hi want a 70-200l 2.8 IS but could do with the reach of 100-400L.Mainly to photograph son playing football(fullsize pitch ,day light),some wild life and general .70-200 more pracital lens and used a lot more. With extenders will get extra reach at a 3rd of the price of 100-400L.How would images compare?Are Kenko exten. as good as Canon?
70-200L 2.8 IS with 1.4+2x instead of 100-400L
- Thread starter jc450d
- Start date
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,757
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
All I could say Canon 2x is not rated too well. 1.4x is certainly much better and retains a lot of quality. Kenko 2x could be better than Canon?
- Messages
- 10,072
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I used this combo for a good while.. it wasn't close to good in unfavourable conditions, but I got some cracking results from it when things went my way.. usually like birds sitting very close and some good light.
It isn't very forgiving for cropping or darkness
But having owned the 100-400 before that, it wasn't anything new to me.. just a little harder!
It isn't very forgiving for cropping or darkness
But having owned the 100-400 before that, it wasn't anything new to me.. just a little harder!
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Kenko 2x appears to do very well in the centre of the image but falls off quite rapidly long before you get near the periphery. Small objects like birds may well fall into Kenko territory but anything taking up more of the frame would be better served by an EF2xII
A good review of T/C image quality here (it's in German but the basics are fairly obvious)
Bob
- Messages
- 5,000
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Using this chart:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=6&API=4
it appears that the 70-200mm F4.0 L IS USM gives quite good results from F8.0 when used with the Canon 2x extender.
Unless you need the extra stop the F4.0 is quite a bit cheaper.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=6&API=4
it appears that the 70-200mm F4.0 L IS USM gives quite good results from F8.0 when used with the Canon 2x extender.
Unless you need the extra stop the F4.0 is quite a bit cheaper.
- Messages
- 10,072
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
..and autofocus! It won't unless it's on a 1D!
dinners
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bit confused here as the OP is asking about 70-200 f2.8 IS + 1.4X or 2X TC being a cheaper alternative than the 100-400 ?
I thought the 70-200 f2.8 IS was pretty similar in price to the 100-400.
I'm swithering over the 100-400 or a 70-200 f2.8 (no IS) at the moment.
I thought the 70-200 f2.8 IS was pretty similar in price to the 100-400.
I'm swithering over the 100-400 or a 70-200 f2.8 (no IS) at the moment.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I think this is the comparison: 70-200 + 2x, vs 100-400.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=6&API=2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=6&API=2
You nailed it.I currently have 50-250.I want an L lens. I know i need more reach and thought 70-200L 2.8 is with both extenders rather than 100-400L as i will get more use with 70-200 .I wanted to know what image quality would be with both extenders.