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

frostybe3r wrote:

Speaking of TC's, my R5 + 500mm f/4 L IS II USM + EF 1.4X III detail is ridiculously good.

I would hope so!

But I guess that's not comparable to an RF 100-500 and FYI, I don't consider the RF 100-500 or most zooms to be ideal with teleconverters, sure, the results are okay but

You should not make assumptions that EF TC IQ on EF zooms translates to RF TC IQ on RF lenses. The RF 1.4x TC on the 100-500 provides IQ on par with what I would expect from a native 420-700mm f/10 lens. Quite incredible, actually. Even the RF 600 f/11 with the 1.4x TC gives results that look like it was designed as a single 840 f/16 lens.

sometimes it's just better to crop, you're now shooting at what? f10?How much ISO do you now need to compensate in a lowly lit area, under trees, in shadows, in the evening? Yes new cameras have good ISO capabilities however, the R5 still isn't the 1DX in terms of low light and you will see a hit on sharpness due to your bumping up ISO high, but if you need that reach and still get the shot, that's great.

Can't compare a 100-500 zoom with a big white f/4 prime. Of course the prime at f/4 will be better. But then again, the zoom is better at shooting 100-499mm

Side note you can pick-up a used 500 or 600 for around £5.5K - £7K

That's a lot of money. Only a used 500 f4 IS (first version that Canon will no longer repair if it breaks) can compare on price to make it a viable option to the 100-500.

the RF 100-500 is already almost twice the price of the Sony 200-600.

The RF 100-500 is a much higher magnification range than 200-600. Designing a 200-600 is a walk in the park compared to designing a 100-500 lens. Both of these lenses are appropriately priced to their capability and build quality.