Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II & 2X II Teleconverter Report

[Arthur Morris]

I arrived in San Diego on Thursday afternoon and got out to La Jolla for a few hours on Friday morning. I am speaking on Saturday and Sunday at Photo Expo West in Delmar, CA. Admission to the vendor areas is free so come on out and say "Hi." You do need to buy a ticket to attend the programs. For more info and the speaking schedule click here.

My main photographic mission while here in San Diego is to test the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II (the latest version) with the EF teleconverter 2X II and the EOS-1D Mark IV professional digital camera body. After just two hours on the cliffs of La Jolla this morning I can tell you that the combination is both versatile and insanely sharp. If anyone has shown me the optimized TIFFs and told me that they were created with the 2X teleconverter I simply would not have believed them. Thanks to Patrick Sparkman for the heads-up on this great combo; he used it extensively in the Galapagos. I did not have many chances for flight photography but the image in this pane tells me all that I need to know :) I will however keep testing.

This was posted two days ago on my blog here. There are already 28 excellent comments including the answers to some great questions. Subbu was the only one to correctly state what bugged me most about the Whimbrel image below :)

[Arthur Morris]

Same gear. Edge to edge sharpness and contrast are superb and the colors brilliant and clean. I did a good job of getting both birds on the same plane as this one was made wide open (at f/5.6) to keep the BKGR soft.

[Arthur Morris]

Same gear. This sleeping first winter Western Gull was photographed using AI Servo rear button AF.

[Arthur Morris]

Same gear. I should have mentioned: all hand held. Whimbrel. I did a good job of stalking as these birds are normally not very accepting...

[Arthur Morris]

Same gear. Here I used the third AF sensor to the left of the central sensor.

[Robert Amoruso]

This is good to hear. When I had the previous 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and used my 2x TC with it, it was a bit slow and lacking - why I went back to the 100-400.

Artie, would you suggest this combination as a good replacement for the 100-400mm; a range very much lacking in Canon's like of lenses?

[Andrew Merwin]

This is good to hear. When I had the previous 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and used my 2x TC with it, it was a bit slow and lacking - why I went back to the 100-400.

Artie, would you suggest this combination as a good replacement for the 100-400mm; a range very much lacking in Canon's like of lenses?

I second that opinion & question.

[Arthur Morris]

Initial focus acquisition will be a tad slower than with the 100-400 but image quality, sharpness (especially with flight and including edge to edge sharpness), contrast, and close focus will kill the 1-4.

[Arthur Morris]

Here's a question that nobody but me knows the answer to (well, me and the folks I have explained it to.... :)

Aside from f/4, what it the only thing that I would lose by selling the 400 DO?

[Ben_Sadd]

about 205grams? ;) (if replacing it with the 70-200 + 2x)

Very nice examples of what this combination can do.

I can't think of a reason why not, but do you believe that it would work so well on another body (e.g. 7D)?

[Stephen Earle]

I've been looking into the new 70-200 II as well, so I've found your impressions very interesting.

A lot of photographers I know have made the switch to Nikon so that they can use the Nikon 200-400 F4 lens. They find it a great combo with the D3s especially for wildlife.

I haven't read any comparisons but I would be interested to know how the new 70-200 II with the 2x converter stack up against the 200-400 in terms of sharpness and AF.

Is this perhaps Canon's answer to the 200-400, D3 or D700 combination? Sure, you lose full frame and the better noise capabilities but here in South Africa you could almost buy 2x MKIV bodies, 2x 70-200 II lenses and converters for the price of one D3s and 200-400.

The focal length combinations one could achieve with 1.4 and 2 x converters on the different crop bodies (MKIV and 7D) with the new 70-200 II should keep most people happy?

As to the images. I'm impressed with what I see.

[Milan V]

Look great but would be nice to see some 100% crop fom e.g. center and edge.

Thanks!
Milan

[Arthur Morris]

Look great but would be nice to see some 100% crop fom e.g. center and edge. Thanks! Milan

Here's an unsharpened 100% crop from one of the images above. I do not make many images with sharp focus on the edges so we will have to wait on that.

[Arthur Morris]

I've been looking into the new 70-200 II as well, so I've found your impressions very interesting.

A lot of photographers I know have made the switch to Nikon so that they can use the Nikon 200-400 F4 lens. They find it a great combo with the D3s especially for wildlife.

I haven't read any comparisons but I would be interested to know how the new 70-200 II with the 2x converter stack up against the 200-400 in terms of sharpness and AF.

