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 Balcombe
Forum Pro
Wise words.
Last edited:
Bumped into this discussion while looking for information on the RF100-400…If weight and size is not an issue would the Sigma 150-600 contemporary (selling for $899) for EF be a sensible choice to avoid having to choose between a prime or a zoom plus a teleconverter…will the animal AF work? I read about ‘pulsing’ issues, whatever that means, but for perched birds will it work? I am asking because I went out to do some ‘birding’ with a friend and while I was struggling to fill the frame with my M6II and the 70-300 USM, he was killing it with a Nikon D500 and the 150-600. He basically had twice my reach and the quality of his photos was really good considering we were inside a forest, with not a whole lot of light. Perhaps this lens could pair well with a R7 or R10 as well.
JohnMoyer
Leading Member
Gimp with the GMIC plugin will do Richardson/Lucy deconvolution for small aperture diffraction blur and has several different denoise algorithms. I did not find the GMIC neural network denoise especially useful, but I might not have used it correctly. Maybe I would like AI denoise better if I knew how to use it.
If one is willing to trade resolution for noise removal, then median filter before any sharpening, scale to 75%, unsharp mask with a radius to match the blur seems to me to work well.
Rawtherapee in the "dev" branch, if one does not mind building from source, does Richardson/Lucy in the "capture sharpening". Rawtherapee suggests different de-mosaic algorithms for high ISO and I would guess that the same could be done with Darktable.
JohnMoyer
Leading Member
depth of field is differentThanks for your efforts.
I'm a little confused, though. I look at a smaller crop of each.
The shot without the TC is at the left.
I think I see more detail in the vine, left of center.
Do you agree?
--
I wouldn't recommend buying an EF lens to adapt to an RF body, particularly a 3rd party lens. The Sigma/Tamron 150-600's don't really have great IQ. I have a Tamron G2 I was using, and never picked it up again after getting the EF100-400ii.
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
The Sigma will be faster (F6.3 at 600mm versus F11 at 560mm for the Canon plus extender), but it will also be massively heavier and bigger. I know you said "if weight and size is not an issue", but it's hard to see how it wouldn't be. The Canon lens is about a quarter of the weight of the Sigma, and considerably smaller. You will have the 1.4X extender on the Canon, but you'll have the mount adapter on the Sigma, so they pretty much cancel each other out in terms of weight and size. The Canon combo will also be considerably sharper and faster focusing. When I replaced my EF mount Tamron 100-400, which is similar in IQ to the Sigma 150-600, with the RF 100-400 I was shocked, not just by how much smaller and lighter the RF lens is, but also by how much better it is optically. With modern processing software, F11 isn't a problem at all. I think you'd be much happier with the RF 100-400 and 1.4X extender. But if you get a chance to try them both, that might be a good idea.
Thanks, after looking deeper into the matter I am now leaning towards the Rf100-400 plus 1.4 extender. I am using dxo pureraw so, what the heck, I can work with a higher iso to compensate for the smaller aperture. Reviews have been very good on this lens (for the price you pay)
Thanks, Alastair, the photos you posted earlier helped demystifying the use of the 1.4x TC with a crop sensor camera. Might not be ‘R5’ quality but good enough for me to have fun. This is my lead case now.
Larry Rexley
Senior Member
Thanks for your time and effort to test in with real-world lenses and processing, and for explaining how you did it. I wish more people would create posts like this, to me they are the most helpful.Well, as I said, theory is one thing, but often practice is very different. What I want to know is whether using a 1.4X converter with the RF100-1400 on my R7 will be beneficial for me, given what I shoot, how I shoot it, and how I process and display the results. So I just did a quick comparison test, shooting a tree at a distance that represents the close end of the range I actually use that lens (with or without extender) for. I then processed the pictures the way I process all my pictures (I have a preset I use with DXO Photolab). And then I cropped both images a reasonable amount, which is what I do with most of the shots I take with that lens. I cropped both to give the same field of view, which meant cropping the 400mm shot more than the 560mm shot, of course. I then exported both images as JPEGs downsized to 2000 pixels on the long side, which is how I display most of my images. Viewing those JPEGs on a modern monitor is roughly equivalent to looking at a print that's anywhere from 10 inches across to 20 inches across, depending on your screen resolution. What I discovered is that yes, you do get a benefit from using the extender. Here are the downsized images, first the whole frame:
Focus is on the dark knot at the center
And here are the two crops, framed as close to each other as I could without spending even longer on this than I have already:
To my eye, the 560mm shot has a bit more detail. It's not a huge difference, but it's enough to make it worth using the extender, especially because you do get the AF advantage with having a closer in field of view.
When making decisions about this, there's really no substitute for actual experience, and experience that's relevant to what you're going to be using the lens for. Talk of airy disks and extinction resolution is all very well, but it's often not just confusing, but actually misleading. For all I know, the lens + extender combination wouldn't be advantageous for other processing plus display choices, but the only way to know is to actually try it.
Your images to me show that there is a benefit to using the TC on the 100-400 on the R7 using DxO Photolab, the results appear to be still OK even at the pixel level. It would be interesting to see if the same was true processing with other software such as Canon DPP 4. I suspect the TC images might start to fall apart with other post-processing software.
