CANON EF 70-200MM F/2.8 L IS USM with teleconverter?

[Lauravtz]

Hi there! 

About 2 years ago I fell in love with photography, focussing mostly on wildlife. Since I'm a student I'm on a tight budget, the past years I've been photographing with several low-cost secondhand objectives. The lens with the largest range I've had so far has been the CANON 70-300 mm F/4.0-5,6 IS USM.  Lately I've had the opportunity to buy a CANON EF 70-200MM F/2.8 L IS USM occasion for a verrrry reasonable price. For the bigger animals (highlanders for example, which I do a lot) the 200mm will probably do, but I also like to photograph birds and such. 

Will the quality of an L-lens be that good that I will get the 'same' kind of quality as my 70-300mm with cropping? What are your opinions of using an teleconverter on the CANON EF 70-200MM F/2.8 L IS USM, the 1,4 or 2? I've read several articles about extenders, and although I do understand it pro's and con's (I think) I still find it hard to choose in my specific situation. I do love bird photography, and it will take several years before I will be able to buy anything >300mm. I did see some low-priced extenders on secondhand sites with makes me tend towards buying one, but still not sure whether to go for a 1,4 or 2. I would love to experience shooting at 400mm, but can't really imagine how it would impact quality. 

I hope you can help me to make this decision, and hopefully my English is understandable since it is not my first language. 

Thanks in advance! 

[Ken Katz]

The Canon 70-300 IS is a really good lens, far better than previous 300mm consumer grade zooms sold by Canon and others.  The original 70-200 F2.8L IS plus Canon 1.4x converters produce very good image quality.  I don't know if it is better or equal to the 70-300 IS but it will be 1 stop faster.  I used the 70-200 F4 L IS plus Canon 1.4x mk II for many years, finding only a small image quality reduction compared with the native lens.   It was accepted knowledge, in the Canon world, that the Canon pro zooms plus 2x converters resulted in noticeably reduced image quality.  I have heard that the last generation of 70-200 L zooms plus the Canon 2x mk III was a better combination than previous versions.

I would get the 70-200 f2.8L if I needed / wanted a faster lens and was willing to carry around that heavy lens.  For birds on the cheap (cheaper than Canon L super telephotos or  L zooms), you may want to look at the Sigma or Tamron 1xx - 600mm zooms, since 300mm (using FF) is not likely to be long enough.

Your English is just fine.

 

[hjoseph7]

For Birding you might be better off with 70-300mm due to the extra reach, but keep in mind that when shooting wild-life which includes birds, they usuallly come out in numbers during dusk and dawn to feed. This is when the 70-200 f2.8 might come in handy. At max focal lenght of 200mm, the 1.4x extender will give you the equivalent of a 280mm lens, which is not enough for birding not by far.  On the other hand, if you use the converter with the 70-300 f4-5.6  things get a little better in that the extra reach gives you the equivalent of a 420mm lens, however you will only be able to shoot at f8 or greater,  due to the loss of 1 stop from the extender/converter.  That is quite limiting if you ask me  ! If you are using a cropped sensor camera, then the 70-200mm f2.8 will give you approximately 420mm lens at max focal length, depending on the camera, plus you can shoot at f4. From experience, I can tell you that's still not enough, especially when it comes to the smaller birds. The good thing is that you can  always crop when you get home, which is what a lot of people do including myself. A 2X converter will give you even more loss of light, so you got to think about that too.

[Ken Katz]

Note that Canon teleconverters will not mount on the 70-300 EF lens, so you would need to use a third party teleconverter.  Also, AF on most Canon DLRs will not work (or AF may become unreliable) if the lens max aperture is greater than f5.6, which would be the case with the 70-300 EF plus teleconverter.  Many of the Canon Pro DSLRs will AF at F8 with the center AF sensor, so you would need check out the specifications of your camera.

[JDMvW]

Even though the 70-300 is f/2.8, a teleconverter will reduce the light coming through so that you may often have to pump up the ISO which leads to noise....

 

You might look around for the first version of the 100-400mm IS lens - you might be lucky enough to find one for less than you expect.

[Robin Smith]

I had the 70-300L for many years and it is excellent. At equivalent apertures to the 70-300L (i.e f4-16) the 70-200mm ver 1 may be a little better. With the 1.4X TC the 70-200mm is still very good. It is a little difficult to compare because the max aperture of the TC combination will be f4 whereas the 70-300L will be f5.6 at 300mm, but I would expect that the 300L may be slightly better than the 280mm (200+1.4X) at 300mm, but I suspect it would be close. I never made a direct comparison myself (I had the 70-200 f2.8 ver II). The 70-200mm f2.8 are very useful lenses, and for most general purposes may be a better fit for people who only occasionally want to go longer, because adding a 1.4X TC is a pain. I agree with JD though, you could look for the 1st version of the 100-400mm L if you need something longer. I liked the 70-300L because it easily fitted in a bag and yet had the quality and instant tele up to 300mm. I could also suggest the 70-200mm f4 IS lenses which in my opinion are as good if not better than the f2.8 versions and are much lighter. If you add a 1.4X TC then you are 280mm f5.6, about the same as the 70-300L when zoomed to 300. They are a very good price these days. I have never used a 2X TC, but all reports say that the performance is much worse than with the 1.4X.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Robin Smith

[John Crowe]

Some have assumed you have the 70-300 L IS lens.  However you did not type "L" in your description.  Can you clarify which, there is a huge difference.  I would not put a third party teleconverter on the non-L.

The L would be very similar to the 70-200 IS L with 1.4x, but the non-L would be much much worse.

While the 1.4x would have nominal effect on the 70-200, it would not deliver a significant difference either.  I would be more inclined to go with the EF 2x II or III.  I just upgraded from the original to the II, and it was worthwhile.  The III is supposed to be a bit better.  The Kenko 300 Pro 1.4x DG that I have is not as good as the original EF 1.4x that I had.  The EF 1.4x III that I now have is better than the original.

I am using the teleconverters on a 70-200/4 L and 300/2.8 L.  I used them on the 300/4 L in the past.

For fine detail the 70-200/2.8 and EF 2x won't stand up as well, but for general picture taking, until you can afford something longer, I think you will be pleased.  When you can stop down one additional stop to regain some of that lost detail.

P.S. My only concern depending on what camera you use, is how the AF may be affected by the 2x.  For general photos I find the reduced AF to be acceptable.  For some motorsports photography it is not fast enough, again on my particularly slow camera.

Edited January 5, 2023 by John Crowe

[glen_h]

One that I have found, (mostly with Nikon) is that AF lenses have a hard time with teleconverters.

 

I have a Kenko TC that, for the older Nikon lenses with motor in camera, slows down the focus to half speed.

Since the 2X TC also doubles the focus change, as seen by the camera, the half speed is needed.

But for the motor in lens system, there is no slow down.

Even without the loss reduced aperture, it would still be twice as hard for AF.

 

[Robin Smith]

Always better to get the original matching teleconverters for image quality and AF speed in my experience. AF speed and/or accuracy will always decrease to some degree though.

[Mark Keefer]

 ..

Edited January 26, 2023 by Mark Keefer