"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
oups.com...
Lance writes ...

Has anyone used a Canon 70-200L F2.8 lens with a X2 converter?

Yes, but only when I don't have access to my wife's 400 f/5.6 L or my
300 f/4 L with a 1.4x ... in other words, in an emergency. I try to
stop down to f/8 or f/11 when doing this.

what is the image quality like? Still pretty good?

Adequate but not very good compared to the 400 f/5.6 L. Here's a link
to a site that tested the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with the 2x vs the 100-400
L IS and the 70-200 w/ 2x lost. The 100-400 IS is the worst lens in my
kit so you get the idea ...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml

Bill

Worst, in this case, is a relative term. The 100-400L is a pretty good
lens, it just suffers in comparison to other "L" lenses like the 70-200 f2.8
(w/o converter) and f4, and the 400 f2.8 and f4 lenses.
BTW, it's not the worst lens in my kit, I'd have to say the 16-35L is, but
nothing else will do what it does, while there are other lenses and
combinations of lenses that will do what the 100-400 will, and in some
cases, better.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com