RF extender experiences with RF 100-500 1.4x vs 2.0? Locked

WaySor wrote:

David, I am wondering if you have ever shot with the EF200-400mm and have any opinion to offer in relation to the new RF100-500mm? I have recently received my R5 and now looking to update some glass. This one has been a good lens for me shooting and art prints for wildlife and I don't want to go backwards in quality. But the lighter weight and cost is oh so appealing. Appreciate your thoughts.

I rented the 200-400 several times shortly after introduction and loved the lens. I eventually bought a factory refurb in 2015 (or early 2016) and believe it is one of the best and most versatile safari / wildlife lenses on the planet with IQ that rivals the Big White primes. The only downside was carting around the 8lbs + sturdy tripod / WH 200  head (leave the tripod /head home for Safaris) - including a 6mi trek down a stream in Alaska photographing bears. Whether you were shooting it at 200-400 f4, 280- 560 @ f5.6, or 400-800 @ f8 with a 2x extender the lens produced stellar results. I waited eagerly for Canon to do a Mark III weight reduction program on the lens, but it has not happened yet. I sold the lens this year in preparation for moving to the R system ((2) R5 + RF 24-105 + RF 100-500). If Canon creates a RF 200-500 (600) with similar characteristics @ 6lbs I am in on announcement even with a sky high price.

As to the 100-500, I am still going through the photos from my YNP/GTNP trip but it looks pretty darn good. The lens is a dream to carry / shoot handheld and produces great results. The 100-500 is as good or better than the 100-400 II and seems to retain more sharpness when you add the 1.4x TC.

I don't believe the 100-500 equals the IQ of the 200-400 and it certainly doesn't have the wider aperture of the 200-400. There is also the versatility issue of the restricted focal length range when the 1.4x is attached (previous post). The IBIS and IS Lens stabilization make it possible to handhold the lens, but I believe you might have to shoot a slightly higher shutter speed when using the R5 with it's higher resolution sensor. I am still reviewing the photos and believe I am seeing a bit of softness in the image when I pushed the IBIS a bit too hard on a windy day. I noticed this on some shots of an relatively static elk taken at 1/800 sec @ 700mm (I know, pushing it a bit).

At the end of the day, I do miss the 200-400 for that absolute best quality and wider aperture but the tradeoffs of weight and versatility are really nice. I do not regret selling my 1dx II or 200-400 and replacing with the R5 + 100-500. I also like being able to shoot fast rather than having to maneuver the 200-400 into position on a tripod. I could handhold the lens for brief periods, but it was a beast and I am getting older.

If you have the 100-400 II and it meets most of your needs, the 100-500  is an improved version of the EF lens (you only loose a little light @ 400mm) with the added benefit of 500mm reach and lighter weight with slightly better IQ performance when using the 1.4x TC.  It is not a 200-400, but I am sure you weren't expecting a 1:1 replacement.

These are my totally non-scientific opinions.

David