Hello everyone. I own the rf 100-400 lens. I like it. So light and small yet iq is good. Fot the extra reach should I buy the 1.4 extender and use it with the 100-400 or get the 600 f11 ? Has anyone comperad the af speed and iq of the two set ups? I have an R7 btw.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Rf 100-400 plus 1.4 Tc or Rf 600 F11
- Thread starter OlcayK
- Start date
Steve Fink
Senior Member
I have the 100-400mm and love it as well. Like you said, it's light and versatile. I also have the 600mm and love it as well. The downside is the lack of versatility where the subject is too close. I have a EF 1.4 TC that I put on the 100-400mm and didn't like it nearly as much as the 600mm by itself. Personally I'd go with the 600mm over the 1.4x.
--
Steve
Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open - Unknown
--
Steve
Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open - Unknown
Last edited:
Dave C 150
Forum Enthusiast
Thinking about the same choice. Given the price for either addition is around the same and both will end up F11 common sense and experience implies that the 600mm prime will be better. The only other difference would be the latter will be slightly larger and heavier against the closer focusing distance with the TC but why would you want to choose 600mm f/l for close ups? I suppose there is also use of TC on other lenses.
Steve Fink
Senior Member
The 600mm is quite light compared to my EF 300mm F2.8 IS L lens. Oddly, it's not that much heavier than my RF 100-400mm lens. Obviously the 600mm is not a good choice for closeups. I do think that the 1.4x is highly overpriced for what you get IMO. I returned it.
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
I can only answer indirectly, as I have the R7 with the 100-500 and 1.4x, but not the 100-400. At maximum zoom this is just 1/3 stop faster than the combination you are considering, so very similar, and for me it's right on the limit when the light is less than ideal. It's much better without the TC, and the same is probably true of the 100-400.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/ or
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/stevebalcombe/popular-interesting/
Last edited:
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
I have the RF 100-400 and the 1.4. The combination is excellent. I barely notice an IQ difference between the bare lens and the converter combo. I think the choice is easy. Get the extender. The combined weight and length of the 100-400 with 1.4X is less than the 600 alone. You get much much closer focusing, and the whole combination is much more versatile (you get everything from 100 to 560).
With a 600mm lens at its 4.5 minimum focusing distance, and a full frame camera, the physical field is roughly 180 X 270mm.
I'm not an accomplished photographer of small birds, but I'd guess that some would like to get closer.
Extension tubes could help, if it's OK to lose infinity focus.
Steve Fink
Senior Member
No need for extension tubes to fill the frame on my R7 with the 600mm F11. He too is using the R7, not a FF.
The R7 (vs. full frame) changes the calculation quite a lot.
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
Here are some I took this afternoon in my front yard, with the R7 and RF 100-400 with 1.4X. The first three are closer than the minimum focus distance of the RF 600 F11, and at less than full zoom, which is a big advantage of the 100-400 plus 1.4X over the prime:
The next three were all at ISO 12,800 at full zoom and taken through twigs and branches. The R7 with this lens combo picked out the eye perfectly, and performed amazingly well at ISO 12,800. I had my minimum shutter speed set to 1/1000, but I also had the maximum ISO as 12,800, so the shutter speed dropped below 1/1000 for several. I could have gone higher on the ISO, to keep the shutter speed up. This bird is quite twitchy, and needs high shutter speeds, even for perched shots:
And here he is, clearly nervous that I'm going to want that big fat juicy seed (which I had put in the bird feeder from which it had fallen on the ground) for myself:
The more I use the R7, the more impressed I am by it. The AF is simply amazing, and the sensor is great (I already knew that from my M6II, which has basically the same sensor). ISO 12,800 is a breeze, and even 25,600 is quite usable with DXO. Also, the RF 100-400 is easily the best value super tele zoom ever produced, and takes the 1.4X very well. There's no way I would add the RF 600 to the 100-400, instead of getting the extender. Even at full extension, the 100-400 plus extender is slightly shorter than the 600, and the combo is a bit lighter too.
