Upgrade 70-200 2.8 is to version II and add 2x TC, or get 100-400L?

[Tcapp]

Good luck, I tried a 70-200mkI and a MK II with a Canon 2X MK II TC. Its just ok, AF is slow, and as it gets late in the day, AF on my 1D MK III no longer worked, while my 100-400mmL was going strong.

If you do not use it much, and have ideal light, it should be passable. If you haven't used the 100-400mm L, you might think its wonderful. The MK III TC should be a noticible improvement over the MK II, but at $500, its not cheap.

I'll have to review the photos on the computer, but it seemed to go pretty well. It was a pretty bright day today for the most part. The MK iii tc had a rebate to it was like 460 instead of 500. I apparently just missed getting a used one for half price. I'll have to post a few photos when i get around to it.

AF sucked because i was behind a chain link fence, and that just threw everything off with the tc, and on the 7d. The 5d3 with no tc did ok seeing past the fence.

 

[bkorcel]

If you can and your camera supports it try to micro focus adjust with and without the 2XIII. I've seen a number of copies that focus differently with and without. For example a 60D without is tack sharp but soft with the doubler. The focus point is off with the doubler and there is no way to MFA the camera so you are SOL.

7D and 5D models allow MFA and doing so sharpens it up considerably.

I would not get a 100-400L. I had one for a while and returned it. The focus hunts quite a bit which I suspect is because it's not a 2.8 lens and there is some light and contrast loss that the AF needs for fast consistent AF. I was shooting birds in flight and had much better luck with the 70-200L and 2X at F5.6. The 100-400 loses a good deal of contrast wide open which is also another set back for the AF system which relies on that for quick and accurate AF.

 

[Marsu42]

70-200II + TC, since you'll use it for your living.

Indeed, but if you (or anybody else) would do it during your spare time for fun, constantly putting on & off a tc is a major annoyance, with the 1.4x tc I have I'm always thinking if it's worth the hassle for one shot.

 

[drjlo]

70-200II + TC, since you'll use it for your living.

Indeed, but if you (or anybody else) would do it during your spare time for fun, constantly putting on & off a tc is a major annoyance, with the 1.4x tc I have I'm always thinking if it's worth the hassle for one shot.

For me, it would be much more annoying if I had to carry 70-200 II Plus a 300 or 400 mm lens. I gladly carry the diminutive Kenko 2x TC, and swapping it in takes like 10 seconds. From dusk today.


DZ3C4185 by drjlo1, on Flickr

 

[Marsu42]

For me, it would be much more annoying if I had to carry 70-200 II Plus a 300 or 400 mm lens.

Well, there is the 70-300L which is rather inexpensive in comparison to the 70-200+tc alternative and more suited for travel. But the 70-300L is a less frightening travel/walkaround lens with a native/fast af @300mm, and not designed for low-light shooting when the (max.) open aperture matters. For professional use and manual exposure, the way to go is a fixed aperture lens.