Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Photo & Video => Topic started by: Wazukie on March 15, 2010, 08:15:28 PM

Title: 70-200 F2.8 w/ 1.4 TX?
Post by: Wazukie on March 15, 2010, 08:15:28 PM: 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
Title: Re: 70-200 F2.8 w/ 1.4 TX?
Post by: huntnphool on March 15, 2010, 09:05:03 PM: 70-200 2.8 and 1.4x are a nice combo and works well. :tup:
Title: Re: 70-200 F2.8 w/ 1.4 TX?
Post by: CastleRocker on March 16, 2010, 12:56:32 PM: 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!
Title: Re: 70-200 F2.8 w/ 1.4 TX?
Post by: huntnphool on March 16, 2010, 02:19:17 PM: Quote
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. :twocents:
Title: Re: 70-200 F2.8 w/ 1.4 TX?
Post by: huntnphool on March 16, 2010, 02:23:48 PM: Shot with 28-300mm CLICK ON IMAGE
Title: Re: 70-200 F2.8 w/ 1.4 TX?
Post by: boneaddict on March 20, 2010, 08:00:32 AM: 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....
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv47%2Fboneaddict%2FAntler%2520Images%2F316stryker.jpg&hash=1abe307f614af5053d23670f2a73e8637a206f6f)