Is this perhaps Canon's answer to the 200-400, D3 or D700 combination? Sure, you lose full frame and the better noise capabilities but here in South Africa you could almost buy 2x MKIV bodies, 2x 70-200 II lenses and converters for the price of one D3s and 200-400.

The focal length combinations one could achieve with 1.4 and 2 x converters on the different crop bodies (MKIV and 7D) with the new 70-200 II should keep most people happy?

As to the images. I'm impressed with what I see.

Though most folks in the US are happy with the Nikon 200-400 I was quite surprise when I asked top Canadian pro nature photographer Wayne Lynch why he did not own or use the 2-4 he replied something very close to this effect: it is the worst lens Nikon ever made. It is not even close to sharp at any focal length. I recently asked him if he had tried to newer version and he replied in the negative.

As I have never used the 2-4, I cannot make any comparisons but I do know that I am continually amazed by the sharpness and the image quality of the stuff I am creating here in San Diego with the 200 2.8 II and the 2X II TC.

See the blog for "The Three Big Canon Gear Questions."

[Arthur Morris]

about 205grams? ;) (if replacing it with the 70-200 + 2x)

Very nice examples of what this combination can do.

I can't think of a reason why not, but do you believe that it would work so well on another body (e.g. 7D)?

Thanks. What's a gram??? Lots of folks are asking about using the 2X on the 70-200 2.8 II with the 7D so I will give it a go if I get another sunny day here.... One thing is for sure, it will be a lot of focal length to handhold..... The results of flight images will be interesting. I do not expect them to be as sharp as with the MIV (even though I think that the 7D focus better than the MIV straight up....)

[Dan Avelon]

The 100% crop is pretty soft, are you sure the focus was correct? maybe microadjust issue? I can get way sharper than that with the old 400 f/5.6 even wide open.

[Jay Gould]

Thanks. What's a gram??? Lots of folks are asking about using the 2X on the 70-200 2.8 II with the 7D so I will give it a go if I get another sunny day here.... One thing is for sure, it will be a lot of focal length to handhold..... The results of flight images will be interesting. I do not expect them to be as sharp as with the MIV (even though I think that the 7D focus better than the MIV straight up....)

Artie, when you say that the 70-200 with the 2X is a lot of focal length to HH, do you then feel that way about HH the 300 with a 2X or HH the 500 as do Jim and Doug?

Also, I am going to be eagerly waiting you evaluation of the 7D-70/200/2X test and why it is different than the MIV.

Can you also explain the difference between your opinions 1) the MIV will be sharper than the 7D, and the 7D focus better than the MIV. My confusion is the difference between focus and sharpness as you are using the terms with the same lens.

Finally, of course, those of that that give great weight to your opinion in forming our own opinions look forward to your evaluation of the III teleconverters when they are available.

[Arthur Morris]

The 100% crop is pretty soft, are you sure the focus was correct? maybe microadjust issue? I can get way sharper than that with the old 400 f/5.6 even wide open.

Don, Apparently you and I are photographing on different planets. At 100% unsharpened the image looks amazingly sharp to me.

I would love to see some of your unsharpened 100% crops.

[Arthur Morris]

Jay,

You gotta read what I write...

Artie, when you say that the 70-200 with the 2X is a lot of focal length to HH

With the 7D....

do you then feel that way about HH the 300 with a 2X or HH the 500 as do Jim and Doug?

Their techniques are exceptional and some of their RAW files might not stand up to scrutiny.

Also, I am going to be eagerly waiting you evaluation of the 7D-70/200/2X test and why it is different than the MIV.

Because I will be working at a longer effective focal length, and because I like the image quality of the MIV better than the IQ of the 7D.

Can you also explain the difference between your opinions 1) the MIV will be sharper than the 7D, and the 7D focus better than the MIV. My confusion is the difference between focus and sharpness as you are using the terms with the same lens.

Sharpness errors from equipment shake or movement are a factor of the square of the effective focal length; 520 with the MIV, 640 with the 7D....

Finally, of course, those of that that give great weight to your opinion in forming our own opinions look forward to your evaluation of the III teleconverters when they are available.

I will be ordering them when I get back home.

[Arthur Morris]

Jay especially and others, I would appreciate your thoughts on the unsharpened 100% crop in Pane #13.

If all agree that it is "pretty soft" then folks should not be caring a rat's *** about what I have to say :)

[Andrew Merwin]

With current camera technology, the image in pane 13 is as sharp as it gets right out of the camera. If the image were any sharper, it would cut my eyes. I am clueless :confused: about why someone would think this image is soft.

