Canon 70-200 f2.8 Mk1 & Mk2 2X

[Jelster]

How well does this combination work ?

I have just got a Mk 1 70-200 f2.8 and I was considering using it with a 2X teleconverter (Mk 2 probably). I know the latest version is a Mk 3, not sure what the differences are though.

Does anybody use this combination ? If so, what are the pit falls ?

Steve

 

[squishy]

Apparently sharpness is disappointing. The 70-200MK2 improved this to be not far behind the sharpness of the 100-400L.

The MK3 converters are apparently designed for the new generation of lenses, so have little advantage on older lenses over the MK2. I'm not to sure of that though, the guy who told me might have been misinformed.

 

[Jelster]

I may hire one from LFH to see if it's worth buying one. That said, most of the images I took on Wednesday with the 70-200 f2.8 aren't that great. I think it's user error as it's a heavy lens, and I just need to get used to supporting it.

Steve

 

[I-S]

I've always found my 2X mk II to be disappointing - my father and I have tried it with 70-200 F4L, 70-200 F4L IS, 300 F4L IS, 135F2L and even 100-400L. Never really had a decent result, even with the 135 F2L which on its own is one of the very sharpest lenses canon have produced.

The mk III introduces a new optical design and it may well perform rather better. What Adam is referring to is the new electronics in the mk III converters which will only benefit new lenses (so far only the 300 F2.8L IS II and 400 F2.8L IS II) - other lenses will still slow down AF just as with the older TCs. However, the optical improvements (assuming there are some) will benefit all lenses of course.

I would be inclined to use the 1.4X if you need more reach. If you need more reach than that, buy a longer lens or crop... the 2X isn't really worthwhile in my experience.

 

[Jelster]

Thanks I-S, that's the sort of response I wanted. You don't have any pictures showing the IQ with & without the converter do you ?

Steve