Archive 2013 · 70-200 plus extender

gregfountain
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 70-200 plus extender

I’m thinking about picking up an extender for my Canon 70-200 2.8 to see if I can try my hand at some wildlife. Anyone use this sort of combination for shoot birds or animals in nature? Would a 1.4x or 2x be better? I think the 1.4 would give me f/4 and the 2x would put me at f/5.6 but does that even matter on a 5D3 shooting at f/8 through f/11?

Any advice or shared experience would be appreciated. I just don’t don;t have the justification for buying a long lens at this time, and an extender is a much easier sell to my better half

Thanks,

Greg

Dec 04, 2013 at 03:15 PM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 70-200 plus extender

You are right about the apertures. I have a 70-200 in the mail on its way to me right now. I will attempt to use it with 1.4 and 2.0TCs and see how it compares to my 100-400. I think with 1.4 I've read it is very good. IQ with 2.O at 400mm is supposed to be very similar to the 100-400 BUT the AF on the 100-400 is said to be better than the AF on the 70-200 + 2.0TC. Is your 70-200 the newest mkII? I'm not sure if it is as good with the older version or non-IS version. But with the newest IS II and MkIII TCs, a very famous bird photographer swears by it over his pervious 100-400. However, that same bird photographer makes money having people buy products through his site so I'm waiting to test it myself.

Dec 04, 2013 at 03:31 PM

gregfountain
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 70-200 plus extender

arbitrage wrote:
You are right about the apertures. I have a 70-200 in the mail on its way to me right now. I will attempt to use it with 1.4 and 2.0TCs and see how it compares to my 100-400. I think with 1.4 I've read it is very good. IQ with 2.O at 400mm is supposed to be very similar to the 100-400 BUT the AF on the 100-400 is said to be better than the AF on the 70-200 + 2.0TC. Is your 70-200 the newest mkII? I'm not sure if it is as good with the older version or...Show more →

I have the mk1 version with IS, and yeah, I have also heard the 1.4x is better.

Dec 04, 2013 at 05:48 PM

mikedec
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 70-200 plus extender

I have the 70-200mm f2.8 IS vI and purchased the 1.4x mark III for use with it. I was not satisfied with the results.

I ended up purchasing the 70-200mm f2.8 IS vII. I felt that was a better combo with the 1.4x mark III. I felt it produced sharper images.

I also have the 2x extender mark III and I am pleased with that combo as well.

Dec 04, 2013 at 05:55 PM

Charlie Shugart
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 70-200 plus extender

Not my bailiwick, Greg.
But let me remind you that a 1.4 extender on 200mm gives you less than a 300mm reach. And that's pretty short for birds.
Also- you can buy some very good 400mm f5.6 prime lenses (from independent manufacturers like Tokina) for little more than a good extender. I'd be surprised if you could tell the difference in image quality between a prime lens like that and a 2X on your zoom.
Charlie

Dec 04, 2013 at 06:22 PM

Larry Williams
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 70-200 plus extender

Hi Greg,

Funny that you have asked about this because I've been messing around with my 70 - 200 and extenders. I'm going to Costa Rica this winter and not wanting to drag my 500mm along. I have yet decided about the 500mm because it's been my go to lens for birding. I do have a 100 - 400, but prefer the 70 - 200mm with extenders. The 70 - 200 AF is faster and seems to be more accurate. That's just my opinion. I've only been using the 100-400 with a tube for close-up photos, which works perfectly at 400mm.

I have attached two photos:

First is a RAW photo converted to JPEG. The photo was shot with an EOS 1-D Mark IV plus the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM in conjunction with the Extender EF 2x III. The settings were ISO 1000, F/16, and 1/400s at 400mm. The only alterations to the photo was: cropped to a 5 X 7, changed from 16 bit to 8 bit, and sized @ 800 pixels at the vertical, and down loaded to FM under 350.

The second photo is the same photo that has gone thru Post processing.

I have found that I get super results with both the 1.4 and 2.0 extenders. The new version of III of the extenders are much better then previous extenders. IMHO.

Good Luck,

Larry

Dec 04, 2013 at 07:00 PM

KCollett
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 70-200 plus extender

Interesting topic Greg. The 70-200 performs well. With my f4 version, I prefer it without extenders, but does give pretty good results with the 1.4III. Approachability it the key here. If the critter won't let you get close, the 70-200 with extenders may not be enough. But for starting out, it is an excellent lens.

Dec 04, 2013 at 09:16 PM

gregfountain
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 70-200 plus extender

Thanks all the comments and the samples Larry. That is a really fantastic job of getting rid of the unwanted elements! I think I am going to just pick up a used 1.4x and see what happens. I suppose I could just sell it if it does’t work out.

Charlie: I’ve thought of that. I know Sigma has a couple of decent zooms, but I need to do more research on them. The reason I want to try the extender first is that it has other potential applications.

Thanks!

Greg

Dec 05, 2013 at 04:13 PM


FM Forums \| Nature & Wildlife \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.