R6 with EF 100-400mm II and TC EF 1.4x III for wildlife?

After reading and replying to your posts i discussed internally that we only have one 1.4 x iii so have bought another from MPB so we have two systems that can have the extended on the 100-400ii.

I've never used the 100-500 in earnest I think the issues with the 1.4x worried me and loosing a bit of light in some circumstances. The plus side is a bet it's a darn bit lighter and smaller than my kits

Shawn

Thanks Sean appreciate the reply.

Yeah the RF 100-500 is a bit lighter than the EF 100-400 - if I remember right, I think the RF 100-500 is about a half pound lighter than the EF 100-400, then subtract the weight of the EF to RF convertor, say 1/4 pound, and the RF 100-500 kit is around 3/4 pound lighter on a R body than the EF 100-400.  This is the primary reason why my wife recently upgraded to the RF 100-500.

Yeah, with the 1.4x tele, you cant zoom completely out.  Most of our photography we are always at max focal length, so my wife doesnt miss the 140mm to approx 350mm with the 1.4x tele on it.  At the end of the day, she always takes the 1.4x tele off to store the camera.

She hasnt had the RF 100-500 very long, but so far, my impression has been it is a little sharper than the ef 100-400 and the focus seems slightly more snappy.  Also, it gains a slight reach over the EF 100-400.  But as you pointed out, all of this comes at a slight hit to light (higher aperture).  There has been a couple times with the 1.4x tele, @ F10, she was struggling to get enough shutter speed, or have a really high ISO, where I had no problem with my 500mm F4 II and the 1.4x iii tele (F10 vs F5.6) - but my 500mm F4, even buying used was more than twice her RF 100-500 was new.  The RF 100-500 was way more "bang for the buck" than my 500 F4 lens was.  But saying that, I dont regret purchasing the 500mm F4. 

Shawn