C100: looong tele: 100-400 or 150-600 or...?

[control4userguy]

Interesting. I used the 70-200 2.8 IS II to shoot footage of Neil DeGrasse Tyson for Cosmos, standing on a cliff edge at Sunset Meteor Crater from about 200-300 yards away from me a few years ago and I saw a noticeable different in sharpness between my shots with just the 70-200 2.8 IS and with the 2X Canon extender. But it was a rental lens and extender and sometimes rental stuff gets dropped and beaten into submission. I bought a 70-200 2.8 IS II finally, I will have to try the extenders again to see what they do on my lens but this shoot shied me away from them. I still would like to buy the 100-400 IS, GREAT lens. I've never tried the 150-600, but I know a lot of birders use it. This shot is of Neil with just the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Unfortunately I don't have any shot with the extender available (that footage is buried in the vault somewhere) but they were noticeably softer than this.

View attachment 121755

This shot is using the rental or your own lens??

 

[puredrifting]

This shot is using the rental or your own lens??

This was from Lens Rentals, before I bought my own. This is just with the 70-200, I didn't post the full size image but it looks decent. The image with the extender went to mush, I recall the editor didn't use too many of the extender shots in the edited piece because of it. And it wasn't unfocused, it was just MUCH softer and fuzzy. It suprised me because it was a Canon extender.