Canon EF 70 - 200 mm f 2.8 L IS Mk II with 2x Mk III Extender - Sean?

[Hannes Thirion]

Sean Nel wrote in the Rhino Support Gallery: 'Came across the few remaining rhinos at Rietvlei while doing my 70-200 + 2x review.'

Sean is your review available somewhere on the net?

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

hehehe... responded on the gallery page as well...

Nope, I haven't completed the writeup yet... will do it soon and post on odpmagazine

[Hannes Thirion]

Thanks Sean looking forward to your review.
Remember you sold me a 70-200 f2.8 Mk II at ODP shop? Great lens, thanks.
I have bought both 1.4x and 2x Mk III extenders and sold my 100-400.
No I don't have 100% crops of comparative shots between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 2x extender.

[Deon RacePics]

could have bought a used 400F5.6L for the money of those extenders, and you had nothing to worry about. What you gonna do if his review says its a bad choice (not that I expect it though) ?

[Hannes Thirion]

could have bought a used 400F5.6L for the money of those extenders, and you had nothing to worry about. What you gonna do if his review says its a bad choice (not that I expect it though) ?

No.
I am not asking because I worry, I am sure that I wanted to buy those extender and not a 400 f5.6 only.
The outcome of his review have nothing to do with buying anything since I have read reviews about this lens in combination with extenders before I bought anything. More to do with best using what I have for instance at what f-stop it performs best.
My next lens is a second hand 300 f2.8 Mk I on which I am going to use the same extenders that I use on the 70-200 f2.8.
Still no need for me to buy a 400 f5.6. On the contrary I have sold my 100-400 to rather buy a 16-35 f2.8 ( no not to use with the extenders ) since I am happy with the performance of my 140-400 f5.6 (70-200 f2.8 Mk II + 2x Extender Mk III) and don't have use for the 100-400 or a 400 f5.6 for that matter anymore.

Still good to read other real users experience of equipment even after you bought it. So Sean I am still looking forward to read your review to know what your experience is to know my equipment even better.

[Deon RacePics]

Cool, I was wondering.
I have sold the extenders from my bag, I dislike the hit and miss idea .. Considering the 70-200 + 300 + 400 there is absolutely no need for extenders. I know it is a big price difference here. The 300/2.8 + 1.4 is still very capable, that I know.


Whats your thoughts on the 16-35F2.8? I have the mk1, and wonder whether there is a comparative between the mk1&2 somewhere.

[Hannes Thirion]

Whats your thoughts on the 16-35F2.8? I have the mk1, and wonder whether there is a comparative between the mk1&2 somewhere.

Sorry I cannot help with comparison between the Mk I and II since I didn't had the Mk I. All I can tell you is that I saw the advantage created by the 16-35's f2.8 f-stop on star photography at Kubu over my current Zeiss 18 mm f3.5. The difference is f3.5 at 6400 ISO and the f2.8 at 3200 ISO. Big difference. This is on the 5D II. ISO 6400 on the 5D III may be something else.
But the Zeiss 18 mm at f11 at ISO 100 is as far as I am concerned still the better landscape lens in daylight.

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

The long and short of it is that if, like me, you own a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS mkII and want more reach without:
a. breaking the bank
b. using up more space and weight in the bag when traveling
c. give up on IQ

then the 2x converter mkIII is a great solution that actually works very well... surprisingly so...

however, if you are looking to buy a solution new, buy a 400mm f/5.6 L and a 7D for about R3k less than the 70-200 + 2x combined...

[Deon RacePics]

The long and short of it is that if,
.

thanx, what I was expecting.
have seen superb pix 400/2.8mk2 + 2Xmk3, but there was time to obtain focus and ensure good exposure ..

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

thanx, what I was expecting.
have seen superb pix 400/2.8mk2 + 2Xmk3, but there was time to obtain focus and ensure good exposure ..

Was that a 400mm f/2.8 mkI or mkII ?

My test was with a 5DmkIII and although the lens AF was slower than straight on the camera it was really not bad. Focus lock was fairly quick and crisp until light started fading. I would prefer shooting straight 400 though if it's a commercial job.

Just to try and put it in some context. The 70-200 mkII + mkIII converter combo was, on the 5D mkIII only marginally slower (in good light) than the mk1 300mm f/2.8 when tracking action. I could only start to decern a noticeable difference on static focussing when the light started to fade or in severe light conditions (focussing on subjects against the setting sun.

Would I try and shoot fast moving action, like a rally with it? No. I'd get sharp shots, but my hit rate (and confidence) would be low. Can it be done? Yes, but with lots more planning and prep on every shot.