# Want 400mm reach (FF) - 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2x III or 400 5.6L?



## thebowtie (Jan 7, 2013)

Hi folks,

I have the excellent 70-200 mm f/2.8 IS II and the TC 1.4x III - which I love, paired to my 5D mark III.

I recently shot some cricket matches, and I think I need more reach than the 280mm available with the 1.4x, and without the bulk (I'm an amateur, and there seem to be restrictions on many games where non-accredited photogs cannot take in big lenses).

I think 400mm would be about right (based on some rough crops of the 280mm), but can't afford the big guns (400mm f/2.8L IS).

The games I would photograph would either take place in bright daylight or under broadcast-standard lighting (1000 lux).

Looking at what's available, the only affordable lens is the EF 400mm f/5.6L. It does seem to be very old, and has no IS.

An alternative is to acquire the TC 2x III - which would give me the same aperture, and add IS with a more modern lens formula / AF combo.

Does anyone have any experience with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with the TC 2x III that they would like to share?

Cheers


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 7, 2013)

The 2xiii with the 70-200 2.8l is II will be a touch soft at 400 but very much useable. The 400 5.6l will be much sharper. The drawback is losing the zoom where it's nice to pull back when the action gets close.

I shoot soccer games and while a 400 is nice to reach the backfield it's of little use when things are happening in front of you. I prefer to just use the 2x on my 70-200 and do a little extra sharpening in post processing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2013)

70-200 II + 2x works well - not quite as sharp as my 100-400, but does the job when I'd rather not bring both, or in inclement weather.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 7, 2013)

You are right about restrictions. For example, if you are in Australia, there is a 200mm max lens size for international and twenty20 matches. Another reason for going with the the extender option.


----------



## rj79in (Jan 7, 2013)

why not go in for the 100-400 zoom? 

Also, come April you will be able to get 560mm with AF on the 5D3 using the 1.4x extender?


----------



## weixing (Jan 7, 2013)

Hi,
IMHO, if you don't need very fast AF, the 70-200mm F2.8 IS II + 2xIII is a better option.

Have a nice day.


----------



## scotty512 (Jan 7, 2013)

slightly off topic but similiar vein, I have the 5D3 with 70-200mm 2.8 L I and use with the 2xextenderII

would there be much benefit on swapping the extender from version 2 to 3?

thanks
Scott


----------



## infared (Jan 7, 2013)

rj79in said:


> why not go in for the 100-400 zoom?



I agree with this solution...gives you the added reach you need more latitude to zoom out and frame the action.
...coupled with a good monopod it should do the trick.
The 100-400 zoom lens has a rebate right now and can.be had for $1389 @B&H.
The 400mm is about $1200...so you are in the same price range.
You will trade some sharpness that the prime may have..but have way more versatility to fram moving action!
Photography is alway a compromise.


----------



## thebowtie (Jan 7, 2013)

Folks,
Thanks to all for your advice and opinions - it has helped me make a simple (mostly financial) decision - I'll add the Extender EF 2x III to my collection.

An additional benefit will be that I will be able to take the 70-200 lens and get into a venue (I live in Sydney, Australia) for Twenty20 cricket whilst keeping the 2xIII in my pocket - and not get hassled for a too-large lens.

I already have a Manfrotto CF monopod and head - hopefully the gate people won't give me grief about that (no problems last time - I extended it and used it as a walking-stick on the way in!)

Cheers


----------



## infared (Jan 7, 2013)

thebowtie said:


> Folks,
> Thanks to all for your advice and opinions - it has helped me make a simple (mostly financial) decision - I'll add the Extender EF 2x III to my collection.
> 
> An additional benefit will be that I will be able to take the 70-200 lens and get into a venue (I live in Sydney, Australia) for Twenty20 cricket whilst keeping the 2xIII in my pocket - and not get hassled for a too-large lens.
> ...



Just a note...(I was surprised myself when I looked into this)..that the 100-400mm zoom is actually shorter than the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens. ..but you gave yourself more flexibility and saved yourself a bundle. I bet that the image quality is close between these to options as well. Good sporting!


----------



## Rockets95 (Jan 7, 2013)

I received the 2x III for Christmas from my wife. My reasoning for wanting the extender was pretty much the same. I was looking to get to 400mm at a reasonable cost. Well, I was disappointed that my combination severely front focuses. I spoke to Canon CPS and they were happy to take a look, but since it's new, I returned it to Norman Camera. I was somewhat disappointed at their initial response. They will do their own test and let me know if they experience the same results. If they do, it will be replaced. If not, I will get a refund. I considered trying the micro-adjustment focus settings, but to me, it was so far off I didn't think that would take care of it.

