Has anyone tried a Canon 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x TC attached. any samples please. I already have a 100-400mm, and I intend to buy a
17-40mm L and wish to bridge the gap between the 17-40mm and the 100-400mm lenses.
Thanks
Simon.
Posted by Steve Foss on August 17, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Simon, I have used them together but trashed the images so can't show you comparative examples.
This is IMO, as we all have somewhat different standards, but no Canon tele zoom can take the 2x without an unacceptable loss of IQ. Even the 70-200 series, which is Canon's sharpest tele zoom series, isn't up to it, IMO. I shoot the 1.4 on it quite a lot with great results, but the 2x produced images that were just too soft.
Aside from that, you don't need a TC on the 70-200 to bridge the gap, though it is a beautiful piece of glass to have in low light. Since you're looking in the $1,100 price range, you might consider the Canon 24-105 f4L IS as a better choice. That'd give you full coverage from 17-400mm, or if you're using a crop-sensor body from from 22mm to 520mm or 26mm to 640mm, depending on which crop body you're shooting.
It's possible I'm a bit confused about your intent, however. When you mentioned bridging the gap, I figured you meant keeping the 100-400 so you'd have the 17-40, whichever gap-bridging lens you select and the 100-400 in your kit. Is that assumption right?
FWIW, as a nature photographer I shot with the 17-40 and 100-400 for three years with nothing in between and never noticed the gap. It was pretty much an unused focal range for me. Now I have the 17-40, 70-200 f2.8, 100 macro and 400 f5.6, and though the gap has narrowed I still don't use much of anything between 40 and 100mm. That simply reflects my shooting style, however, and you may find it a vital focal length range for your work.
Here's another way to look at it. If you are shooting a 1.6 crop sensor, you can get the 10-22 instead of the 17-40. Then you'd have the 10-22, 24-105 and 100-400. The 10-22 and 17-40 are about the same price. Your coverage, assuming the 1.6 crop sensor, would then range from 16mm to 640mm. The difference at the wide end from 26mm down to 16mm is a huge one, IMO.
If you are shooting a 1.6 crop sensor, don't plan to upgrade soon and don't need the extra stop or two the 70-200 f2.8 offers (I need that badly for indoor weddings), IMO this is the best 3-lens nature photography lineup Canon offers for about $3,000-$3,500. That all goes out the window, of course, if you are using a full-frame sensor now or plan to upgrade to full frame in the near future, as the 10-22 won't work on FF sensors.
Hi Steve thanks for your detailed advice. The gap I meant was to cover between 40mm to 100mm. Its for a 1.6 crop sensor (40D). Regarding the 10-22mm. I intend to buy a FF sensor in the future.
Thanks,
Simon.
Posted by Steve Foss on August 17, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Regarding the 10-22mm. I intend to buy a FF sensor in the future.
That's what swayed me in my own wide angle purchase to the 17-40 instead of the 10-22.
What I can do is use the 17-40 and buy a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 and keep the 100-400 for above 200mm.
Simon.
Posted by Steve Foss on August 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Surely. You will still have a gap from 40 to 70mm, but if that gap doesn't bother you (it doesn't bother me at all), then the 70-200 f2.8L may be a better choice for you than the 24-105, although if you're buying the non IS version of the 70-200 you'll lose the added capability IS brings.
But at least its not that much (40-70) as you said it won't bother me either, better than 40-100.
Posted by Steve Foss on August 17, 2008 at 4:08 PM
But it's not better than no gap at all.
Still, the 70-200 series is so sweet I can see why you'd be tempted to put it ahead of the 24-105, even with the difference in IS/non IS. In the end you'll do what you feel is best, and I'm sure you'll be very happy with your choice.
And if you later change your mind and opt for a different lens lineup, all that Canon L glass maintains its resale value quite well on the used market, so selling this and buying that isn't going to cost much money.
