Canon mp-e-65

[britinozz]

well after much research i have decided to go with the MP-E65 as a upgrade to my macro lens but first i am going to get Canon 70-200 mk2 with Canon EF2x III extender. Yep a heap of dosh i know but i have been saving for this lens for 6 months and i gotta have it any one who has this lens with extender i would be interested what you think.

[William W]

I have not used that specific combination however I do occasionally use something very similar.

The EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM plus the x2.0MkII Tele-Extender, will produce very good to excellent results; but the combination takes some getting used to and also an understanding of the best TYPE of light in which to use the combination.
Attention to Post Production, specifically correct Sharpening Technique, is important.
I just recently used the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM MkII: and it is a wonderful lens.
From technical reports, using the x2.0MkIII with this new MkII IS lens, makes superior results to the combination which I use currently: and although I have not used this new combination, I expect that the reports would be correct, as the MkIII tele-extenders were specifically made, to be better with the new (MkII) version of various specific, L Series Lenses the 70 to 200F/2.8 L IS MkII, being one of these lenses.

Clearly using either the MkII or MkIII x2.0 tele-extender with any lens; there will be trade-offs; and by no means does the combination match shooting with a 400/2.8L or a 300/2.8L or a 300/4L: BUT there is plenty of misinformation and nay-saying about using the CANON tele-extenders with the 70 to 200/2.8L Lenses generally – and you would be best advised, not to believe it.

WW

PS: Maybe it could have been better to Title the Thread: "70 to 20/2.8L IS Mkii with Tele Extender"

[britinozz]

I have not used that specific combination however I do occasionally use something very similar.

The EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM plus the x2.0MkII Tele-Extender, will produce very good to excellent results; but the combination takes some getting used to and also an understanding of the best TYPE of light in which to use the combination.
Thanks for the info.
Attention to Post Production, specifically correct Sharpening Technique, is important.
I just recently used the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM MkII: and it is a wonderful lens.
From technical reports, using the x2.0MkIII with this new MkII IS lens, makes superior results to the combination which I use currently: and although I have not used this new combination, I expect that the reports would be correct, as the MkIII tele-extenders were specifically made, to be better with the new (MkII) version of various specific, L Series Lenses the 70 to 200F/2.8 L IS MkII, being one of these lenses.

Clearly using either the MkII or MkIII x2.0 tele-extender with any lens; there will be trade-offs; and by no means does the combination match shooting with a 400/2.8L or a 300/2.8L or a 300/4L: BUT there is plenty of misinformation and nay-saying about using the CANON tele-extenders with the 70 to 200/2.8L Lenses generally – and you would be best advised, not to believe it.

WW

PS: Maybe it could have been better to Title the Thread: "70 to 20/2.8L IS Mkii with Tele Extender"

[Art Vandelay]

The 70-200 mkII carries the 1.4x very well, and the 2.0x well. I don't use them so much now as have a 300 f/2.8

Depending on what you're using 400mm for and how often will dictate if it's suitable. The AF is usable but takes a big speed hit. Stationary or slow moving subjects are ok, but anything faster you need a little more patience and thought to get the most out of it. Also image quality is usable at f/5.6 though tends to be ok at f/6.3 and better at f/8.

Here's one with the 2.0x at f/5.6. Can't find any others at the moment as I'm at work & just picking what's out there in cyberspace. The mkIII versions of the extenders are supposed to be a touch better than the mkII versions. These are all with the MkII's



The 1.4x on the other hand is very usable, with minimal image quality or AF speed loss.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...reat-Bowerbird

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ater-Crocodile

Personally I'd use the 2.0x for occasional use and err to the 1.4x, and get closer/and or crop a bit. Another option is to look at the 100 -4000 or the 400 f/5.6 as a dedicated longer lens if you intend to be at 400 regularly. But in saying that, I have seen a number of posts around the net using the 70-200 & 2.0x MKIII with good results.

[Art Vandelay]

Just found a couple more with the 2.0x (I forgot out flickr, haven't used it in a while)

[William W]

Personally I'd use the 2.0x for occasional use and err to the 1.4x, and get closer/and or crop a bit.

.

Judging by our two responses to the OP, our experiences and usages are very similar.

But on this one point: have you ever taken your 70 to 200 out in the field, with the two tele extenders and shot specifically for an A/B comparison of later cropping vs. adding the extra tele extender?