I've just ordered the RF 100-400 and was wondering if the 1.4x TC would be worthwhile as well, and your images are very helpful. For me at this point I find the RF TC too pricey, it would cost more than the refurb deal I got on the lens.
I've done similar comparisons with the EF-M system and a fairly good quality 1.5x Kenko SHQ teleconverter on images of the Moon (I can't find the post, unfortunately) and found that above the generally accepted diffraction limit of the particular lens I used (EF-S 55-250 IS STM), there was still a benefit of some resolution with the TC, but it came with a loss of contrast, and the image edges became a little more ghostly. it's up to the end user if this is a worthwhile compromise.
For monochrome images of the Moon where you can crank up contrast and sharpness and overprocess more than you can with other images, there tends to be more of a benefit using a TC than busy and colorful distant bird images where you may want to capture a lot of fine detail.
For example, I would use a 1.5x TC on the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 on the Moon at 600mm with an R7, but I have found I don't like the results shooting birds with the same combo.
Although 'theoretical' discussions and results are interesting and relevant, they don't tell the whole story. I've seen folks come to conclusions with their complicated theoretical arguments that can be disproven with straighforward real-world testing, and it's almost comical the lengths to which they'll argue defending their point of view, refusing to perform the same real-world test or claiming 'something' is wrong with your methodology (without specifying what it is). That hasn't happened in this thread, I think it's been friendly and reasonable.
Last edited:
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
The TC is definitely pricey, but it's really good quality. Perhaps you'll be able to get a deal on a refurbished one at some point. And the TC will work with other lenses, too. I have recently used mine with the 800 F11. It works great on that too. And if I ever get the 100-500 or 200-800, it will work with those too. The more lenses you use it on, the less pricey it seems.
I did some real life tests myself as well with the R7, RF 100-400, with and without the RF 1.4 TC, that I shared on this same post. In my own tests I actually felt there was loss of fine detail with the TC mounted and I returned the TC as I was not seeing any benefit for me. I assumed this was due to diffraction limits on the R7.Thanks for your time and effort to test in with real-world lenses and processing, and for explaining how you did it. I wish more people would create posts like this, to me they are the most helpful.Well, as I said, theory is one thing, but often practice is very different. What I want to know is whether using a 1.4X converter with the RF100-1400 on my R7 will be beneficial for me, given what I shoot, how I shoot it, and how I process and display the results. So I just did a quick comparison test, shooting a tree at a distance that represents the close end of the range I actually use that lens (with or without extender) for. I then processed the pictures the way I process all my pictures (I have a preset I use with DXO Photolab). And then I cropped both images a reasonable amount, which is what I do with most of the shots I take with that lens. I cropped both to give the same field of view, which meant cropping the 400mm shot more than the 560mm shot, of course. I then exported both images as JPEGs downsized to 2000 pixels on the long side, which is how I display most of my images. Viewing those JPEGs on a modern monitor is roughly equivalent to looking at a print that's anywhere from 10 inches across to 20 inches across, depending on your screen resolution. What I discovered is that yes, you do get a benefit from using the extender. Here are the downsized images, first the whole frame:
Focus is on the dark knot at the center
And here are the two crops, framed as close to each other as I could without spending even longer on this than I have already:
To my eye, the 560mm shot has a bit more detail. It's not a huge difference, but it's enough to make it worth using the extender, especially because you do get the AF advantage with having a closer in field of view.
When making decisions about this, there's really no substitute for actual experience, and experience that's relevant to what you're going to be using the lens for. Talk of airy disks and extinction resolution is all very well, but it's often not just confusing, but actually misleading. For all I know, the lens + extender combination wouldn't be advantageous for other processing plus display choices, but the only way to know is to actually try it.
Your images to me show that there is a benefit to using the TC on the 100-400 on the R7 using DxO Photolab, the results appear to be still OK even at the pixel level. It would be interesting to see if the same was true processing with other software such as Canon DPP 4. I suspect the TC images might start to fall apart with other post-processing software.
I've just ordered the RF 100-400 and was wondering if the 1.4x TC would be worthwhile as well, and your images are very helpful. For me at this point I find the RF TC too pricey, it would cost more than the refurb deal I got on the lens.
I've done similar comparisons with the EF-M system and a fairly good quality 1.5x Kenko SHQ teleconverter on images of the Moon (I can't find the post, unfortunately) and found that above the generally accepted diffraction limit of the particular lens I used (EF-S 55-250 IS STM), there was still a benefit of some resolution with the TC, but it came with a loss of contrast, and the image edges became a little more ghostly. it's up to the end user if this is a worthwhile compromise.
For monochrome images of the Moon where you can crank up contrast and sharpness and overprocess more than you can with other images, there tends to be more of a benefit using a TC than busy and colorful distant bird images where you may want to capture a lot of fine detail.
For example, I would use a 1.5x TC on the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 on the Moon at 600mm with an R7, but I have found I don't like the results shooting birds with the same combo.
