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

John Sheehy wrote:

frostybe3r wrote:

Zeee wrote:

frostybe3r wrote:

I mean I wouldn't personally use Sony but sometimes I wonder...

Since I was dumping EF I alI had a hard time deciding between the A9II and 200-600 and Canon. I did at the time an R and RF24-105 which wasn't a big factor.

But EF lenses are still uncontended in wildlife photography/videography, sure the new RF lenses are great for other stuff but until RF mount has a big white and 1DX R1, as suggested, I'm not switching to EF for that aspect, even when the RF whites come out, there won't be a need to change unless the sensors increase to 90mp.

People are continuously trying to say you can just use higher ISO, the aperture doesn't matter, eh, yeah it does for subject separation and shutter speeds whilst trying to avoid potential noise in your image.

No, it doesn't. F-numbers do not show up in images. Apertures do, but what you're calling aperture is actually f-number or f-ratio.

The apertures of 400/5.6, 500/7.1, 700/10, and 1000/14 are all the same aperture, and from the same distance, give the same DOF on the subject, the same diffraction blur size relative to the subject, and the same total light coming from the subject per millisecond.

A 500f4 with 1.4X extender at 700 5.6 doesn't give the same results as a 100-500 with 1.4x at 700 f10, even if you put the prime at f10 aswell. Zooms suck for using extenders, you can say all you want but the fact is you're trying to justify using a f10 lens in bad weather just because the aperture is the same without the extender. Just because your £3,000 lens is 7.1 without an extender doesn't make it fine to use with an extender at 10 just because it's 'the same just different focal length but like light is same with and without extender', no, it isn't either as your extender also removes a stop of light.

-_-