# Critical View of 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III



## Sabaki (Nov 8, 2014)

I often hear people citing the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii with the 2X TC III as a serious option as a wildlife lens and I don't quite agree. 

I believe that the setup is touted as you end up with the best 70-200 out there which can double as a telephoto but I find the image quality to be a compromise. 

The images I have seen, has me place both the 100-400 and definitely the 400 f/5.6 as better options. 

Now an admission: I'm not a technical guy and cannot breakdown my feelings on the TC'd 70-200 into tech-talk but I find the overall IQ as poorer. 

Am I wrong? Is the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii a match for the 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6?

I'm interested in hearing opinions on this but let's keep it sentiment free ie "I own that setup and I love my photos"...

Thanks peeps


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2014)

The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens. 

What I don't like about the 70-200 II + 2xIII is the handling – too long and front-heavy.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.
> 
> What I don't like about the 70-200 II + 2xIII is the handling – too long and front-heavy.



But to be fair, the 100-400 performs at its worst at 400mm. Something else about the 100-400, is it my imagination, or do those manufactured recently, seem to be just better?

I do agree that the ergonomics are less comfortable too.


----------



## Plainsman (Nov 8, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I often hear people citing the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii with the 2X TC III as a serious option as a wildlife lens and I don't quite agree.
> 
> I believe that the setup is touted as you end up with the best 70-200 out there which can double as a telephoto but I find the image quality to be a compromise.
> 
> ...




Rather than listen to "opinions" just take a look at the iso 12233 crops on digital picture. 

They are a pretty reliable guide and clearly show the hit you take when mounting a 2xTC on this otherwise excellent zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> But to be fair, the 100-400 performs at its worst at 400mm.



Does yours? Mine was pretty sharp through the range, if anything sharpest at the long end (where I used it most). As I stated, mine were on par. When I tested them with my ISO 12233-type charts (I have the same QA-77 ones used by TDP), the 100-400 was very slightly sharper. In real world use (birds, mostly), there was no meaningful difference in IQ. 

Keep in mind there is copy variation with lenses. Check the three copies of the 70-200 II with the 2xIII on TDP's ISO 12233 crops for an example.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 9, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.
> ...



I think exposure, lighting and technique have a lot to do with the lens at 400mm. I have had nasty looking 400mm shots, but mostly due to light issues.
This one is at 400mm, f11, 1/250th, ISO 400



P-47 takeoff at sunset Chino POF 0957 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## frozengogo (Nov 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.
> 
> What I don't like about the 70-200 II + 2xIII is the handling – too long and front-heavy.



OK, so here is my dilemma, buy the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III or the new 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have a 5dII and will be using the setup to shoot cheerleading at night football games or cheerleading competitions is a gym. I’m concerned with having to set the iso too high in order to get a good shutter speed at night or in the gym. I wouldn’t need the 2xTC all the time, it just depends on how close I can get to the action.


----------



## gregorywood (Nov 13, 2014)

frozengogo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.
> ...



I can say from my own experiences trying to shoot in night soccer games or indoor soccer games that my 70-200mm f/4L IS and my 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS both are less than optimal on either the 7D or 6D. I'm often between ISO 3200 and 6400 to get reasonable stop-action. I've come to the conlusion that I need to get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and f/2.8 is a minimum for night or indoor action. Stills might be another story, but the action is the things that becomes the determiner. It's too bad that there isn't an affordable 200mm f/2 solution. The price gap is so large going from f/2.8 to f/2.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 13, 2014)

frozengogo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar. Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens.
> ...


 
I'd not use any lens slower than f/2.8 if I had a choice. Some of us can't afford a 300 or 400 mm f/2.8, so its going to be a compromise between high ISO and acceptable shutter speed.

Cropping your 70-200mm f/2.8 images may very well be better than cranking up the ISO. 

Its possible that you could gain a little with a 7D MK II, but not a full 1.6 as far as IQ goes. The much smaller pixels are easily blurred, so shutter speed should be 1.6 higher which means you are cranking up ISO again. In bright sun, there is more of a advantage with a 7D.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 13, 2014)

frozengogo said:


> OK, so here is my dilemma, buy the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III or the new 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have a 5dII and will be using the setup to shoot cheerleading at night football games or cheerleading competitions is a gym. I’m concerned with having to set the iso too high in order to get a good shutter speed at night or in the gym. I wouldn’t need the 2xTC all the time, it just depends on how close I can get to the action.



