Ditch Canon 70-300 for 70-200 2.8II + 2X?

[Chris102]

I have the white Canon 70-300 and like it, but I have my sights set on the 70-200 2.8L IS II after having one for a two-week rental period. And now I'm thinking about potentially selling my 70-300 and a non-IS 2.8 70-200 and getting the 70-200 2.8L IS II and a 2x extender.

Has anyone used both the 70-300 and 70-200 + 2X and can comment on the image quality between the two? Would 200mm+ on the 70-200 with the converter be at least as good as that of the 200-300 range of the 70-300?

I know I'll lose the 2.8 aperture when putting an extender on the 70-200, but will the degradation in quality be so bad that it would be worth keeping the 70-300?

Sorry if this is a little bit rambling--it's been a long week! :)

[Fighting_falcon_51]

I have the white Canon 70-300 and like it, but I have my sights set on the 70-200 2.8L IS II after having one for a two-week rental period. And now I'm thinking about potentially selling my 70-300 and a non-IS 2.8 70-200 and getting the 70-200 2.8L IS II and a 2x extender.

Has anyone used both the 70-300 and 70-200 + 2X and can comment on the image quality between the two? Would 200mm+ on the 70-200 with the converter be at least as good as that of the 200-300 range of the 70-300?

I know I'll lose the 2.8 aperture when putting an extender on the 70-200, but will the degradation in quality be so bad that it would be worth keeping the 70-300?

Sorry if this is a little bit rambling--it's been a long week! :)

I can't answer your question on how the 70-200 & 2X extender would work, but you might want to consider the Tamron 70-300 VC.

I understand that the 70-200 is a whole different class of lens and that you would have greater focal length with the extender, but the Tamron 70-300 is tack sharp and has a fast auto focus and is significantly cheaper.

This is just my 2 cents anyway, good luck with whatever you end up getting!

[threeholerglory]

i shoot the 70-200 2.8IS (the original) with the 1.4xTC and it's awesome even on my 30D...not sure how the 2X is or if you'll lose AF but it's probably killer. I think Cary shoots with that setup but I'd imagine it also depends heavily on the body.

[steve1840]

The 70-200 with the 2X maintains superb image quality. The following image was shot with the 70-200 IS II and the 2X converter.

http://www.fursteditionphotography.com/Airplanes/Civilian-Aviation-2013/KJFK-2013/i-JwdTXtZ/0/L/AerLingus-A332-EIELA-KJFK-01202013-L.jpg (http://www.fursteditionphotography.com/Airplanes/Civilian-Aviation-2013/KJFK-2013/27649092_4HwSmp#!i=2331900377&k=JwdTXtZ&lb=1&s=A)

Personally, I'd say go for it!

[megatop412]

I contemplated the same thing but from the Nikon end. Ultimately I decided to stick with the more versatile 70-300mm zoom range as putting a TC on a lens brings up the wide end as well

[Cary]

i shoot the 70-200 2.8IS (the original) with the 1.4xTC and it's awesome even on my 30D...not sure how the 2X is or if you'll lose AF but it's probably killer. I think Cary shoots with that setup but I'd imagine it also depends heavily on the body.

5 or 6 years ago, I used to shoot with the 70-200 2.8 (original) + 1.4x TC II, but the results were a little soft. I've contemplated getting the 2x TC III for my 70-200 2.8 IS II, but haven't gone for it yet. I would definitely get it, if it was switchable, like the one in the new $12k 200-400mm. Akie just started using the 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2x TC III, and last I heard, he was very happy with the sharpness.