Although 'theoretical' discussions and results are interesting and relevant, they don't tell the whole story. I've seen folks come to conclusions with their complicated theoretical arguments that can be disproven with straighforward real-world testing, and it's almost comical the lengths to which they'll argue defending their point of view, refusing to perform the same real-world test or claiming 'something' is wrong with your methodology (without specifying what it is). That hasn't happened in this thread, I think it's been friendly and reasonable.
Larry Rexley
Senior Member
Thanks for pointing out your post with your real-life tests, I missed that. To you also I say thanks for doing the tests and posting the images, it gives another, different processing workflow and opinion, and adds another point of view with documented results to the discussion.I did some real life tests myself as well with the R7, RF 100-400, with and without the RF 1.4 TC, that I shared on this same post. In my own tests I actually felt there was loss of fine detail with the TC mounted and I returned the TC as I was not seeing any benefit for me. I assumed this was due to diffraction limits on the R7.Thanks for your time and effort to test in with real-world lenses and processing, and for explaining how you did it. I wish more people would create posts like this, to me they are the most helpful.Well, as I said, theory is one thing, but often practice is very different. What I want to know is whether using a 1.4X converter with the RF100-1400 on my R7 will be beneficial for me, given what I shoot, how I shoot it, and how I process and display the results. So I just did a quick comparison test, shooting a tree at a distance that represents the close end of the range I actually use that lens (with or without extender) for. I then processed the pictures the way I process all my pictures (I have a preset I use with DXO Photolab). And then I cropped both images a reasonable amount, which is what I do with most of the shots I take with that lens. I cropped both to give the same field of view, which meant cropping the 400mm shot more than the 560mm shot, of course. I then exported both images as JPEGs downsized to 2000 pixels on the long side, which is how I display most of my images. Viewing those JPEGs on a modern monitor is roughly equivalent to looking at a print that's anywhere from 10 inches across to 20 inches across, depending on your screen resolution. What I discovered is that yes, you do get a benefit from using the extender. Here are the downsized images, first the whole frame:
Focus is on the dark knot at the center
And here are the two crops, framed as close to each other as I could without spending even longer on this than I have already:
To my eye, the 560mm shot has a bit more detail. It's not a huge difference, but it's enough to make it worth using the extender, especially because you do get the AF advantage with having a closer in field of view.
When making decisions about this, there's really no substitute for actual experience, and experience that's relevant to what you're going to be using the lens for. Talk of airy disks and extinction resolution is all very well, but it's often not just confusing, but actually misleading. For all I know, the lens + extender combination wouldn't be advantageous for other processing plus display choices, but the only way to know is to actually try it.
Your images to me show that there is a benefit to using the TC on the 100-400 on the R7 using DxO Photolab, the results appear to be still OK even at the pixel level. It would be interesting to see if the same was true processing with other software such as Canon DPP 4. I suspect the TC images might start to fall apart with other post-processing software.
I've just ordered the RF 100-400 and was wondering if the 1.4x TC would be worthwhile as well, and your images are very helpful. For me at this point I find the RF TC too pricey, it would cost more than the refurb deal I got on the lens.
I've done similar comparisons with the EF-M system and a fairly good quality 1.5x Kenko SHQ teleconverter on images of the Moon (I can't find the post, unfortunately) and found that above the generally accepted diffraction limit of the particular lens I used (EF-S 55-250 IS STM), there was still a benefit of some resolution with the TC, but it came with a loss of contrast, and the image edges became a little more ghostly. it's up to the end user if this is a worthwhile compromise.
For monochrome images of the Moon where you can crank up contrast and sharpness and overprocess more than you can with other images, there tends to be more of a benefit using a TC than busy and colorful distant bird images where you may want to capture a lot of fine detail.
For example, I would use a 1.5x TC on the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 on the Moon at 600mm with an R7, but I have found I don't like the results shooting birds with the same combo.
Although 'theoretical' discussions and results are interesting and relevant, they don't tell the whole story. I've seen folks come to conclusions with their complicated theoretical arguments that can be disproven with straighforward real-world testing, and it's almost comical the lengths to which they'll argue defending their point of view, refusing to perform the same real-world test or claiming 'something' is wrong with your methodology (without specifying what it is). That hasn't happened in this thread, I think it's been friendly and reasonable.
All of us process our files differently, and I feel the best way to determine if equipment or a different approach has value for each of us is to try it yourself with your 'normal' workflow to see if it has a benefit.
You took an interesting approach, upscaling the 'normal' image to compare with the TC image. It looks like the sharpening and de-noise of your workflow is less aggresive than Alastair's.
I agree that your TC image doesn't appear to show more fine detail over the non-TC image. Perhaps the upscaling software does a very good job interpolating some 'missing' image info, or in Alastair's case DxO does a good job of sharpening and de-noising, possibly interpolating some 'missing' image info. Overall I do think that your upscaled non-TC image is a little less clean and more 'crunchy' than the TC image, although as you say there isn't a big difference between the two.
Even Alastair said in his post there isn't a big difference between his TC and the non-TC shots. So the conclusion would appear to be that the difference is 'marginal' at best, and my point of view is that I wouldn't buy the TC (at basically the same cost of the lens) to get such a marginal benefit (at best).
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum