Advise on new 70-200is

[les maynard photography]

I currently own 70-200 2.8 and a 100-400 is And am considering replacing these two with the new 70-200 2.8 is and upgrading my 2x converters also.

Has any one seen a report on this new lens using the new 2x converter.

[roger_shrader]

You will lose quite a bit of quality with the 70-200 and 2x option.

Here is a good review of exactly what you mention. I hope this

helps...

 

<p>

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/400v400.htm

[isaac sibson]

Whilst the luminous landscape test is with the old converter, I

doubt there'll be a night-and-day difference between the two

converters. If you want a 400mm lens, buy a 400mm lens, not a 200mm

lens.

 

<p>

 

Since you already have the 100-400, keep it. It will be better as a

400mm lens than the 70-200 F2.8L IS + TC, and also, if you have an

EOS 3, 1V or 1D, makes a usable (I've seen some great results) 560mm

F8 with the 1.4X TC.

[steve_dunn3]

Yeah, what they said. As awesome as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM is, and

as good as the new 2x is, if what you want is a 100-400, you're better

off with the 100-400 and no TC. If you want the 70-200 IS lens to

replace your 70-200 non-IS, I'd say that's a good call if you can

afford it. But I can only see two reasons for replacing the 100-400

with the 70-200 IS + 2x: if you want the 70-200 IS but can't afford

it other than by selling both of your existing lenses, or if the

size/weight of having two big zooms to cart around is too much.

 

<p>

 

Of course, if you DO decide to replace either or both, feel free to

ship the leftovers to me :-)

[lee_shively]

My non-IS 70-200 is pretty good with the new 2x but at 400mm it's not

in the same ballpark as my 400/5.6L. It's a decent trade off to

lighten the camera bag. I don't think it would be wise to ditch the

100-400 IS lens and depend on a 2x extender.

[peter_phan3]

What would you like to accomplish by replacing your existing 70-

200/2.8 and 100-400L IS with the 70-200/2.8L IS+2TC?