[Roger Clark]

For comparison, I'm attaching out-of-camera jpegs from a 300 mm f/2.8 at f/5.6 for the 7D and 1DIV. Made on CF tripod with mirror lock-up, IS off. As you can see, they are good but not as sharp as after cleaning up with a sharpening tool. Probably simolar to art's pelican. The 70-200 with a 2x TC would be f5.6 so diffraction effects would be the same as these moon images. For sharpness standards, I would pick the 300 f/2.8 and 180 f/3.5 macro lenses. So the pelican image is very good.

Roger

[Jay Gould]

Jay,

1: Are you thinking that the 7D with the 70-200 f/4 and the 2X TC are gonna autofocus? No, absolutely not. The f/2.8 with the 2X will autofocus. However, I did put my 300 f/2.8 into manual focus so I could stack the 1.4 and 2X for the extra length in an unusual situation.

2: Will you be carrying a light tripod? I use the Manfrotto 190VCXPro3 with a RRS BH-40. The 7D with the 300 2X felt solid in windy conditions.

3: Do you have our 7D User's Guide? Of course, read it more than once, and waiting on the update.

I am copying this thread to the Photography Gear Forum. Please respond there.

:D I have to write this so that the message can be posted. Apparently doing what I did does not comply with the site length/response requirements.

[Jay Gould]

Jay especially and others, I would appreciate your thoughts on the unsharpened 100% crop in Pane #13.

If all agree that it is "pretty soft" then folks should not be caring a rat's *** about what I have to say :)

I think it is exceptionally sharp given that I can see the tips of the feathers on the head and even with my limited experience know that in Post it will sharpen up beautifully.

Good night from Thailand.

[Ben_Sadd]

Jay especially and others, I would appreciate your thoughts on the unsharpened 100% crop in Pane #13.

If all agree that it is "pretty soft" then folks should not be caring a rat's *** about what I have to say :)

In my opinion very sharp. As others have said, this is about as sharp as it gets straight out of the camera (as RAW). If Dan has sharper I would love to see them. Then we should make clones of his lens and camera :).

Oh, and Artie, I assume the gram question was joke ;) if not 205g = 7.23oz

[Robert Amoruso]

Artie,

Sharpness of the unsharped Pelican image looks about right to me for a 100% crop.

[Johan Kruger]

Maybe Dan is referring to JPG files straight off the camera :confused:

[Milan V]

The reason, wHy I ask for the 100% crop is the review from this site...

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...m_2_review.htm
Any comments?

Regarding Pane #13, I would say "quite sharp" (for wide open)

Best!
Milan

[Arthur Morris]

I don't photograph postage stamps. I am selling my 100-400. So obviously we disagree :)

As for the image in pane 13, I agree, it is very sharp. Wide open with the 2X.... What would Juza say???

[Blake Cook]

I have occasionally used the 70-200 f/2.8 II with the Canon 2x and 1.4x stacked combined with the 1D4. In reasonable light it will actually auto focus. It seems to hunt a bit if there's poor contrast but it settle fairly quickly. The results are just OK but it does add another dimension to an amazing lens. (You need to custom set MA in this configuration because the camera only sees the 2.0x tele) I'm travelling/working in Baja at the moment and didn't bring my 300 f/2.8 and I can say I hardly miss it.

Blake

[Arthur Morris]

I have occasionally used the 70-200 f/2.8 II with the Canon 2x and 1.4x stacked combined with the 1D4. In reasonable light it will actually auto focus. It seems to hunt a bit if there's poor contrast but it settle fairly quickly. The results are just OK but it does add another dimension to an amazing lens. (You need to custom set MA in this configuration because the camera only sees the 2.0x tele) I'm travelling/working in Baja at the moment and didn't bring my 300 f/2.8 and I can say I hardly miss it. Blake

Hi Blake, What do you mean by "You need to custom set MA in this configuration because the camera only sees the 2.0x tele"? (What is MA???)

If you are working with static subjects, you can learn about a great trick using Live View to focus with stacked TCs here.

The detailed info can be found in our MIV User's Guide.

[Blake Cook]

I should have been more specific, Autofocus Microadjustment C.FnIII 7 "AF Ma" The 1D4 will only see the 2.0x when stacked with the 1.4x. In my case the 2.0x+70-200 needs -5 AF Ma which the camera will automatically set when I stack the 70-200, 2.0x and 1.4x. The combination actually requires an AF Ma of -1 which I custom set on the rare occasions I stack them. Since almost all of my photography is hand held live view is too cumbersome and slow for moving subjects, but I do use it to provide a baseline when setting up AF Ma.
I mostly use this combination to identify distant objects not for anything I would keep.