+1 to what others have said already. I've used the 70-200 II indoor at 3200 and 6400 ISOs at f/2.8. Being focal length limited may affect the types of shots you get, but it's a good trade most of the time. And if you really need the FL, then that is when the TCs come into play, but at least you have that choice.


----------



## frozengogo (Nov 14, 2014)

Thanks. I was really leaning to the 70-200, but wanted to check my thinking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2014)

frozengogo said:


> Thanks. I was really leaning to the 70-200, but wanted to check my thinking.



Yes, for that use the 70-200/2.8 is a better choice, IMO. I sometimes also take my 135/2 to indoor action events.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:



> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > But to be fair, the 100-400 performs at its worst at 400mm.
> ...



Hey Neuro

I own the 400 f/5.6 but I've used a few 100-400's as we're a fairly large birding community and we often look at each other's kit.

Some of the guys own the older models of the 100-400 and I've found on those, the performance at 400mm is not great at all. Certainly not L level.
Some have recently got into birding and they've purchased their lenses in the last 3 years at most. The performance is different at 400mm on these newer iterations. I've heard of "phantom" upgrades so perhaps that could account for the difference in performance.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 14, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> frozengogo said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so here is my dilemma, buy the 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III or the new 100-400 4.5-5.6. I have a 5dII and will be using the setup to shoot cheerleading at night football games or cheerleading competitions is a gym. I’m concerned with having to set the iso too high in order to get a good shutter speed at night or in the gym. I wouldn’t need the 2xTC all the time, it just depends on how close I can get to the action.
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, for that use the 70-200/2.8 is a better choice, IMO. I sometimes also take my 135/2 to indoor action events.



Agreed. I decided to go with a 70-200 2.8 II and TC's since I frequently shoot between 70-200 and infrequently at longer focal lengths. When I shoot indoor sports I use my 135L and 70-200 + 1.4x TC. The 70-200 with TC's gives you great flexibility and a wide aperture if you need it.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 14, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Am I wrong? Is the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii a match for the 100-400 and the 400 f/5.6?



I owned the 100-400L I for years before I got the 70-200 II. But the 70-200 II + 2xTC has replaced the 100-400L when I travel. In my opinion, it isn't quite as good, but it is very close to the 100-400L I @ 400 mm and I love the 70-200 II w/o the TC enough to make it worth putting up with the ergonomic issue and maybe a very slight, potentially unperceivable hit to IQ. That said, when I am home and if I want 400 mm, I take the 100-400L, but that is mostly for the ergonomic issue, not IQ.

So, are you "wrong" meh....I wouldn't fault someone for going either way.


----------



## DiSnapper (Nov 14, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I often hear people citing the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii with the 2X TC III as a serious option as a wildlife lens and I don't quite agree.
> 
> I believe that the setup is touted as you end up with the best 70-200 out there which can double as a telephoto but I find the image quality to be a compromise.
> 
> ...



I shoot with 70-200 2.8 ii and 2x iii combo on 7D. 2x extender tends to slow down the speed at with AF focus and it take very little hit on IQ front when compared to 70-200 ID.


----------



## gekko (Nov 17, 2014)

I have a 7D and the 70-200 2.8 II with the 2XIII TC. My idea was to use this as a 400mm doing BIF. First of all, the TC makes the autofocus much slower, and second, the images never seem to be sharp. I have AFMAed the combination, and it is as "in focus" as it can be, but the images are never really sharp using the 2X TC. Without the TC the images from the 70-200 are excellent.

It came to the point where I wouldn't even bother using the TC combination because I knew the images wouldn't be keepers anyway. I ended up buying the 400mm 5.6L and the enthusiasm is back. This tele is razor sharp and focuses very much faster than the TC combination.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Nov 17, 2014)

I don't have any of the 400mm options you mentioned, but I do have the 70-200 with the 2x extender. I shoot with a 5D MkIII.

