Depending upon how exacting your tastes, you may not be happy with the results from the 2X extender. To me, even when used with Canon's highest IQ primes (200 f2, 300 and 400 f2.8), the quality hit is very noticeable. I have used a 1.4X first II and then III converter often and although I owned a 2X II and tried a 2X III, I have used maybe half
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens with 2X Telephoto Lens, HD Wide Angle Lens and Accessories (8 Piece Kit) 4.6 out of 5 stars 783 6 offers from $183.86
"Teleconverters are one of those things people buy when they first start in photography because they sound like a neat idea." So true. I would try the cropping
If you attach a 1.4x Extender to an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM lens, for example, it will become in effect a 98-280mm f/4 lens. If you use the same lens with a 2x Extender, it becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens.
Of course, the benefit of having the 70-200mm + 2x is you effectively have two lenses. A 70-200mm f/2.8, and a 140-400mm f/5.6. Now for the money part, you now have a $2,400 (current street prices for both) solution vs. a $1,400 (100-400). You save $1,000, but you are also 'stuck' is a fairly slow lens and less-good (not bad) optics. Thoughts?
Can Canon RF Extenders be used on the RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens, even at 200mm?. Sorry folks, that answer is "No." With some of Canon's EF lenses specified as not EF extender compatible, such as the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L, the rear element moved far enough forward to provide clearance for the extender to fit, and these combinations worked fine (as long as the impact was avoided).
Lzuw. dpxvbux598.pages.dev/236dpxvbux598.pages.dev/236dpxvbux598.pages.dev/296dpxvbux598.pages.dev/286dpxvbux598.pages.dev/387dpxvbux598.pages.dev/176dpxvbux598.pages.dev/278dpxvbux598.pages.dev/298dpxvbux598.pages.dev/218
canon extender ef 2x iii 70 200 f2 8