Thank-you for the link. It will be useful when I get a better tripod. My G1228II even without extending the bottom legs isn't much use beyond 300mm, if even then.

Cheers,
Blake

[QUOTE=Arthur Morris;602083]Hi Blake, What do you mean by "You need to custom set MA in this configuration because the camera only sees the 2.0x tele"? (What is MA???)

[Arthur Morris]

Blake wrote: I should have been more specific, Autofocus Microadjustment C.FnIII 7 "AF Ma" The 1D4 will only see the 2.0x when stacked with the 1.4x. In my case the 2.0x+70-200 needs -5 AF Ma which the camera will automatically set when I stack the 70-200, 2.0x and 1.4x. The combination actually requires an AF Ma of -1 which I custom set on the rare occasions I stack them. Since almost all of my photography is hand held live view is too cumbersome and slow for moving subjects, but I do use it to provide a baseline when setting up AF Ma.
I mostly use this combination to identify distant objects not for anything I would keep.

Thank-you for the link. It will be useful when I get a better tripod. My G1228II even without extending the bottom legs isn't much use beyond 300mm, if even then.

Cheers, Blake

Thanks for the info. With all due respect, handholding any telephoto lens with stacked TCs seems a losing proposition to me.... And setting a micro-adjustment while doing so is in the same boat. Are you working in One-Shot or AI Servo AF?

[Blake Cook]

I set micro adjustment on a tripod and have always compared the result to a Live View shot as a base line.
As for hand holding stacked TC's I completely agree, which is why I only use the combination to see what something is, not to produce a useable photo. (sort of an adhoc binocular arrangement) But when I get a more robust tripod and head that will change.

Thanks for the info. With all due respect, handholding any telephoto lens with stacked TCs seems a losing proposition to me.... And setting a micro-adjustment while doing so is in the same boat. Are you working in One-Shot or AI Servo AF?

[Arthur Morris]

Why set micro-adjustments on a tripod if you are going to hand hold??? And that goes for all micro-adjustments not just for stacked TCs.....

I think that you missed this question: Are you working in One-Shot or AI Servo AF?

Sorry, I did miss this: I mostly use this combination to identify distant objects not for anything I would keep.

[Blake Cook]

I'm not sure I understand your first question. MA addresses front/back focus issues. I set MA in One-Shot but primarily use AI Servo in the field. I have not seen any difference in MA settings between One-Shot and AI Servo. I'm puzzled why I wouldn't set MA on a tripod in a controlled environment. Front/back focus issues don't change with HH. Do they?

I don't use the tripod in the field because most of my birding is incidental to a walk with my wife and for now, I don't setup at bird spotting locations. I often use a tripod/ballhead to pan aircraft in flight, however.

Why set micro-adjustments on a tripod if you are going to hand hold??? And that goes for all micro-adjustments not just for stacked TCs.....
I think that you missed this question: Are you working in One-Shot or AI Servo AF?

Sorry, I did miss this: I mostly use this combination to identify distant objects not for anything I would keep.

[Arthur Morris]

You are correct, front/back focus issues do not change between AI Servo and One-Shot AF (though there are those who state that micro-adjustments that are correctly determined using One-Shot AF will not improve the accuracy of AI Servo AF such as when photographing birds or aircraft in flight. I disagree strongly there.)

I just wanted to make sure that you were using AI Servo AF when hand-holding. Many folks use either One-Shot AF or rear focus (and release) when hand holding intermediate telephoto lenses. This is a bad mistake as unless we are seated and braced we cannot stand still enough to make sharp images when (effectively) using One-Shot AF.

[Blake Cook]

I thinks we are in agreement then.

At present I'm trying to decide which is better for me. Single point AF (AI Servo) or Single point AI Servo with assist points and AI Servo tracking sensitivity set to slow. In focussing on the birds head I find at faster tracking sensitivity I end up focussed on the wings after a shot or two. So I thought I would try it slower. Single point without assists may be a way off in my skill set, yet. Even with pelicans I have difficulty staying focussed on the head.

You are correct, front/back focus issues do not change between AI Servo and One-Shot AF (though there are those who state that micro-adjustments that are correctly determined using One-Shot AF will not improve the accuracy of AI Servo AF such as when photographing birds or aircraft in flight. I disagree strongly there.)

I just wanted to make sure that you were using AI Servo AF when hand-holding. Many folks use either One-Shot AF or rear focus (and release) when hand holding intermediate telephoto lenses. This is a bad mistake as unless we are seated and braced we cannot stand still enough to make sharp images when (effectively) using One-Shot AF.