Canon 200mm F2 IS with extenders? (1 Viewer)

[cassowary]

I was looking at getting the 400mm F4 DO IS as a walk about lens for low light, however looking at reviews the quality doesn't seem to be as good as the 300mm 2.8 IS with a 1.4x extender and and apparently the 200mm with a 2x extender supposedly out performs the 400 F4. I am an amateur photographer but I was thinking about getting the 200 and using stacked extenders. With this option, for very close shots I would have arguably the sharpest lens. and also a very good lens for distance shots. Anyway has anyone tried this combo? Am I walking down the wrong path?

Cheers

 

[stevo]

Personally i`d get the canon 400mm f5.6 prime lens,then buy a 1.4 tc & tape the pins.

Steve.

 

[jalethbridge]

My 2c - If you want to achieve 400mm, buy a 400mm lens. If you absolutely need an incredibly fast 200mm and intend to shoot wide open with it, get the 200 f2.

200mm is far too short for all birds except tame geese. If you want a fast 200mm for a situation you have in mind, the 2.8L lens is incredible value at a fraction of the price/weight of the f2 version. It is as sharp as they come.

For birding, don't buy a lens that will be too short without teleconverters, just buy the native focal length. A longer slower lens is preferable to a shorter faster lens - this is what the pros say.

If focal length is what you definitely want and you have that kind of money to spend, but don't want to carry an enormous lens around, I think the 300 f2.8 mkI or II with both converters would be a good option. It is highly portable, and I was very pleased with what the mk 1 lens could do at 600 f5.6. The mk II won't be any worse, and has the advantage of being a tad lighter with a more effective image stabiliser.

If you can reconcile yourself to >3kg, get a 500mm mk II (or one of the bargain second-hand mk I lenses which are popping up). All bird photographers get a 500mm f4 eventually if the opportunity arises; most still use it with converters. Many have a 300 f2.8 alongside it for those low-light occasions.

Jonathan

 

[GYRob]

For us in the uk even the 500f4 can often be to short so you would alway's end up with a 2x tc on a 200mm .
I think the 300f2.8isL is a better option by far i do have one but im also lucky enough to own a 500f4isL too so use that most of the time .
If i could only have one then the 300f2.8isL and the converter's would be my first choice .
Rob.

 

[cassowary]

Chaps, thanks for the feedback.
The 500 f4 is just not a lens I really want to walk around with; I doubt I can hand hold it for long and I'm rarely a sedentary birder. I am only a casual photographer anyway. Really I just came across the 200 F2 when I was looking at a review of the 300f2.8is and the cogs in my head started turning. I have the 400 5.6 and have loved it except for jungle/woodland photography.

Maybe the way to go for me then is to get a 300 f2.8 is mkI. And then periodically use a converter.

By the way are the new canon converters better than the old converters?

 

[BodyResults]

By the way are the new canon converters better than the old converters?

Most people feel the version iii of the Canon 2X is better. The only reason I think to get the version iii of the Canon 1.4 is if you are going to use it with the version ii super telephotos lenses. They are supposed to have more communication to optimize their use.

Doug

 

[cassowary]

BodyResults thanks for the feedback. I'll have to do a little research on this -

 

[BodyResults]

Here's a good test to review
http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/2011/01/the-new-canon-teleconverters-image-quality-comparison/

Doug

 

[cassowary]

Body Results thanks for posting that review. Very helpful. I think I will probably go with the old version II 1.4x converter for the 300 f2.8 is mkI. I'm not sure about the 2x.

Anyway I still have to get the lens first!

Cheers