Long-Awaited: 7D, 2X II TC, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II

[Arthur Morris]

This image was created this morning with the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, the 2X II TC, and the EOS-7D. Evaluative metering +1/3 stop: 1/2000 sec. at f/5.6 set manually. Fill flash at 0.

I know what I think. What do you think?

[Arthur Morris]

Unsharpened 100% crop of the image above.

[Ákos Lumnitzer]

I think it's great! Only pixel peepers would complain perhaps. Looks plenty sharp as the optimized web image and decent enough (more than) as the 100% crop. :)

[Sid Garige]

Sensor overload wiht colors Artie. Awesome. Looks sharp at 100% with 2x

[Ben_Sadd]

As I was one of those who asked, many thanks for doing the test Artie.

In my opinion this looks pretty good. Of course a certain person from the other thread may turn up and say otherwise (I have yet to see those unsharpened 100% crops that we requested), but this level of sharpness straight out of the camera is very good and is an excellent basis for later processing work.

Now to decide if and when I cut my three lens bird/wildlife combination (70-200mm f/4, 300mm f/4, 500mm f/4) down to two (70-200mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4). Total weight would be less, quality seems comparable, and economically it breaks about even.

[Don Lacy]

The fact that the new 70-200 f/2.8 takes the 2X as well as the current 300 f/2.8 is pretty amazing and makes one wonder how good the new 300 2.8 is going to be.

[Arthur Morris]

The new 300 f/2.8 L IS II will be scary. With Series III TCs will improve AF, it will be insanely sharp, and it will be lighter. Sick. I may even have to try one.... Ooops. I forgot the vastly improved IS system....

[Brian Sartor]

Thanks for sharing your impressions about this combo, Artie.

I am very interested in these results as I currently have the version I 70-200 2.8IS for those times (rare as they are) when I experiment with portrait or amateur sports etc.. And for wildlife I have the 100-400 to compliment my 500. The idea of having 1 less lens in the arsenal is very tempting if I am not giving up any capability.

To me, the picture above looks very sharp without a doubt.

One thing I did not see mentioned is the focal length. I assume this was fully zoomed out to 400mm but could you confirm that? Also, have you noticed any difference in IQ when not fully zoomed, any kind of obvious sweet spot when using the 2X?

Thanks

[Arthur Morris]

Brian, YAW. This one was at 342 mm. Nothing different at 400 to my eyes :) Thus, no sweet spot.

[subhrashis]

The results are indeed impressive here!

BTW, what do you miss in this setup compared to the 400 DO? The focus hold button and associated perks?

[Arthur Morris]

The only thing that I will miss if I sell the 400 DO is using it with the 1.4X TC.....

[Charles Scheffold]

Artie,

Thanks for sharing. I can't wait to try this combination. Just sold my 70-200/2.8 IS and will be upgrading to the 70-200 2.8 IS II soon :)

I routinely use the 7D + 400/5.6 as my walk-around wildlife setup. It's a lot easier to take on long hikes than the 1D4 + 500/4 or 800/5.6. Up until now I've been keeping the 70-200 in my bag as well, but I think with this setup I could maybe leave the 400/5.6 home.



thanks
Charles

[Reza Gorji]

I think the picture is very sharp. Even on the nape where the contrast is high one can see the individual feathers. Love the eye contact with the pelican.

[Danny J Brown]

A brilliant shot, Artie. The type of image that inspired me to work harder four years ago and still does today. I don't know how much the 70 - 200 had to do with it, although I have the older 70 - 200/2.8 and love mine, but it is a real beauty, for sure!

DB

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

What I think is that you're a better photographer than I am. I wish I could manage pictures that good. :-)

That said, this picture does strike me as inferior to your work with real 400mm lenses, especially at 100%. I guess the question is whether you can swap the 2x fast enough to have a 70-400mm zoom. But my gut says that most nature photographers would be better off with the 100-400mm zoom for this range. Do you find differently? Of course, if the 2X performs equally well on longer lenses, then that's a much more compelling story.

Personally I wish Canon would put a little more smarts into camera autofocus, especially the 60D/7D lines. If these could autofocus at f/8 (like the center point does on the 1Ds) big teleconverters like this would be a lot more useful.

[Arthur Morris]

What I think is that you're a better photographer than I am. I wish I could manage pictures that good. :-)

That said, this picture does strike me as inferior to your work with real 400mm lenses, especially at 100%. I guess the question is whether you can swap the 2x fast enough to have a 70-400mm zoom. But my gut says that most nature photographers would be better off with the 100-400mm zoom for this range. Do you find differently? Of course, if the 2X performs equally well on longer lenses, then that's a much more compelling story.

Personally I wish Canon would put a little more smarts into camera autofocus, especially the 60D/7D lines. If these could autofocus at f/8 (like the center point does on the 1Ds) big teleconverters like this would be a lot more useful.

I just sold my 100-400.... That should pretty much answer all questions. (BTW, I am pretty sure that you have not seen any of 400mm stuff at 100% before so hard for you to compare....)

When I get home, I am gonna do my first ever test. I am gonna get a resolution chart and compare the 70-200 with the 2X with the 400 DO...

With birds, keeping the 1.4X or the 2X on the lens depending on the situation should not leave folks holding the bag.... I can, however, see your point while on safari....

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

How much, if any, difference does the camera body make in these sorts of tests? The 7D is known for having good autofocus. Could it have an easier time focusing on a teleconverted image than a 50D might? That is, I'm wondering if the difference is not linear. While the 7D will certainly get better results than a 50D on any given lens, I'm wondering if it might get more than proportionally better results on this combo than it would on the same 70-200 sans teleconverter.

I've been trying out the 70-200 IS II this weekend (http://www.elharo.com/blog/photography/2011/01/15/canon-70-200-f2-8l-is-ii/), and sans teleconverter I'm finding it to be extremely sharp, equal or better than my 400mm f/5.6. (Probably about as sharp but with a higher keeper rate. Thanks IS!) With the 2X Mark II teleconverter though, the difference is not as pronounced and I have to stop down to f/8 to get plausible results.

[subhrashis]

Another question, how is the focus breathing? The Nikon 70 -200 VR II, for example, breaths a lot, so that for closer subjects, focal length is much, much less than 200mm or 400 mm using 2x TC III.

[Aravind Krishnaswamy]

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II has considerably less breathing than the new Nikon. Like all zoom lenses, there is some breathing but its not big enough to be noticeable unless you are actively looking for it.


Another question, how is the focus breathing? The Nikon 70 -200 VR II, for example, breaths a lot, so that for closer subjects, focal length is much, much less than 200mm or 400 mm using 2x TC III.

[Arthur Morris]

Please explain "focus breathing." I have no clue as to what it means.

[subhrashis]

Artie, according to my rough understanding, focus breathing is a phenomenon where the effective focal length, and hence angle of view of a lens changes while focusing.
Those looking for a 70-200 + 2x TC route for reach in Nikon-land, may thus have to consider that at closest focus, the effective focal length of 70-200 VR II is around 135 mm (Source: Thom Hogan's review).

[Aravind Krishnaswamy]

I believe its a term more commonly used by the video folks. Breathing refers to the properly whereby a lens' effective field of view narrows as your decrease the focus distance. For example with the Nikon 70-200 VR II, at 200mm and infinity the lens has an effective field of view of a 192mm lens . However at its minimum focus distance of 1.4m, again at 200mm, it has an effective field of view of a 134mm lens.

Thom Hogan illustrates the difference well in his review of the Nik 70-200:

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm