4 years and have been published in all sorts of magazines etc. Infact my profile picture is of me at Silverstone a few years ago with a 5DMKIII and 70-200mm MKI non IS and 2x converter.

Here are a few with my 7DMKII

Common Rabbit, Thacka nature reserve, Penrith, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Robin, Thacka, Thacka nature reserve, Penrith, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Charolais, Thacka, Penrith, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Swaledale Sheep, Martindale Valley, Ullswater, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Canada Goose, Ullswater, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Wren, Martindale Valley, Ullswater, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Stags, Red Deer, Martindale Valley Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Stag and his Doe's, Red Deer, Martindale Valley Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Non of these are soft. But its a def a combo that takes time to get the most out of. Some of those were shot at 400mm (640mm on 7DMKII) and at 1/60th.

Click on the flickr images and zoom in.

Here are a few with my 5DMKIII and 40D from earlier in the year

Sideways Action, Historic Formula 1, Silverstone Classics 25th Anniversary by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Courage C26S, Group C, 1989, Sarthe, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

BMW E30 M3, No.83, Tim Harvey, Silverstone Classics 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Williams FW07C, Leyland #37, 1981, driven by C. D'Ansembourg, Legends of Modern F1, Silverstone Classic 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Jordan 194, Benetton #3, 1994, driven by Tony Worswick, Legends of Modern F1, Silverstone Classic 2015 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

I have also used the combo for birds in flight and although it is slow I've had great success with it.

Puffin in flight with a mouth full of Sand Eels, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Gannet in flight, Farne Islands, Sea Houses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Puffin in flight with a mouth full of Sand Eels, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

also i find the detail more than acceptable

Razorbill, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Shag, cliffside, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Puffin with a mouth full of Sand Eels, Farne Islands, Seahouses by Tom Scott, on Flickr

Guillemot with fish, Farne Islands by Tom Scott, on Flickr

I also had the 70-200mm MKI non IS and shot it with the MKII extender with my 5DMKIII and 40D no problem at all.

Jaguar XJR-14, No.8, Warwick, Group C Endurance, SIlverstone Classics 2013 by Tom Scott, on Flickr

The nice thing about the 70-200mm and the 2x combo is that you can take it off and have a 2.8 lens and up to 320mm on a crop body. I love the look of F2.8 especially with vehicles at events. When shooting for magazine or newspaper the IQ is more than acceptable. Had great success with it over the years until I caved this year and bought a 100-400mm.

Carrying 2 bodies a 16-35mm 24-70mm 70-200mm F2.8 and 100-400mm (roughly 12kg) 25 odd miles a day when shooting motorsport events is rough on your back and arms so the 2x was always a great tool and a lot of follow motorsport photographers do the same. When your trackside you don't need big 400 F2.8s unless you are looking to freeze action and isolate but they tend to be fairly boring images compared to panning images although they certainly have their place. Zooms are more useable as subjects come toward you.

I now have the 100-400mm MKII and it is sharper but the 70-200mm with a 2 x is still a great combo imo.

For the above with people that can't get good images and its 'too soft' I have to call rubbish on those statements, if you use the combo enough and know how to get the most out of it then you can create some amazing images and the above images maybe not amazing but show you can get good results out of the combo on higher and lower pixel density cameras.

Great photos as usual Tom! How are you liking the 100-400mm II?

 

[tomscott]

Here are a few with my 70-200mm MKII with a MKII (not MKIII) tele converter so technically should be softer and I've never had an issue with it. I shot motorsport with it for 4 years and have been published in all sorts of magazines etc. Infact my profile picture is of me at Silverstone a few years ago with a 5DMKIII and 70-200mm MKI non IS and 2x converter.

Here are a few with my 7DMKII

Non of these are soft. But its a def a combo that takes time to get the most out of. Some of those were shot at 400mm (640mm on 7DMKII) and at 1/60th.

Click on the flickr images and zoom in.

Here are a few with my 5DMKIII and 40D from earlier in the year

I have also used the combo for birds in flight and although it is slow I've had great success with it.

also i find the detail more than acceptable

I also had the 70-200mm MKI non IS and shot it with the MKII extender with my 5DMKIII and 40D no problem at all.

The nice thing about the 70-200mm and the 2x combo is that you can take it off and have a 2.8 lens and up to 320mm on a crop body. I love the look of F2.8 especially with vehicles at events. When shooting for magazine or newspaper the IQ is more than acceptable. Had great success with it over the years until I caved this year and bought a 100-400mm.

Carrying 2 bodies a 16-35mm 24-70mm 70-200mm F2.8 and 100-400mm (roughly 12kg) 25 odd miles a day when shooting motorsport events is rough on your back and arms so the 2x was always a great tool and a lot of follow motorsport photographers do the same. When your trackside you don't need big 400 F2.8s unless you are looking to freeze action and isolate but they tend to be fairly boring images compared to panning images although they certainly have their place. Zooms are more useable as subjects come toward you.

I now have the 100-400mm MKII and it is sharper but the 70-200mm with a 2 x is still a great combo imo.