WW

Nice Duck.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, you're right William, very similar.

I know what you're getting at, and can't say I've done the side by side vs crop comparison on the same subject. It's more of just a gut feeling when playing with the files from both the 1.4x and 2.0x. From memory, If you filled the frame with the 2.0x or very close to it, they were ok, but they wouldn't handle much of a crop. Whereas the 1.4x you could get pretty savage with it and it held up well if you needed to. That all comes down to what you intend to do with the final image as well.. I may do it one day just for the sake of it. It just annoys me shooting the letterbox across the street or something random for the sake of doing those sort of tests, much prefer to use them in real situations, and unfortunately, most stuff I shoot doesn't stay still long enough to do that.

[William W]

Thanks for answering.

Yes, I initially have / had the same gut feeling about cropping vs. using the tele-extenders.
Yes, I know what you mean about shooting the letterbox across the street and how boring that can be.
No, I have not tried an in-field A/B comparison with my EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM and the two MkII Tele-extenders.

But reading a very long argument between two fellows who were theorizing one day, generally about the Canon Tele-extenders and how poor they perform even on L Primes, gave me the impetus to play with both MkII Extenders and the 135/2L.

You might be quite interested, at the extreme result of stacking** the two extenders and using that combination the 135/2 lens used wide open and how that compares with cropping the original image – and you might also be interested in all of the crop vs. tele-extender comparison, in between.
(**) (I often have read that “the two extenders cannot be stacked” – even a Canon Australia Rep. told me that once).

In any event, I am very glad this thread harvested your response after mine, because I have read many “complaints” about the use of these two tele-extenders, especially with the 70 to 200/2.8 series of lenses.

I do hope someone posts who has used (in the field) the 70 to 200F/2.8l IS MkII with the MkIII tele-extenders – as I mentioned I have only used the lens and it is very nice, probably better than my EF70 to 200/2.8L USM, comparing when both are used wide open.

***

FYI: Here are some examples of the EF70 to 200F/2.8 with the x2.0MkII:

“Dog” #226928v01
EF70 to 200F/2.8L + x2.0MkII @ 280mm
F/8 @ 1/1250s @ ISO800 HH Daylight

***

And some enlargements to compare:


70 to 200F/2.8L USM + 2.0MkII used at 400mm
F/6.3^^ @ 1/1600s @ ISO250 Head-On Motion - Hand Held


70 to 200F/2.8L USM + 2.0MkII used at 400mm
F/6.3^^ @ 1/640s @ ISO250 Transverse Motion - Hand Held.
(^^)Note this is the lens stopped down, only 1/3 stop

IMO, the x2.0MkII (or MkIII) is a pretty handy device to have in the kit if you occasionally need but always wish to be prepared for 400mm, the 400F/2.8L is heavy and the 100 to 400 is not F/2.8.

***

And here is the FIELD TEST of the 135L and both MkII Tele-extenders.


WW

[Art Vandelay]

Nothing wrong with the extenders in those shots, Had a quick look at the other one, thanks, but have to wizz off for a while and go make a dollar... will digest it properly later on.

[britinozz]

The 70-200 mkII carries the 1.4x very well, and the 2.0x well. I don't use them so much now as have a 300 f/2.8

Depending on what you're using 400mm for and how often will dictate if it's suitable. The AF is usable but takes a big speed hit. Stationary or slow moving subjects are ok, but anything faster you need a little more patience and thought to get the most out of it. Also image quality is usable at f/5.6 though tends to be ok at f/6.3 and better at f/8.

Here's one with the 2.0x at f/5.6. Can't find any others at the moment as I'm at work & just picking what's out there in cyberspace. The mkIII versions of the extenders are supposed to be a touch better than the mkII versions. These are all with the MkII's



The 1.4x on the other hand is very usable, with minimal image quality or AF speed loss.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...reat-Bowerbird

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ater-Crocodile

Personally I'd use the 2.0x for occasional use and err to the 1.4x, and get closer/and or crop a bit. Another option is to look at the 100 -4000 or the 400 f/5.6 as a dedicated longer lens if you intend to be at 400 regularly. But in saying that, I have seen a number of posts around the net using the 70-200 & 2.0x MKIII with good results.

[britinozz]

Many thanks great image and very sharp I am going to Santorini Greece and going to take 17-40 24-105 and the 70-200 mmm that's a fair weight not sure to leave 1 at home .