Not sure if this helps, but it is my personal experience. I’m hoping that Norman finds an obvious issue and replaces it.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 7, 2013)

Slightly better but you would be better off trading in the Mark I 70-200 and getting the Mark II version. BIG improvement. Makes you wonder what canon was thinking when they came out with the Mark I.



scotty512 said:


> slightly off topic but similiar vein, I have the 5D3 with 70-200mm 2.8 L I and use with the 2xextenderII
> 
> would there be much benefit on swapping the extender from version 2 to 3?
> 
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 7, 2013)

What camera are you using it with? SOme of the cameras have micro focus adjustment which lets you tweak the focus and saves it for that lens and extender combination.



Rockets95 said:


> I received the 2x III for Christmas from my wife. My reasoning for wanting the extender was pretty much the same. I was looking to get to 400mm at a reasonable cost. Well, I was disappointed that my combination severely front focuses. I spoke to Canon CPS and they were happy to take a look, but since it's new, I returned it to Norman Camera. I was somewhat disappointed at their initial response. They will do their own test and let me know if they experience the same results. If they do, it will be replaced. If not, I will get a refund. I considered trying the micro-adjustment focus settings, but to me, it was so far off I didn't think that would take care of it.
> 
> Not sure if this helps, but it is my personal experience. I’m hoping that Norman finds an obvious issue and replaces it.


----------



## CharlieB (Jan 7, 2013)

Get a 300/4.0is and use it alone or with your existing 1.4x


----------



## Rockets95 (Jan 7, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> What camera are you using it with? Some of the cameras have micro focus adjustment which lets you tweak the focus and saves it for that lens and extender combination.



I've got the 7D, but to me it was so far off I didn't think the micro-adjustment would work. I also called CPS and the guy wasn't sure if the microdjustment would remember the lens/extender combo as it's own lens, or if it would remember it as the 70-200 II. I'd say 15 feet off at 90 to 100 feet. I should have tried it on my wife's 5d2 just to test that combo, but I didn't think of it at the time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2013)

Rockets95 said:


> I've got the 7D, but to me it was so far off I didn't think the micro-adjustment would work. I also called CPS and the guy wasn't sure if the microdjustment would remember the lens/extender combo as it's own lens, or if it would remember it as the 70-200 II. I'd say 15 feet off at 90 to 100 feet.



AFMA values are stored separately for each lens + TC combo (and with newer cameras, by serial number as well, so you can have more than one of each lens or TC type). 

Each unit of AFMA is 1/8 the depth of focus, so with 20 units you can correct for 2.5x the depth of focus - that's a fair bit of latitude in the correction.


----------



## vargyropoulos (Jan 7, 2013)

I was in the same boat as you until recently. I chose the 400mmf/5.6L lens and I could not be any happier (well maybe if I had the 600f4L.....). Granted, the 100-400 has IS but in testing the lenses head to head at the store I found that for any shots faster than 1/500sec, the 400mm prime was sharper than the 100-400. 

after I bought it, I have shot it at 1/250 sec handheld with acceptable results. if I'm shooting still objects... I put it on a tripod anyway.


----------



## Rockets95 (Jan 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rockets95 said:
> 
> 
> > I've got the 7D, but to me it was so far off I didn't think the micro-adjustment would work. I also called CPS and the guy wasn't sure if the microdjustment would remember the lens/extender combo as it's own lens, or if it would remember it as the 70-200 II. I'd say 15 feet off at 90 to 100 feet.
> ...



Neuro, I just spoke to Phil at Norman Camera and he verified my field test results with the front focusing issue, and also confirmed your info that the 7D with microadjustments for the combo will be treated as it's own separate lens. He's sending me another 2X III, so it must have been beyond what would be considered normal tolerances.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 7, 2013)

thebowtie said:


> Folks,
> Thanks to all for your advice and opinions - it has helped me make a simple (mostly financial) decision - I'll add the Extender EF 2x III to my collection.
> 
> An additional benefit will be that I will be able to take the 70-200 lens and get into a venue (I live in Sydney, Australia) for Twenty20 cricket whilst keeping the 2xIII in my pocket - and not get hassled for a too-large lens.
> ...



I would have done the same! 

Having said that, a used 7D can be had for $800-900 these days. If you use that with your 280mm, you get about 450mm and an extra body


----------

