# Upgrade 70-200 2.8 is to version II and add 2x TC, or get 100-400L?



## Tcapp (May 31, 2012)

I figure the price would be similar between doing both of these things... 

Thoughts?


----------



## Razor2012 (May 31, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> I figure the price would be similar between doing both of these things...
> 
> Thoughts?



I guess you'd have to get about 1300 bucks out of your 70-200 2.8L IS. The 70-200 2.8II is around $2500 + $500 for the 2xIII. The new version is sharp & fast, but I'm not sure what you are primarily going to be shooting. If you were most of the time using 400mm, then I'd probably say go with the 100-400. But I'm not positive about the IQ with the 2x on the 70-200. I'm looking at the 2x myself for occasional use, and from what I've heard it's working very well. There are a few on here who own the 100-400, so they'll be able to comment more on it.


----------



## Tcapp (May 31, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > I figure the price would be similar between doing both of these things...
> ...



I do weddings primarily, but want the extra reach for wildlife/sport stuff. upgrading my 70-200 would give me better photos during ceremonies when i use the 70-200 for 80% of the photos, although i've never really had many complaints about the current version. Sometimes flair would kill my photo (with hood) but its a rare occurrence. Sharpness isn't perfect, but i never thought badly about it. I'm not one who gets overly obsessive about sharpness. Its more about getting the shot.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 1, 2012)

70-200II + TC, since you'll use it for your living. Who knows, maybe the replacement for the 100-400 will be out when you're in position to get another lens. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> 70-200II + TC, since you'll use it for your living. Who knows, maybe the replacement for the 100-400 will be out when you're in position to get another lens. :



+1


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 1, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> 70-200II + TC, since you'll use it for your living. Who knows, maybe the replacement for the 100-400 will be out when you're in position to get another lens. :



I think I'm leaning that way. I've heard such amazing reports on that lens!


----------



## rwmson (Jun 1, 2012)

Here's some air show pix shot with 5Diii, 70-200 2.8L II, and Canon 2x teleconverter. Not the best lighting conditions but I was pleased with the gear.

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2721087925345.94074.1801487608&type=3&l=dd44af0434


----------



## K-amps (Jun 1, 2012)

Another 70-200mk.ii + Canon 2x iii shot :


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 1, 2012)

That 2x looks better and better all the time.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 1, 2012)

MazV-L said:


> Just testing my 5Diii with 70-200mm f2.8L is ii and Kenko Pro x2 TC today:



Is that image cropped heavily?

I just ordered the Kenko Pro x2 TC DGX to go with my 5D III and 70-200 f/2.8L II, as I gave up trying to buy a "good and affordable" 400mm AF lens. The Kenko x2 can be bought new for around $180 on eBay from the usual Hong Kong sources, way cheaper than the Canon x2 MkIII TC. I could have gone for the Canon x2 MKII, but I am already very happy with my Kenko x1.4 TC on my 70-200.


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 1, 2012)

rwmson said:


> Here's some air show pix shot with 5Diii, 70-200 2.8L II, and Canon 2x teleconverter. Not the best lighting conditions but I was pleased with the gear.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2721087925345.94074.1801487608&type=3&l=dd44af0434



Thanks for the examples! Makes a believer out of me! But how do you guys find the autofocus with the 2x?? I understand it is 75% slower, but not sure what that means in absolute terms!


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 1, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Is that image cropped heavily?
> 
> I just ordered the Kenko Pro x2 TC DGX to go with my 5D III and 70-200 f/2.8L II, as I gave up trying to buy a "good and affordable" 400mm AF lens. The Kenko x2 can be bought new for around $180 on eBay from the usual Hong Kong sources, way cheaper than the Canon x2 MkIII TC. I could have gone for the Canon x2 MKII, but I am already very happy with my Kenko x1.4 TC on my 70-200.



Is this the one you are buying?
http://www.amazon.com/Kenko-2-0X-Teleconverter-Canon-Digital/dp/B002BIBDUU

I am interested in Canon 2x EF Extender III, but 500 is just too much for me.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 1, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > Is that image cropped heavily?
> ...



Yes, and $100 less on eBay.


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 1, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Yes, and $100 less on eBay.



Is any reviews to compare the Kenko and Canon TC? Sorry for that I know I should do my home work, but I am too lazy.


