70-200 F2.8 w/ 1.4 TX?

[Wazukie]

Any of you wildlife shooters ever use a 70-200mm 2.8 with either a 1.4x or 2.0x tele?  if so how did it work out.  Im getting ready to purchase one for sports photog but not sure if I should by a Tele too.

Tanks for your input

[huntnphool]

70-200 2.8 and 1.4x are a nice combo and works well.

[CastleRocker]

That's exactly what I'm looking to do.  In fact there was one of the Canon 70-200 L f/2.8 IS USM's, with the "doubler" for sale on Craigslist.  I don't know if it's still for sale or not.  It was priced a bit higher than I thought it was worth, but the person answered my emails, and he had used it for both outdoor sports, and some wildlife.

I was also looking at the 28-300 Canon, but wow they are proud of them!

[huntnphool]

I was also looking at the 28-300 Canon, but wow they are proud of them!

I used this lens a few months ago in Montana, it worked very well but was a bit slow in low light, being 5.6 at 300mm. With the 70-200 you give up 100mm but gain low light shooting ability with the 2.8. Add the 1.4x and you gain back that 100mm+ but only move up to f4, still decent speed for the lower light conditions.

[huntnphool]

Shot with 28-300mm                     CLICK ON IMAGE

[boneaddict]

I don't shoot it much for wildlife though I will with moose in the NE corner because they get so close the prime doesn't work.   Believe it or not its soft compared to the prime lens'.  BUT....compared to other lens' its quite sharp.   I've been playing with it with sports.  I shot this at night under the lights (low budget lights missing half the bulbs) by the way.  The picture almost came out brighter than what you saw with your eyes.  I forced it to shoot at 500 so that I could have stop action, then 2.8 obviously as low as it goes with 1600 ISO.  I know that lends for grain, but I want stop action....