200/f1.8 with 1.4x or 2x TC.....quality results?

[bmeister]

Does anyone have examples of the 200/f1.8 with the 1.4x or 2x Canon

TCs attached? I'm trying to determine if the quality is good enough

(boy is THAT subjective or what?) to avoid carrying a 135/f2,

300/f2.8 and 400/f2.8 around in additon to a 70-200/f2.8. In

particular, how much does contrast and sharpness suffer given how

sharp the 200 is on its own? How badly is the AF affected? I'll be

using the combo with 10d and 1D and have no opportunity to test drive

before I buy.

 

I'm trying to save money and weight (the 200 would replace the 135

and sub for a 300 and 400 by using the TCs). The 200+2x TC would be

used outdoors for soccer and the 200 by itself or +1.4x would be for

indoor sports. I need that f1.8/2.5 speed on many occasions,

otherwise I'd just use the zoom and the 300/f2.8+1.4x.

 

I'd like to see some examples posted because all I have is heresay

from various forums. Thanks.

[PuppyDigs]

The EF 200 1.8L USM is too rare and expensive a bird for most shooters here. I saw one once in a display case...

[jim_mueller2]

I have examples of the 200/2.8 and 2X II TC. Look at the shots of the bear and the elephant in my folder. You can see individual hairs on the beasts in the large photos shot 50-60 meters away. I love both of the above lenses.

[michael_king4]

we have a pool 200/1.8 at our paper. Our photogs regularly use it by itself and with the 1.4x II converter on the EOS-1d and get consistently excellent results. Always good enough for running the photos (on newsprint, however) 5-6 columns even! I'm sorry I am unable to give you any actual examples other than my word of mouth. We love using that lens for indoor volleyball and basketball when we know lighting is going to be hellish.

 

I wouldn't hesitate to get that combination if you really need the extra stop of light (with the converter, you will have a f2.0 lens). But if you are looking for a lightweight alternative to the 300/2.8... you will be suprised to know that the 200/1.8 isn't much lighter at all. If I had to take my pick and lighting wouldn't be an issue... I would take the 300/2.8 hands-down because of its focal length and AF quality.

 

While I'm on autofocus: Both use the same AF system and have conparable speed. However, your depth of field on the 200/1.8 is VERY shallow. Especially using the 1D, your sensor can easily pick-up on a small lock of hair on the face of a sports player and the face will be soft. Just an example because i've seen it happen.

 

 

good luck with your choice and feel free to contact me if you have more questions.

 

 

 

Michael King

Columbus, OH