--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
The next three were all at ISO 12,800 at full zoom and taken through twigs and branches. The R7 with this lens combo picked out the eye perfectly, and performed amazingly well at ISO 12,800. I had my minimum shutter speed set to 1/1000, but I also had the maximum ISO as 12,800, so the shutter speed dropped below 1/1000 for several. I could have gone higher on the ISO, to keep the shutter speed up. This bird is quite twitchy, and needs high shutter speeds, even for perched shots:
And here he is, clearly nervous that I'm going to want that big fat juicy seed (which I had put in the bird feeder from which it had fallen on the ground) for myself:
The more I use the R7, the more impressed I am by it. The AF is simply amazing, and the sensor is great (I already knew that from my M6II, which has basically the same sensor). ISO 12,800 is a breeze, and even 25,600 is quite usable with DXO. Also, the RF 100-400 is easily the best value super tele zoom ever produced, and takes the 1.4X very well. There's no way I would add the RF 600 to the 100-400, instead of getting the extender. Even at full extension, the 100-400 plus extender is slightly shorter than the 600, and the combo is a bit lighter too.
--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
Last edited:
Steve Fink
Senior Member
Yes, but I was responding to the OP, who has the crop R7, not FF.
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
Steve Fink
Senior Member
My apologies, it was the RF 1.4x, which I sent back. I have an Tamron for Canon 1.4x that I can still use on my DSLRs.
On the R7, you may do better cropping the RF100-400 @ 400mm f/8 without the 1.4x vs. the 600mm f/11. The higher pixel density of the R7 makes the 1.4x less useful. The Diffraction Limiting Aperture of the R7 is around f/5.2, so the 1.4x doesn't help as much as it does with the lower pixel density bodies. I have used the RF100-400+1.4x on my R5, bit not on my R7.
Do you know the basis for f/5.2 for the R7?
A quick Web search finds a few mentions of it, but not what is behind it.
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
It's a purely theoretical measure that has pretty much no relevance to actual results. You'll see the supposed refraction limited aperture getting larger with higher pixel density, but all that means is that refraction, which has nothing to do sensors, can be more easily seen (the effects, that is) with higher pixel density, because you can zoom in and see the image more highly magnified on screen. Refraction itself is no better or worse with different sensors. This is a common confusion. For the same display size, you won't see any difference in refraction softening between a 6MP image taken at F11, say, and a 32MP image at F11. If you view the 32MP image at 100%, you will be viewing it a much higher magnification than if you view the 6MP image at 100%. So, any softening effects caused by diffraction will be easier to see. That's all. In practice, you can produce very sharp results from the 32MP sensor with images at F11. Even viewed at 100%. The diffraction "issue" is no reason at all not to use the 1.4 extender on the 100-400 with the R7, or not to use the 600 F11.
I'm a retired optical engineer, so I'm asking after the theory.
Linear systems theory suggests that for an R7, considering its 3.2 micron pixel size, and the Bayer mask, sampling at the Nyquist limit for the diffraction cutoff frequency would require about f/23.
That's probably absurd in practice, but I guess that f/5.2 isn't the point of diminishing returns for the R7.
Perhaps I'll experiment with it someday, with my R5. With its 4.39 micron pixel size, the limit would be f/32.
Linear systems theory suggests that for an R7, considering its 3.2 micron pixel size, and the Bayer mask, sampling at the Nyquist limit for the diffraction cutoff frequency would require about f/23.
That's probably absurd in practice, but I guess that f/5.2 isn't the point of diminishing returns for the R7.
Perhaps I'll experiment with it someday, with my R5. With its 4.39 micron pixel size, the limit would be f/32.
Dave C 150
Forum Enthusiast
All good points with as usual pros and cons! Is it never not that way! I think I will wait and maybe rent both over a short period in the summer. But up till now, any 1.4x TC I've ever bought has led me to believe that the IQ is the same as cropping, probably more so with 32.4mp. Mind any relatively sharp image looks sharp with modern PP AI sharpening and noise removal. Also Canon have the 100-500mm on offer at the moment for about £2300. If it drops below £2000, even used, I might save up for that.
Sorry, I should have posted a link:
Diffraction-Limited-Aperture (the-digital-picture.com)
Especially since I deliberately changed his terminology from "limited" to "limiting", since this aperture is the beginning of the range where aperture diffraction becomes significant, not the ultimate limit.
The specific f/5.2 value for the R7 is here:
Canon EOS R7 Review (the-digital-picture.com)
But this is based on an arbitrary definition, so it is best used as a comparison. For example, the R5, with about half the pixel density, is listed at f/7.1.
My point in bringing this up is that even with the RF-400 wide open at f/8, the R7 is well past the point where diffraction blur becomes significant. Adding the 1.4x is just making the diffraction blur more significant. The 1.4x imparts a cost in terms of sharpness and contrast, which may not be as recoverable on the R7 as it is with the R5.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum