# 70-200 f2.8 MkI & Mk II and Extenders



## eddiemrg (Apr 26, 2013)

Dear all of you,
anyone who use extenders with 70-200 f2.8 IS USM Mk I or Mk II?

I am evaluating to buy one of them listed but probably Mk I is out of production, right?
And, an extender delivers good image quality on this lense?

thanks a lot,


----------



## dslrdummy (Apr 26, 2013)

I have the 70-200 ii and 2xiii . I prefer to crop rather than rely on the ext; IQ a lot better. Hanging out for a 300mm 2.8 which I understand works very well with both version iii extenders.


----------



## rs (Apr 26, 2013)

I have the 1.4x TC II and the 70-200 II - image quality even with the mk II extender wide open at f4 is pretty damn close to faultless. I really have no hesitation to use the combo when I need the reach.

I did previously own the 70-200 I, and that lens with the 1.4x TC II was approaching usable at f5.6, but nothing worth mentioning really. I also owned the 2x TC II at the same time as the 70-200 I, and I can honestly say that no matter what, it was impossible to get an image with that combo which was better than using no TC and cropping.


----------



## dmills (Apr 26, 2013)

From having used them, I would say that using an extender with the 70-200 mk1 + 2.0x II wasn't very good. However, mk2 + 2.0x III 3 is phenomenal. I would highly recommend it, even over a 100-400.


----------



## eddiemrg (Apr 26, 2013)

dmills said:


> From having used them, I would say that using an extender with the 70-200 mk1 + 2.0x II wasn't very good. However, mk2 + 2.0x III 3 is phenomenal. I would highly recommend it, even over a 100-400.



Other similar experiences? =)
thanks!


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 26, 2013)

eddiemrg said:


> dmills said:
> 
> 
> > From having used them, I would say that using an extender with the 70-200 mk1 + 2.0x II wasn't very good. However, mk2 + 2.0x III 3 is phenomenal. I would highly recommend it, even over a 100-400.
> ...



70-200II + 1.4x III is excellent (close to bare lens). 70-200II + 2.0x III is good although it degrades visibly at pixel level. From all the stuff I've read, the 70-200 II + 2.0x III is close enough to the 100-400 IQ wise, which is one reason why I'm passing on the 100-400 and waiting to see how good its mythical replacement will be. Until then, it'll be 70-200 II + 2.0x for me.


----------



## Swphoto (Apr 26, 2013)

Aside from the hassles of attaching/removing the TC, I've had no issues with the IQ from my 70-200 IS II and 2x TC II/III when stopped down to f/8 or above. Depending on how sharp you need the images to be, the quality may not be satisfactory wide open.

Maybe someone else can chime in on this, but despite what the TDP charts show for the 2xII vs III on this lens, I've seen no major improvement in IQ with the newer TC. Maybe I had a very good v2 copy and my v3 is lacking.

I've also used a 300 2.8 IS II/2x III combo with great results.


----------



## wcksmith (Apr 26, 2013)

I concur with the above comments - I have a 5DIII, 70-200 II & use the 2x III extender. The photos are incredibly sharp given the setup. The backgrounds may not have quite the quality bokeh that a prime 300 or 400 lens might, but it's not objectionable & I've been able to overcome that with a blur brush in PS.

I have wanted a 100-400 for some time but didn't like the push pull zoom. Even if they come out with the rumored new 100-400 with a standard zoom, I believe I'll stick with what I've got. With the 2x extender, I have a 140-400 5.6 that is excellent for my needs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 26, 2013)

70-200/2.8 MkI doesn't take extenders well. MkII takes the 2xII/III well, almost but not quite up to the IQ of the 100-400L.


----------