I only bought it for the extra reach for occasions when I might need/want it. I haven't used it much, seems that over 200mm isn't my game so to say. But when I have used it I haven't been very satisfied with what I get. AF is slower and hunts a lot. As much as I love the 70-200, I am not satisfied at all with what I get with the extender on. But I won't invest in a 100-400 or longer prime anyway as I wouldn't use it that much. I guess it would take some more learning to be able to shoot at longer focal lengths so surely I will have to put in some work there also.

We have a safari trip planned within a couple of years and that will be my lens-extender combo, it will still be quite a solid combination I think.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 17, 2014)

maybe for indoor sports, if 200mm is not enough, instead of buying a new 100-400 and a 135 you can stretch your Budget to get a 300 2.8 IS, for maybe 3000-3500 this should be available used. 

Thats a fantastic lens, with great AF and better you crop a Little than have 2 stops more ISO and worse AF on a 5.6 zoom. The newer 300 2.8 ii would bave even better IQ and AF, and most important better IS, but for sports when you can use a tripod this is maybe not woth 2x the price


----------



## nc0b (Nov 18, 2014)

After I bought a new 400mm f/5.6 and a mint 300mm f/4, I never used my 2X TC III again. I had no complaints with the image quality with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II + 2X TC III, but the focus speed was quite slow, and the focus could get completely lost in the sky for BIF. I don't own any big whites that work well with the 2X, so I sold the converter. The new 100-400mm will be interesting, but I am quite happy with the old primes.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 18, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I often hear people citing the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii with the 2X TC III as a serious option as a wildlife lens and I don't quite agree.



I wonder who says that. Most people recommend and use the 70-200 + TC exclusively when rarely using the FLs over 200mm (such as myself). 
Even if the IQ was exactly the same, the 70-200 + TC is an extremely cumbersome combination, as Neuro stated. I lugged it all day at a recent airshow, mostly pointing it upwards, and my arms were sore... 
I do love the photos out of it, but then I am not a professional, and my standards are certainly lower than those using the great whites (and yours, most likely). The one below was shot with the combination at the airshow mentioned above, cropped 1:1 from the shot below it. I am happy with this level of IQ and resolution.


----------



## meywd (Nov 18, 2014)

I got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II yesterday along with a 2xTC II(the 2xTC III should be better), below is a test shot(just to show the performance) with the center and corner crops respectively:

400mm f/8.0 1/500 ISO400 (no PP only the default LR sharpness of 25 applied)


----------



## meywd (Nov 25, 2014)

I did some more today, tbh i am not sure if its me, the lens or the camera, but i think there is an AF problem, anyway these are the best 2 out of 8, you will find each and a crop of the center below, all raw converted to JPEG with LR :

1. 350mm f/8.0 1/1250 ISO640
2. 342mm f/8.0 1/1250 ISO640


----------



## meywd (Nov 25, 2014)

To compare, here is one without the 2X TC II:

200mm f/2.8 1/500 ISO 100


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 25, 2014)

meywd said:


> I did some more today, tbh i am not sure if its me, the lens or the camera, but i think there is an AF problem



Looks like a combination of backfocus (did you check for afma?) and motion blur to me. Getting an insect like this in focus with a tele lens is very difficult, and the result with a tc won't overwhelm you in any case. If you are interested in these scenes, think about getting a macro lens like the 100L or 180L (for more reach).



meywd said:


> To compare, here is one without the 2X TC II:



Maybe or lens shake (did you wait a moment to let ths IS swing in?), or motion blur - 1/500s is not that fast on 200mm * 1,6x crop. But generally this is about what you get after heavy cropping like this, remember your crop sensor already uses only part of the lens' glass.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 25, 2014)

the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii with the 2X TC III combo is a serious option but the image quality is compromised. I tried with the 2X TC II and 2X TC III , and IQ is much better with the later.