You might want to try different extenders. Some extender/lens combos are outstandingly good, while others are awful. Examples of legendary combinations - the Tamron 300mm 2.8 and Kenko TCs, Nikon 80-200 and Nikon 1.4TC, Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and the sigma TCs.
Understanding how a TC works will also improve your results- in essence, the simply magnify the center part of the image as it is transmitted by the rear element of the lens. If you close down the lens to F8 or so, you will greatly improve the image, but unless the lens and TC are specifically designed to work together, you will suffer degradation. It's your call as to how much degradation you can tolerate.
Posted by Steve Sieren on September 5, 2008 at 9:58 AM
I use the 70-200 2.8 IS w/ 2x. the 2x sucks! I should sell it.
Discussion
15 replies17-40mm L and wish to bridge the gap between the 17-40mm and the 100-400mm lenses.
Thanks
Simon.
This is IMO, as we all have somewhat different standards, but no Canon tele zoom can take the 2x without an unacceptable loss of IQ. Even the 70-200 series, which is Canon's sharpest tele zoom series, isn't up to it, IMO. I shoot the 1.4 on it quite a lot with great results, but the 2x produced images that were just too soft.
Aside from that, you don't need a TC on the 70-200 to bridge the gap, though it is a beautiful piece of glass to have in low light. Since you're looking in the $1,100 price range, you might consider the Canon 24-105 f4L IS as a better choice. That'd give you full coverage from 17-400mm, or if you're using a crop-sensor body from from 22mm to 520mm or 26mm to 640mm, depending on which crop body you're shooting.
It's possible I'm a bit confused about your intent, however. When you mentioned bridging the gap, I figured you meant keeping the 100-400 so you'd have the 17-40, whichever gap-bridging lens you select and the 100-400 in your kit. Is that assumption right?
FWIW, as a nature photographer I shot with the 17-40 and 100-400 for three years with nothing in between and never noticed the gap. It was pretty much an unused focal range for me. Now I have the 17-40, 70-200 f2.8, 100 macro and 400 f5.6, and though the gap has narrowed I still don't use much of anything between 40 and 100mm. That simply reflects my shooting style, however, and you may find it a vital focal length range for your work.
Here's another way to look at it. If you are shooting a 1.6 crop sensor, you can get the 10-22 instead of the 17-40. Then you'd have the 10-22, 24-105 and 100-400. The 10-22 and 17-40 are about the same price. Your coverage, assuming the 1.6 crop sensor, would then range from 16mm to 640mm. The difference at the wide end from 26mm down to 16mm is a huge one, IMO.
If you are shooting a 1.6 crop sensor, don't plan to upgrade soon and don't need the extra stop or two the 70-200 f2.8 offers (I need that badly for indoor weddings), IMO this is the best 3-lens nature photography lineup Canon offers for about $3,000-$3,500. That all goes out the window, of course, if you are using a full-frame sensor now or plan to upgrade to full frame in the near future, as the 10-22 won't work on FF sensors.
Food for thought.
Thanks,
Simon.
That's what swayed me in my own wide angle purchase to the 17-40 instead of the 10-22.
Simon.
Tradeoffs. Always tradeoffs.
Simon.
Still, the 70-200 series is so sweet I can see why you'd be tempted to put it ahead of the 24-105, even with the difference in IS/non IS. In the end you'll do what you feel is best, and I'm sure you'll be very happy with your choice.
And if you later change your mind and opt for a different lens lineup, all that Canon L glass maintains its resale value quite well on the used market, so selling this and buying that isn't going to cost much money.
It's all a work in progress, after all.
Simon.
It's my pleasure to help. Gear acquisition never ends, does it?
Understanding how a TC works will also improve your results- in essence, the simply magnify the center part of the image as it is transmitted by the rear element of the lens. If you close down the lens to F8 or so, you will greatly improve the image, but unless the lens and TC are specifically designed to work together, you will suffer degradation. It's your call as to how much degradation you can tolerate.