BUT,it is far beyond me as a newbie to digital.I switched a switch on the camera and took me 10 minutes to figure my mistake.I am not good at reading manuals.But I have found tht the 70-200mmMK II zoom is not quite enough as far a length and read the DP Review on the new Canon 2x III extender and I think it is a cheap fix as the biggest print I will make it seems is an 8 x 10.I see no problem with the extender rather than a new lens,since I am just learning all over again it seems.It is a humbling experience to shoot and use a computer to edit.

if you are looking at a 2x teleconverter, just remember that you'll lose 2 stops of light. so if that is a 70-200 f/2.8, then you'll be a f/5.6

So just get a 400/2.8. Why not, right?

Originally Posted by Helvegr if you are looking at a 2x teleconverter, just remember that you'll lose 2 stops of light. so if that is a 70-200 f/2.8, then you'll be a f/5.6

+ an adjustment to take the doubling of focal length into account, presumably?

pp

Originally Posted by jmphotocraft So just get a 400/2.8. Why not, right?

Thanks for the early morning laughter.I am in trouble enough for what I have aquired so far.

Originally Posted by puzzledpaul + an adjustment to take the doubling of focal length into account, presumably? pp

The new 2x III is chipped to let the camera realize what is happening, I believe that is how I understand it at this moment.
It is a realatively inexpensive way to reach out for me and yes loosing two stops is acceptable in the situations I am in , I think.Of Course I could be putting my size 10 1/2 foot into my mouth.I am such a newbie with this digital technology,I like it ,but learning curvre is pretty steep for this old fart.
I shot a casual kids event all in RAW today so now I get to learn about converting in RAW.I learn best by doing rather than reading.

Originally Posted by PHOTOMAYBE The new 2x III is chipped to let the camera realize what is happening, I believe that is how I understand it at this moment. It is a realatively inexpensive way to reach out for me and yes loosing two stops is acceptable in the situations I am in ...

Yes, the camera will certainly realize what's happening re light loss (with this gear) and adjust accordingly - unlike some other make of Tcs.

That's not what I was referring to, though.

Before placing the Tc on, you'll be using a lens with a max focal length of 200mm ... and you'll presumably be choosing settings to get the results you want. One of the (3) parameters - shutter speed - will be based on what you think is needed to get a sharp shot.

All I'm saying is that after doubling the lens' focal length to 400mm by adding the Tc, you'd have to adjust shutter speed to take this into account - using the std 'rule of thumb' - halve it (or faster) in order to get a sharp shot.

Originally Posted by PHOTOMAYBE ... learning curvre is pretty steep for this old fart... ...I learn best by doing rather than reading.

As I'm also a paid up member of the of club ... I hear you :)

pp

I did worse yesterday evening than the night shoot the other week.Just what you were talking about not shooting at a fast enough shutter speed.Plus amongst other things I am not dissapointed ,but it make me more determined.
Thanks a bunch for your comments.I know that I am able to learn the curve....Eventually.

Originally Posted by puzzledpaul Yes, the camera will certainly realize what's happening re light loss (with this gear) and adjust accordingly - unlike some other make of Tcs. That's not what I was referring to, though. Before placing the Tc on, you'll be using a lens with a max focal length of 200mm ... and you'll presumably be choosing settings to get the results you want. One of the (3) parameters - shutter speed - will be based on what you think is needed to get a sharp shot. All I'm saying is that after doubling the lens' focal length to 400mm by adding the Tc, you'd have to adjust shutter speed to take this into account - using the std 'rule of thumb' - halve it (or faster) in order to get a sharp shot. As I'm also a paid up member of the of club ... I hear you :) pp

I was excited about getting the 2X III TC, until it came out and I read the reviews. It wasn't the stellar improvement over the 2X II that I was hoping for. Sure it is a little better, but the difference is very had to see in the test pictures. The new TC's do have hooks to improve the autofocus speed and accuracy of the new II versions of the white telephoto primes, but note that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is explicitly NOT covered in that list.

You will get more image degradation with a 2X TC than you will with a 1.4X TC, so bear that in mind. But, if the only way you can fill your frame with the subject is with the 2X, you are probably a little better off using the 2X rather than using the 1.4X and cropping (but IIRC, it is a close tradeoff).

