EF 200mm f/2.8 and 2X TC

[scavallucci]

I stumbled across a deal I couldn't pass up on a new extender EF 2X,

so I'm now trying to figure out what to do with it... I always wanted to

start shooting birds, but if I want to retain focus on my DReb I need

to consider an f/2.8 lens... Considering that 400/2.8, 300/2.8 and

200/1.8 are out of the picture, that leaves me with the 200/2.8.

Now my question is: I haven't been able to find samples/reviews

of this match, so I was wondering if somebody here ever tried it and

whether he/she liked it or not

 

Thanks a lot in advance,

Stefano

[Jenifer Selwa Photography]

Hi Stefano!

 

I actually just sold my 200/2.8 lens for a 70-200/4L zoom. Used it quite frequently with the 1.4x converter. INCREDIBLE lens. Lightning fast, quiet, and the QUALITY! Does not suffer one bit, even wide open. Take a look at some of my lighthouse storm images for examples. All shot with the DRebel body. A purchase you will definitely not regret!

<center>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2264763-md.jpg">

</center>

[John Crowe]

I first saw this in this forum and have suggested it a few times now. Unfortunately they do not seem to compare the 200/2.8 versus 200/2.8 and 2x.

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/drip/lens_tests

 

 

Based on my experience with the Canon FD 200/2.8 and FD 2x (the EF should be better) you will be very pleased for the investment made. The 300mm/4 L and 1.4x, and 400/5.6 L would be the next "affordable" steps before the big f2.8's. Aside from having the ability to get to a 400/5.6 with the 2x, the 200/2.8 on it's own is so sharp it will easily become one of your favourites and it comes in a relatively small 'package'. Good luck!

[yakim_peled1]

>> The 300mm/4 L and 1.4x, and 400/5.6 L would be the next "affordable" steps before the big f2.8's.

 

I fully agree. Also consider the 300/4 IS if you are not constantly using a tripod. As I am guilty of that sin, and as I ruled out the 400/5.6 and 300/4 (no IS) and 100-400 IS (I hate push-pull design) I find that the combination of 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC works best for me.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[craig]

I have the EF 200 f/2.8L and the EF 2X tele-extender. On its own, the 200 is a phenomenal lens. Coupled with the EF 1.4, you get great photos. I can't quite say the same about it when it comes to the 2X. I've had some mediocre results with that combination. Some good photos, some bad photos, no GREAT photos. On the plus side, it's nice because the minimum focusing distance doesn't change, so you have a 400 mm lens where you can get some pretty extreme close-ups. Unfortunately, the 2X isn't the best tool for taking sharp photos. Also, the 2X slows down the focusing on the 200 mm lens quite a bit (at least it does on my EOS 5.) In a pinch, it's nice to have the 2X tele-extender available, but if you plan to take a lot of shots at 400mm, you're probably better off getting the 400mm f5.6L prime. Again, with the 200, you can't go wrong. It's a WONDERFUL lens.

[ronald_smith2]

I can send you a couple scans of this combo, if interested. I've had pretty good success with the 200mm f/2.8 L + 2x TC set-up.

[scavallucci]

Thanks a lot everybody for your feedbacks... I was also attracted by the 200/2.8 because of its relatively small size, especially compared to 300/4 or 400/5.6 At this point I think I'll keep the 2X and start looking for a used 200/2.8 MkI (I kinda like the embedded hood idea).

Ronald, could you email me the scans?

[kobbi]

Greetings.<br>

<br>

I have the 200 mkI and have used it quite a bit with a 1.4X and a 2X<br>

for bird photogrpahy with a 10D (I now have a 500 F4 however)<br>

I saw no noticable image degradation with a 1.4X, slightly slower autofocus.<br>

With the 2X<br>

&nbsp &nbsp a) autofocus slows down but is very usable.<br>

&nbsp &nbsp b) suffers color fringing in high contrast situations.<br>

However stopped down it is very usable but you have to keep b) in mind.<br>

The hood is not very usefull in my opinion.<br>

 

It is a brilliant lens and I wont part with mine, I used it with a 1.4X on a boat this summer<br>

for taking Gannet photos where the 500F4 was not usable.<br>

<br>

http://www.simnet.is/jakobs/birds/gannets/gannet.php<br>

<br>

cheers,<br>

&nbsp &nbsp Jakob S.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>I'll keep the 2X and start looking for a used 200/2.8 MkI (I kinda like the embedded hood idea). </cite>

 

<p>Disclaimer: I have never used the 2x or either version of the 200/2.8.</p>

 

<p>The general consensus is that the II's detachable lens hood is superior, because it's deeper and therefore does a better job of shielding the front element from off-axis light. Both versions have identical optics and mechanics, so the difference is that the I is a bit more convenient but the II is a bit more flare-resistant, assuming you use the hood (as you should).</p>

[scavallucci]

Thanks Steve,

 

The hood for the Mark II seems a little bulky to me. I read almost

everywhere it does a better job preventing flare, but knowing myself

I can tell you I would use the embedded one every time I have to while I don't know if I'd do the same with the detachable one...