Help.... 70-200 F/2.8 L IS USM with x1.4 / x2 extender or 70-300 F/4-5.6 L IS USM

Z

zennith

Suspended / Banned
Messages
32
Edit My Images
Yes
This would be my first purchase of an L lens and find myself going back and forth between the two. Do i go for the fixed aperture of the 70-200 or the range of the 70-300?

I understand that with the 70-200 when combining it with a x2 extender it goes from 2.8 to 4 aperture value and essentially the range doubles, but i use a crop body so do i still multiply the range by 1.6 again? And what happens to the aperture?

With the 70-300, its mainly the range that attracts me.

Pls help, i essentially have enough for either of the two.
 
The 1.4x extender drops 1 stop the 2x extender drops 2 stops so a 2x on 70-200 f/2.8 would make it a constant f/5.6
 
I have the 70-200 2.8 and a 2x converter is on the shopping list for the odd occasion I need the extra oomph.

I know someone with the 70-300 and it is a very capable lens. I just don't like all the movement on it but that's just me :)
 
Calzor Suzay said:
The 1.4x extender drops 1 stop the 2x extender drops 2 stops so a 2x on 70-200 f/2.8 would make it a constant f/5.6
Click to expand...

So in theory on a crop body using a 70-200 F/2.8 with a 1.4 extender becomes a 156-448 F/5.6? Would that be right?
 
Oscellaris said:
I have the 70-200 2.8 and a 2x converter is on the shopping list for the odd occasion I need the extra oomph.

I know someone with the 70-300 and it is a very capable lens. I just don't like all the movement on it but that's just me :)
Click to expand...

One reason im also divided is that i want to take is bird pics hence why the 70-300 is an attractive option but the variable aperture is a question esp when i take pics at night during functions.

Which leads to the fixed aperture of the 70-200 which is also attractive. So to compensate for the range i was thinking complementing it with extenders. Whats you opinion?
 
In your case I'd get the 70-200 and a 1.4x converter.

I like the flexibility of the 70-300L but I have a few primes for low light.

The IQ of both is excellent!

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
In your case I'd get the 70-200 and a 1.4x converter.

I like the flexibility of the 70-300L but I have a few primes for low light.

The IQ of both is excellent!

Phil
Click to expand...

Must admit i am leaning towards the former option. Thanks Phil....
 
zennith said:
So in theory on a crop body using a 70-200 F/2.8 with a 1.4 extender becomes a 156-448 F/5.6? Would that be right?
Click to expand...

F4, not 5.6. The aperture only increases for the 1.4x converter part, you don't increase it again for the crop sensor part.
 
PistolPeteUK said:
F4, not 5.6. The aperture only increases for the 1.4x converter part, you don't increase it again for the crop sensor part.
Click to expand...

no it doesn't become anything new :shake: It is what it says on the tin. You just have a smaller sensor so can only make the use of the image centre rendered by that lens.

70-200 II 2.8 vs 70-300 is a strange comparison. The former is much bigger, more expensive and more powerful lens. It's the daddy, and should be naturally the first choice when possible. The comparison is usually made between 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-300L as they are a lot more similar.
 
He/She doesn't mention ther MkII
 
daugirdas said:
no it doesn't become anything new :shake: It is what it says on the tin. You just have a smaller sensor so can only make the use of the image centre rendered by that lens.

70-200 II 2.8 vs 70-300 is a strange comparison. The former is much bigger, more expensive and more powerful lens. It's the daddy, and should be naturally the first choice when possible. The comparison is usually made between 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-300L as they are a lot more similar.
Click to expand...

I see your point. My confusion / conundrum was between choosing between a faster aperture or a longer range lens.
 
I had a Canon 100-400 L which was very good but I now have a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L MkII and 2x MkIII converter for when the extra length is needed and TBH it's at least as sharp as the 100-400 L was at f5.6-f8. I've also used a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x converter and have used that to great effect with the 70-200. I haven't used a 70-300 L so I can't give an opinion on that but the 70-200 and converter is a fantastic combination.

OP, if you live anywhere near Branston (near Lincoln) drop me a PM and arrange to drop by for a try if you want to.
 
modchild said:
I had a Canon 100-400 L which was very good but I now have a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L MkII and 2x MkIII converter for when the extra length is needed and TBH it's at least as sharp as the 100-400 L was at f5.6-f8. I've also used a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x converter and have used that to great effect with the 70-200. I haven't used a 70-300 L so I can't give an opinion on that but the 70-200 and converter is a fantastic combination.

OP, if you live anywhere near Branston (near Lincoln) drop me a PM and arrange to drop by for a try if you want to.
Click to expand...

Thats what i leaning towards now, the 70-200 + extender for the extra reach when needed. Love the flexibility that it offers, fast aperture (for low light) and length (when needed via the extender)

Thanks for the offer, if we were even in the same country i would like to take it up. Unfortunately i live in a small country in South East Asia.
 
I'd go for the 70-200. It is an incredible lens, so sharp at 2.8 and it works really well with the 1.4x extender, so if you ever feel you need the extra reach, you could also add that to the kit bag!

I'd always go for faster lenses over more length any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top