----------



## MazV-L (Jun 2, 2012)

drjlo said:


> MazV-L said:
> 
> 
> > Just testing my 5Diii with 70-200mm f2.8L is ii and Kenko Pro x2 TC today:
> ...


No, I didn't crop this image 
Just aggressively re-sized to make it easier and quicker to post!


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 2, 2012)

OK guys. After a unanimous vote, I went out and bought the 70-200 2.8 IS L II and the Canon 2x TC II. Last day of rebates today. 

Thanks everyone for your input! As long as the weather cooperates, I'll be off to my brother in laws baseball game to test my new toys.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 2, 2012)

You'll love that 70-200 II. THAT and TS-E 24mm II are what allows Canon to keep my respect still, enough to prevent switching brands. So far, that is..


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 2, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> OK guys. After a unanimous vote, I went out and bought the 70-200 2.8 IS L II and the Canon 2x TC II. Last day of rebates today.
> 
> Thanks everyone for your input! As long as the weather cooperates, I'll be off to my brother in laws baseball game to test my new toys.



You'll love the 70-200 2.8II. If possible, I would of opted for the 2xIII. Let us know though how it turns out.


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 2, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > OK guys. After a unanimous vote, I went out and bought the 70-200 2.8 IS L II and the Canon 2x TC II. Last day of rebates today.
> ...



I got the 2xiii. that was a typo.  my bad.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 3, 2012)

Good luck, I tried a 70-200mkI and a MK II with a Canon 2X MK II TC. Its just ok, AF is slow, and as it gets late in the day, AF on my 1D MK III no longer worked, while my 100-400mmL was going strong.

If you do not use it much, and have ideal light, it should be passable. If you haven't used the 100-400mm L, you might think its wonderful. The MK III TC should be a noticible improvement over the MK II, but at $500, its not cheap.


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 3, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Good luck, I tried a 70-200mkI and a MK II with a Canon 2X MK II TC. Its just ok, AF is slow, and as it gets late in the day, AF on my 1D MK III no longer worked, while my 100-400mmL was going strong.
> 
> If you do not use it much, and have ideal light, it should be passable. If you haven't used the 100-400mm L, you might think its wonderful. The MK III TC should be a noticible improvement over the MK II, but at $500, its not cheap.



I'll have to review the photos on the computer, but it seemed to go pretty well. It was a pretty bright day today for the most part. The MK iii tc had a rebate to it was like 460 instead of 500. I apparently just missed getting a used one for half price. I'll have to post a few photos when i get around to it. 

AF sucked because i was behind a chain link fence, and that just threw everything off with the tc, and on the 7d. The 5d3 with no tc did ok seeing past the fence.


----------



## bkorcel (Jun 4, 2012)

If you can and your camera supports it try to micro focus adjust with and without the 2XIII. I've seen a number of copies that focus differently with and without. For example a 60D without is tack sharp but soft with the doubler. The focus point is off with the doubler and there is no way to MFA the camera so you are SOL. 

7D and 5D models allow MFA and doing so sharpens it up considerably.

I would not get a 100-400L. I had one for a while and returned it. The focus hunts quite a bit which I suspect is because it's not a 2.8 lens and there is some light and contrast loss that the AF needs for fast consistent AF. I was shooting birds in flight and had much better luck with the 70-200L and 2X at F5.6. The 100-400 loses a good deal of contrast wide open which is also another set back for the AF system which relies on that for quick and accurate AF.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 15, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> 70-200II + TC, since you'll use it for your living.



Indeed, but if you (or anybody else) would do it during your spare time for fun, constantly putting on & off a tc is a major annoyance, with the 1.4x tc I have I'm always thinking if it's worth the hassle for one shot.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > 70-200II + TC, since you'll use it for your living.
> ...



For me, it would be much more annoying if I had to carry 70-200 II Plus a 300 or 400 mm lens. I gladly carry the diminutive Kenko 2x TC, and swapping it in takes like 10 seconds. From dusk today.




DZ3C4185 by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 15, 2012)

drjlo said:


> For me, it would be much more annoying if I had to carry 70-200 II Plus a 300 or 400 mm lens.



Well, there is the 70-300L which is rather inexpensive in comparison to the 70-200+tc alternative and more suited for travel. But the 70-300L is a less frightening travel/walkaround lens with a native/fast af @300mm, and not designed for low-light shooting when the (max.) open aperture matters. For professional use and manual exposure, the way to go is a fixed aperture lens.


----------