For the above with people that can't get good images and its 'too soft' I have to call rubbish on those statements, if you use the combo enough and know how to get the most out of it then you can create some amazing images and the above images maybe not amazing but show you can get good results out of the combo on higher and lower pixel density cameras.

Great photos as usual Tom! How are you liking the 100-400mm II?

Thanks Alan! Well I'm afraid to say that I haven't managed to get out and shoot with it for anything worth noting. I had a problem on arrival they accidentally sent me V1 not 2 so it was about a week turn around. From what I have shot its about the same as what I get from the 70-200mm so incredibly impressive, also the speed at which it focuses with the 1.4x converter MKIII is fantastic. Add that to the 7DMKII with how many focus points it has across the whole frame and up to 896mm its a fantastic combination.

I have been preparing for my trip to Africa for 2 months, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia for another 2 months and leave on the 7th Jan. So I have been busy getting all the itinerary sorted, visas which have been a nightmare etc etc

Also the floods up here in cumbria have been horrendous we've had about 2 days of rest-bite with the rain so I haven't really been out as its been hard to get anywhere.

But on my trip I'm doing all the main game parks Africa also Gorillas, Orangutang's, Komodo's etc so should be an absolutely fantastic work out for the combo! Will update my thread as I go

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My ability to return the Canon TC 2x iii has passed. I haven't been able to get an image that isn't soft.

Does anyone have any tips on how to use the combination to get the best image possible?

I've been shooting wide open to blur the background. Mostly birds/wildlife. Thx

That combination requires a pretty stable tripod or very fast shutter speed. The Combo should be AFMA'd, just doing the lens is not enough.

You should get acceptably sharp images at 400mm, but viewing at 100% is very demanding.

 

[Pixel]

This sounds as confusing as all gets out but according to Chuck Westfall the version III extenders are optimized to work best with the version II lenses. A version III extender on anything other than a version II lens will work pretty much identically to the version II extender.
Summary, don't waste your money on a version III extender unless you have version II lenses.

 

[Click]

Here are a few with my 70-200mm MKII with a MKII (not MKIII) tele converter so technically should be softer and I've never had an issue with it. I shot motorsport with it for 4 years and have been published in all sorts of magazines etc. Infact my profile picture is of me at Silverstone a few years ago with a 5DMKIII and 70-200mm MKI non IS and 2x converter.

Here are a few with my 7DMKII

Great shots, Tom.

 

[Loswr]

This sounds as confusing as all gets out but according to Chuck Westfall the version III extenders are optimized to work best with the version II lenses. A version III extender on anything other than a version II lens will work pretty much identically to the version II extender.
Summary, don't waste your money on a version III extender unless you have version II lenses.

That applies to AF performance, AFAIK. Optically the 1.4xII/III are similar, but the 2xIII is better than its predecessor.

 

[kaptainkatsu]

Thanks for the shots! I was debating between the 70-200 2.8 II or the 100-400 II and ended up getting the 70-200. I might be buying the 2xIII soon until I have the funds to buy the 100-400 II.

However carrying 2x 7d2s, 16-35, 70-200 and 100-400 will make for a long tiring day. 3.5lbs for the 100-400II vs .7lbs for the 2x will make for an easier day.

 

[Ozarker]

I regret spending the money on my 2x III. I've tried it on my 400mm f/5.6L (manual focus only with the converter) and my 70-200mm f/2.8L II and it just doesn't impress.

I need to try it on my 135mm f/2L and see how that works. I think that would make it an f/4? That is the only lens I have that I think it would be useful for. That makes the lens an apparent 432mm f/4 (on crop) and a lightweight combination faster than the 400mm f/5.6L

However, I have not AFMA any of the above combos... and I should get around to that. I won't for the 400 f/5.6 though.

The 2x TC's are really best suited to only a few lenses. A 2x TC will give good results with the 'great whites' (200/2 through 600/4, ok with the 800/5.6), and the MkIII TCs should be paired with the MkII lenses. The 70-200/2.8L IS II does well with the 2xII/III, results are equivalent to the original 100-400L. The 100-400 II is better, and either 100-400 handles better than the 70-200 II + 2x, so the only reason for the latter combo is if you already own the 70-200 II and only occasionally need 400mm.

You likely will not be happy with the 135L + 2x.

For combos that should give good IQ with a 2x, it's definitely important to AFMA the combo if you're going to use phase AF, the TC can significantly change the optimal adjustment value.

Agreed, based on how the 135L looks on APS-C, I wouldn't get hopes up with using it with 2xTC.
(e.g. My Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC on my 60D outresolves my 135L on my 60D at identical f-stops.)

I think you y'all are correct. After posting I remembered that I do have a shot of a goose using the 70-200 II and the 2x III with a B+W circular polarizer, hand held. This is from a 70D. The photo is just ok to me. There is very little detail.

I'm wondering if results would be better with a 7D MKII. I've yet to try the 2x on my 5D MKiii.

 

[Maximilian59]

Helle, I am thinking to use this combo also for occasional near makro shots. With a shortest focal distance of 1.2 m and 400 mm it could be great for photographing butterflies and insects and wildflowers. How is your experience? Would you recommend it for this purpose. My Camera is a 5d MK III.