With the particular examples of these lenses that I own, I would say the 70-200/2.8 with 2X converter is not as sharp as the 200/2.8 with the same converter. Without the converter, I would have a hard time discerning a difference between them. The 200/2.8 certainly is cheaper, and also lighter and easier to handle. It's also black instead of the off-white, which won't attract as much attention. My converter is the original version EF 2X, bought just before the MK II was released.
I may just be lucky with this particular 200/2.8, since any converter tends to magnify any imperfections in a lens. I generally use the zoom lens without converter for the 70-200 range, and the 2X stays on the prime as a 400/5.6 lens. When I've used the converter on the zoom to get a focal length in the 200-400 range, I thought the image suffered a bit. I've never used the Canon 1.4X, so can't comment on it. Geoff Doane, Halifax EOS-Digest wrote: > > I posted this question in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, but thought I would ask > here too. I am wanting a very sharp 200mm with very nice out of focus > highlites. The zoom is not important, just optical quality. The Canon lens > works book suggests that the zoom is sharper, is this right? I thought a > prime should always be sharper. Also the same book suggests that the zoom > is much shaprper than the prime when used with the teleconverters. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