The images are acceptable but those from the 400 f/5.6 are much better. What you get is more flexibility with the combo and save some money. If you want the ultimate image you have to go with the primes, the 200-400L or the latest versions of cheaper super telezooms (e.g. Sigma, Tamron or hopefully new 100-400L II)


----------



## meywd (Nov 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > I did some more today, tbh i am not sure if its me, the lens or the camera, but i think there is an AF problem
> ...



i think there is some back focus, but i am using the 600D so no AFMA, motion blur maybe both are moving fast, i had the 100mm non L macro its a great lens, but i switched it for the 20-700 f2.8 IS II - along with other lenses - maybe will get the 100L or 180L later, i was searching for birds and found this fella near my feet.

as for lens shake, i found out that @ 1250 IS was working against me, the bird shot was with IS on, but the insect was with IS off, you are right about the speed and cropping, i only did this for a quality test, i don't see a huge difference in IQ, yes there is difference, but i see the 2x TC II usable with the 70-200 f2.8 IS II, and maybe on the 5D III it will be better.


----------



## meywd (Nov 25, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 Mark ii with the 2X TC III combo is a serious option but the image quality is compromised. I tried with the 2X TC II and 2X TC III , and IQ is much better with the later.
> 
> The images are acceptable but those from the 400 f/5.6 are much better. What you get is more flexibility with the combo and save some money. If you want the ultimate image you have to go with the primes, the 200-400L or the latest versions of cheaper super telezooms (e.g. Sigma, Tamron or hopefully new 100-400L II)



you are right, unfortunately no budget for the primes, maybe later will add one of the cheap zooms, especially the 100-400L II if the IQ with TCs is good.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 25, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> maybe for indoor sports, if 200mm is not enough, instead of buying a new 100-400 and a 135 you can stretch your Budget to get a 300 2.8 IS, for maybe 3000-3500 this should be available used.
> 
> Thats a fantastic lens, with great AF and better you crop a Little than have 2 stops more ISO and worse AF on a 5.6 zoom. The newer 300 2.8 ii would bave even better IQ and AF, and most important better IS, but for sports when you can use a tripod this is maybe not woth 2x the price



It's worth twice the price! The IS and performance with TCs are worth every penny.


----------



## infared (Nov 25, 2014)

How about getting the 1.4x as a compromise and positioning better. That is what I use with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II.
That will give you the option to get closer and retain a wider f/stop with better contrast and sharpness. I would want a prime tele at 400mm. So I would use the first combo and the save for a new or used prime in the future.


----------



## meywd (Nov 28, 2014)

Here is one taken with the 5D III w/ 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2xTC II, import and export with no changes

360mm f/5.6 1/2000 ISO6400


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 28, 2014)

meywd said:


> Here is one taken with the 5D III w/ 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2xTC II, import and export with no changes



Ugh. That's about why I stopped "birding" with my inadequate gear, in lower light and/or when the animal is far away as the results have a distinctive "90s mobile phone" look to them :-\ ... it's important never to tell that this was made using €5000+ gear


----------



## meywd (Nov 28, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Here is one taken with the 5D III w/ 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2xTC II, import and export with no changes
> ...



hahahaha you are right, a 600mm f/4 would be great, but still i was hand-holding it and that's why i went to the 1/2000 shutter speed, plus i am not skilled enough to track the bird and was afraid it will fly away immediately, if i was setting and waiting i would have used 1/400-1/600 which would allow a lower ISO, and if i was hiding the bird would be closer to me, anyway i am still starting so though it might not be great i still like what i get, this one with same settings but edited, the flying one was not the one tracked so he is not in focus, but if i didn't have 1/2000 he would be blurry.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 28, 2014)

meywd said:


> and if i was hiding the bird would be closer to me



"Birding" is indeed a bit like being lucky at hide and seek, and that's one problem: You can take an "ok" shot with your mighty expensive gear, and then the next guy with a Rebel kit lens happens to walk up right next to the bird, taking a better shot...



meywd said:


> but if i didn't have 1/2000 he would be blurry.



... and that's the other problem: Even if you have a tracking camera (I wouldn't even bother with my 6d), "sitting duck" in lower light has an *entirely* different iso requirement than "in flight". With IS on and snapping a few frames, you can high iq shots w/o movement. When something starts moving at higher speed, you indeed need 1/1500 (horses) or at least 1/2000 (bif), and the iso value goes through the roof.


----------



## meywd (Nov 28, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > and if i was hiding the bird would be closer to me
> ...



Yeah and 1/2000 is only the starting point  , at least with better light the pictures are not bad, until i get a dream lens

260mm 1/2000 f/5.6 ISO 1000, cropped and processed


----------

