70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x does work @ 400mm

[vaizki]

I've been stuck with the 400mm lens choice for a year now, not being able to decide between the 100-400 and the 400/5.6 non-IS. After some disappointing first results with the 7D + 70-200/2.8L IS mkII + 2x mkII combo - well I've gone back to it and put some more effort into finding out what it can do.

Some of my best examples from yesterday and today:

(Blackbird male from my garden - uncropped)

(Finnair Airbus - also from the garden, about half a frame crop)

Much better results this time and I don't know what I'm doing differently this time except maybe constant stopping it down to at least f/7.1 and most of the time f/9. Wide open the results were not nearly as good but then again I didn't take enough shots for a statistically valid comparison.

Contrast does suffer with the 2x but the sharpness I'm getting is acceptable. With the above shots, the bird is pretty much just a RAW conversion, the plane has added contrast and some tweaking to the sky color.

This makes me think - is the 2x III noticeably better? If it is, I could stomach the price as it seems I'm not going to need that 100-400 just yet ...

The blackbird is at 1/60th btw.. IS

 

[Chas]

I often use my old 70-200 non is and a 2x Kenko pro 300. Always gives me excellent results.

 

[tdcist]

I use my 70-200 2.8 II and 2x extender II on a regular basis, the results with these over the original 70-200 are much better, admittedly I have never used the 400, but I really have no complaints using the extender.

 

[vaizki]

Yea I'm happy with these results as well, especially considering that I'm "repurposing" a lens with a smallISH and inexpensiveISH extender.

I've had an extended google and it seems like the mk3 extenders are only worth their weight in gold with the new supertelefotos if at all. Oh well, that's another few hundred saved