7D & 70-200mkii + x2tc ?

AndyB1976

AndyB1976

Messages
2,377
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone tried the 70-200 mkII with a x2TC on the 7D.

My kit is now a bit lacking in the mid to tele range (55-250efs) and I'm leaning towards the above.

At the tele range I can't seem to settle on the 300mmf4, 400mmf5.6 or 100-400. One minute I am favouring the primes, but then the zooms flexibility, oh then IS, or do I prefer 400 with a longer MFD but quicker focus or the 300 with f4.:bonk:

I'm just concerned a little that I'd be expecting too much from the optics (&tc) and the crammed 7D sensor. I'd expect full frame to be more forgiving.

I prefer the overall mechanics (build, operation, MFD, IS and weatherproofness) of the 70-200mkII and tc but I'm unsure if optically I'll be no better off at 400 than a cheap efs zoom.

Any views or experiences welcome!


Andy:thumbs:
 
Hi Andy, I've got a 7D, 70-200 MkII and 2x MkIII converter but I only use the combo on rare occasions. Usually I use my Sigma 150-500 OS for aviation and wildlife shots, but I had the 70-200 and 2x on a while ago and got a few decent shots of a Tornado flying about. This is the only shot I have on Flickr from that time but it'll give you an idea. This is a Jpeg SOOC with no PP apart from a crop. It was shot at 400mm, ISO250, 1/1250sec @ f5.6 (wide open).

8291523218_b5c9ceea26_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

The AF still remains fairly fast and accurate, but it's definitely a better combo on my 5D3 giving better IQ by far. I'll try and get a few more shots tomorrow and come back to the thread.

I managed to get out for a couple of shots today, just as it had started snowing so you can imagine how poor the light was. This was taken at around 70 feet distance at 400mm at f8, 1/60sec, ISO 800 and +1EV, it's been heavily cropped but no other PP.

8468367992_5c9b9a5111_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

Hopoe this helps, personally I always pick up my Sigma first when shooting long distance, but the 70-200 and 2x converter comes in handy for my backup body when needed.
 
Last edited:
100-400 ?

I guess its quite subjective but I have read by the time you strap a x2 TC on the 70-200 IQ is about the same ?
There is also a slight difference in that at under 400mm the 100-400 will be a little quicker.
 
Thanks for the replies and nice work on your 500px and flickr sites - I had to have a nosey of course :lol:

Joe, Interesting vid there and I ended up watching all of it. Like the use of extension rings to stack the tele-converters on the big primes.

Stuart, thanks for the example. I might also consider the Sigma too.

Mark, cheers for the advice on the 100-400. Its definitely not ruled out.


Andy
 
Hi Andy

I have owened all of the above and have the 70-200f2.8ISLII with x2III TC combination still.

Basically, this gets you a damn fine 70f2.8, 100f2.8 and 200f2.8 all rolled into one package plus with a x1.4III a 280 f4 that has superb IQ plus obviously with a x2III onboard a VERY decent 400f5.6. All with 3-4 stops of IS !

The IQ of the 70-200ISLII with a x2III attached is as good (or better ?) than the 100-400 and probably as good as the 300 and 400 primes you mention.

The only drawback is that the AF speed seems a bit slower with the x2TC attached but it is still no slouch.

Got to add that for various reasons you cannot go far wrong with any of these lenses though. I have the combination above for sheer versatility and would not change for anything.

Good luck with your selection though.

Regards

Gary
 
Hi Andy, it is always a tough choice but you have to narrow it down to what type of photography you will most likely be doing. I had the 300mm F4L + 1.4TC on the 50D, it was a good combo. I then went with a 70-200 F4L with TC and then the 100-400. I have since sold that to fund something else and I am back at the same position as you :lol: Tbh the 70-200 was good to use at any event I was invited to and for taking shots of the Grandchildren so I think another one plus a TC could well happen at some point.

EF-S55-250mm

Coal tit by Richard Venn, on Flickr


EF100-400mm

Coal tit by Richard Venn, on Flickr


EF70-200mm f/4L USM +1.4

Blackcap by Richard Venn, on Flickr
 
daugirdas said:
If 70-200mm was my main range (which it sort of is) then the lens makes sense, and you can occasionally supplement it with tc. I wouldn't buy that if your main aim is perfect 400mm
Click to expand...



Yeah I do use that range (55-250) a bit athough virtually locked at 250mm.

The perfect affordable 400 is the problem eh :lol:

400 f5.6 - possibly too long MFD,no IS, great optics and focus.
300F4 + tc - possibly not as sharp, slower focus, extra cost, better MFD & IS
100-400 - as above but with zoom flexibility.

Ill probably go down the 70-200 route and might be able to try out the teleconvertors locally before buying into the 400mm range.
 
Last edited:
Cheers for your input Rich.

The performance of that little 55-250 (for the cost) has always held me back on an upgrade.

Maybe it should just be a x1.4 step first (280@f4) must have benefits too.
 
AndyB1976 said:
Cheers for your input Rich.

The performance of that little 55-250 (for the cost) has always held me back on an upgrade.

Maybe it should just be a x1.4 step first (280@f4) must have benefits too.
Click to expand...

I'd skip 1.4x. At 280mm it doesn't look that much longer, but it does look a bit softer. I sold mine for lack of use half a year ago and didn't miss it once.

I may be wrong but it probably makes more sense on the big fat white lenses
 
Cheers daugirdas

I've got a feeling the 400f5.6 is maybe the way to go at 400.

Anybody know if the longish MFD is a problem with small garden birds. Would an extension tube (not teleconvertor) render the AF inoperable?

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top