Re: RF extender experiences with RF 100-500 1.4x vs 2.0?
I have been shooting Canon gear for years including long lenses and teleconverters. I have owned the 1.4x & 2x version I, II, III. As of switching to the R5, I have decided that I do not like the IQ loss of any of the 2x extenders I have tried to date.
I shot for for 17 days in YNP/GTNP with the R5 + RF 1.4x TC + 100-500 f4.5-f7.1, every thing from birds to bears.
- The 100-500 is as good or better than the 100-400 II with only a little loss of light @400mm.
- the 100-500 is nice to carry at almost 1/2 lb lighter than the 100-400 II
- AF is fast/accurate shooting both bare and with the RF 1.4x TC.
- You can crop the R5 + 100-500 + 1.4x image to an 800mm FOV and and still have a 33mp image.
- The 100-500 + 1.4x looks is sharp and looses very little IQ if any.
- I do not plan to purchase a 2x extender, I would just rent a 600mm f4 and use a 2x extender
- I bought / returned the RF 800 f11, liked the IQ but didn't like the bokeh and f11.
- Here is what I don't like about the 1.4x + 100-500
- lens has to be extend to 300mm before you can add the 1.4x and will not retract below 300mm
- Loose the use of the 100-420 range of the lens with the 1.4x TC connected
- Inconvenient to add/remove TC when animals are rapidly changing distance and limits creative framing to include the environment.
- Solution: If you have the 100-400 II, keep the lens and place it on your backup body for the 100-400 range shots. Treat the R5 + 1.4x + 100-500 as a dedicated 420-700 zoom.