# 70-200L IS Mk I with 2x extender



## nikkito (Apr 13, 2012)

I'm thinking about buying this extender.
have you used it? regarding autofocus, will it be too slow for photojournalism or sports?
is quality really much affected?

thanks for sharing your experiences

Nico


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2012)

The MkII holds up pretty well optically to the 2x TC, the MkI not so much. I wouldn't recommend it.  The 75% reduction in AF speed doesn't help, either.


----------



## nikkito (Apr 13, 2012)

Thanks a lot, Neuro. With the 1.4x extender does it happen the same?


----------



## Paul W. H (Apr 13, 2012)

I own a Canon EF f/2.8 L IS USM MK1 and use it on it's own, with a MKII 1.4 TC or MKII 2.0 TC and find it works very well for me when photographing animals in wildlife parks with my EOS 7D.

Paul W. H


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 14, 2012)

I found the MK I lens to be only fair at 200mm (Where you would be using it) The 1.4X Ver 2 TC causes a lot of CA near the edges as well as additional fuzzniess. The MK III is noticibly better.


You can see what a carefully done test looks like here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


----------



## AMPhoto (Apr 14, 2012)

Its fast enough for sports, as long as you are careful. Obviously its not as good as just the lens and it helps to have a good camera body, but I use it for surf photography with the old 5D. Not exactly a fast focuser. I find that I want to stop it down to f/8, f/11 or f/16 if I can get away with it to keep it sharp especially when Im cropping in a lot which usually happens while shoot surfing. Definitely best used on sunny days.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 14, 2012)

The 2X extender comes in VI, II, or III. Newer is better but more $. And there are Sigma and Kenko options as well.

If you have the $, I'd consider a 100-400 IS, or 300mm f4 IS if not, or just don't want another lens, I'd go with an extender.


----------



## mhvogel.de (Apr 14, 2012)

I recently had a similar desicion (70-200 MKII) and went for the 100-400, not for the extender (III-version), for the following reasons:

- If looking at the price (Extender rougly costs 1/3 of the 100-400 in Germany), the value of the 100-400 is much better. I can resell the 100-400 for a resonable price, as soon as I can afford the new 200-400.

- For my type of work adding the extender to 70-200 on the fly takes to long, is to complicated and dirt might get into the optical system.

- I'm quiet pleased with the optical quality of the 100-400 (on a 5DII), it's much better then 70-200L IS Mk I + 2x extender (almost as good as the 70-200L IS Mk II + 1.4x) . AF is fast (on a 5DII).

- Depending on which sport we are talking about (outdoor) the 100-400 might be ok/fast enough. For indoor sports both the 100-400 & the combination above maybe not are the first choice regarding speed/aperture, but they at least are resonably priced.

Summarizing/my Advise:
Get the 100-400, it's a good lense and the far better investment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2012)

+1. I prefer the 100-400 to the 70-200 II + 2x (and that's the 70-200 MkII which remains decent with a TC). I use the latter combo if it's raining, though.


----------