Sorry, don't mean to rain on your parade, but I went through the same analysis. I just didn't see where I would get the value for the money with the 2X III. The money was better spent elsewhere for me.

Your not raining on my parade by putting in your opinion I appreciate the words from someone more knowledgable than I.
Thanks

Originally Posted by billythek I was excited about getting the 2X III TC, until it came out and I read the reviews. It wasn't the stellar improvement over the 2X II that I was hoping for. Sure it is a little better, but the difference is very had to see in the test pictures. The new TC's do have hooks to improve the autofocus speed and accuracy of the new II versions of the white telephoto primes, but note that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is explicitly NOT covered in that list. You will get more image degradation with a 2X TC than you will with a 1.4X TC, so bear that in mind. But, if the only way you can fill your frame with the subject is with the 2X, you are probably a little better off using the 2X rather than using the 1.4X and cropping (but IIRC, it is a close tradeoff). Sorry, don't mean to rain on your parade, but I went through the same analysis. I just didn't see where I would get the value for the money with the 2X III. The money was better spent elsewhere for me.

Originally Posted by billythek I was excited about getting the 2X III TC, until it came out and I read the reviews. It wasn't the stellar improvement over the 2X II that I was hoping for. Sure it is a little better, but the difference is very had to see in the test pictures. The new TC's do have hooks to improve the autofocus speed and accuracy of the new II versions of the white telephoto primes, but note that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is explicitly NOT covered in that list. You will get more image degradation with a 2X TC than you will with a 1.4X TC, so bear that in mind. But, if the only way you can fill your frame with the subject is with the 2X, you are probably a little better off using the 2X rather than using the 1.4X and cropping (but IIRC, it is a close tradeoff). Sorry, don't mean to rain on your parade, but I went through the same analysis. I just didn't see where I would get the value for the money with the 2X III. The money was better spent elsewhere for me.

I've also heard the 1.4 is a better choice, price and image-wise

Originally Posted by Brett1000 I've also heard the 1.4 is a better choice, price and image-wise

The price on the new ones are exactly equal.BUT, I read that the 1.4 is better even if you have to crop a bit and I guess with the 22mp I can have that latitude,I think...

Thanks as always ,I need all the help I can get.....

Iirc, the mk3's AF only works to f5.6 - as with other Canon bodies (apart from earlier 1-series).
Buying a 1.4x would allow you to use it with a larger range of (future - and cheaper) lenses than buying a 2x.

You'd be able to use any f4 lens with a 1.4x - but not with a 2x (assuming lenses are compatible with Tcs - not all Canon lenses are :) )

A specific example could be a 300mm f4, say - this'd still AF with a 1.4x, for a 420mm combo.
Compared with a 2x on your 70 -200, giving you 400mm at the long end.

However, I'd be very surprised if the 300 + 1.4x combo performed worse than the other combo from both AF speed and IQ aspects.

Losing 2(+) stops is a lot, imo - in certain (w/life) situations, even though you've got better iso and cropping possibilities than I have (with an 'ol 1Dm3)

pp

Originally Posted by puzzledpaul Iirc, the mk3's AF only works to f5.6 - as with other Canon bodies (apart from earlier 1-series). Buying a 1.4x would allow you to use it with a larger range of (future - and cheaper) lenses than buying a 2x. You'd be able to use any f4 lens with a 1.4x - but not with a 2x (assuming lenses are compatible with Tcs - not all Canon lenses are :) ) A specific example could be a 300mm f4, say - this'd still AF with a 1.4x, for a 420mm combo. Compared with a 2x on your 70 -200, giving you 400mm at the long end. However, I'd be very surprised if the 300 + 1.4x combo performed worse than the other combo from both AF speed and IQ aspects. Losing 2(+) stops is a lot, imo - in certain (w/life) situations, even though you've got better iso and cropping possibilities than I have (with an 'ol 1Dm3) pp

Thanks for the comments.I am getting the 1.4.
I just had my shooting eye fixed,amazing what they can do, so I can actually manual focus fairly well again.

I appreciate you taking the time to comment and add knowledge for me.