Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon R7, EF 100-400 Mk II + 1.4x Extender Mk III

Go to last post
R

RAWInstincts

Member
Messages
27
Reaction score
8
Location
UK
WIthout going into details, had the R5, RF 1.4x and RF100-500 which I did enjoy and when I switched systems mainly for macro, I realised what I missed; I wanted to keep my costs low to return to anon for wildlife.

I just love this combination. Physically it is slightly heavier and bulkier but it's not something that I've noticed compared to the RF 1.4x + RF 100-500.

I know there may be charts and calculations to the contrary of my opinion and I don't know how to explain it, but the colour/contrast and bokeh produced from this setup just feels so much "better" than the RF100-500 (I have used that on the R7 previously).

I have started to prefer the EF L series lenses over the RF equiavlents mainly due to how narrower the apertures seemingly getting in the RF telephoto lenses.



f74f5be4558a4811b96fae0d9b845d6c.jpg



9a9a3f3eda2f4d2fa01456d2015d421f.jpg



8a0c8889c4ea41d782d1bcd2e766a5fd.jpg



cf4c3a7af87045bca02493b77c83185b.jpg

--
M
 
Please post full sized images, as I am interested in using my EF 100-400L ii + EF 1.4x TC in preference over RF 100-400 for a potential safari trip.

These images are really tiny, and perhaps due to my eyes, or perhaps due to the small size, but all of them appear to lack sharpness, so I would be interested to see the full sized images please.
 
RAWInstincts said:
WIthout going into details, had the R5, RF 1.4x and RF100-500 which I did enjoy and when I switched systems mainly for macro, I realised what I missed; I wanted to keep my costs low to return to anon for wildlife.

I just love this combination. Physically it is slightly heavier and bulkier but it's not something that I've noticed compared to the RF 1.4x + RF 100-500.

I know there may be charts and calculations to the contrary of my opinion and I don't know how to explain it, but the colour/contrast and bokeh produced from this setup just feels so much "better" than the RF100-500 (I have used that on the R7 previously).

I have started to prefer the EF L series lenses over the RF equiavlents mainly due to how narrower the apertures seemingly getting in the RF telephoto lenses.
Click to expand...
Here's a recent full-size image (edited and converted from CRAW to JPEG):

Exif metadata
Exif metadata

DPP recipe
DPP recipe

CR3 edited in DPP and converted to JPEG
CR3 edited in DPP and converted to JPEG



CR3 converted to TIFF, edited in macOS Preview, and finally exported as JPEG
CR3 converted to TIFF, edited in macOS Preview, and finally exported as JPEG
 
Last edited:
Andy01 said:
Please post full sized images, as I am interested in using my EF 100-400L ii + EF 1.4x TC in preference over RF 100-400 for a potential safari trip.

These images are really tiny, and perhaps due to my eyes, or perhaps due to the small size, but all of them appear to lack sharpness, so I would be interested to see the full sized images please.
Click to expand...
Full sized images below:



bf75b7f6b73e4ba08d1e58c2a5342dc7.jpg



7db386d87fe84e219908a24977facda1.jpg



6ab46adc466a44ab93228a3a72222829.jpg



99d60f90c2124bd29b5dca15a245ac83.jpg

All shot in RAW, DxO DeepPrime used and converted to DNG; basic edits; output to high quality jpegs.

--
M
 
Those are much better, thank you. They look much sharper than the first images might suggest.

I think I would be inclined to shoot at a faster shutter speed than 1/500th when using a 560mm (896mm FF FoV equivalent) lens on a high resolution APS-C camera like R7.
 
Andy01 said:
I think I would be inclined to shoot at a faster shutter speed than 1/500th when using a 560mm (896mm FF FoV equivalent) lens on a high resolution APS-C camera like R7.
Click to expand...
It depends on how steady you are and whether you use a support eg monopod/tripod. These are handheld and I usually shoot handheld for a lot of my photography.

The rule of 1/focal length for the shutter speed isn’t strictly accurate given the fact the lens has up to 4 stops of stabilisation along with the R7 IBIS. Even at 1/500th you could easily track a grey heron gracefully flying without issue.

I can understand the requirement of faster shutter speeds for action shots/taking off/landing / squabbling etc

--
M
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. I have just noticed that for subjects that can move quickly and erratically (like small birds) I tend to get sharper results at faster shutter speeds.

It is my understanding that the IS is there to give you a "reasonable" number of "acceptably sharp" keepers, and the keeper rate drops as the number of IS stops increases. For example, 1 stop of IS might theoretically yield something like 85% of shots being "acceptably sharp", but 3 stops might yield closer to 50%.

The IS rating of the lens does not imply that all (or in fact any) of the handheld shots taken at slower than the nominal 1/(focal length) "rule" will be as sharp as as a completely static (ie. tripod) lens or a shot taken with a faster shutter speed.

The general recommendation on here from people who do a lot of bird photography (not me as I am a very amateur bird photographer) is to use at least 1/1000th (and that might be for a FF camera, not a 32Mp R7) for "static" birds, and upwards of 1/2500th or 1/3200th for moving birds / BIF.
 
I have set up a so-called "action button" for BIF with a shutter speed of 1/3200s (1/8000s maximum on the R5 Mark I). For handheld shots, even 1/3200s is not always fast enough but it needs to be traded-off against high ISO and maximum lens aperture.

For BIF, I think that good technique is especially important. In my limited experience, BIF is very challenging even with good equipment and technique. If only the birds would cooperate more. :-)
 
Last edited:
RAWInstincts said:
WIthout going into details, had the R5, RF 1.4x and RF100-500 which I did enjoy and when I switched systems mainly for macro, I realised what I missed; I wanted to keep my costs low to return to anon for wildlife.

I just love this combination. Physically it is slightly heavier and bulkier but it's not something that I've noticed compared to the RF 1.4x + RF 100-500.

I know there may be charts and calculations to the contrary of my opinion and I don't know how to explain it, but the colour/contrast and bokeh produced from this setup just feels so much "better" than the RF100-500 (I have used that on the R7 previously).

I have started to prefer the EF L series lenses over the RF equiavlents mainly due to how narrower the apertures seemingly getting in the RF telephoto lenses.

f74f5be4558a4811b96fae0d9b845d6c.jpg

9a9a3f3eda2f4d2fa01456d2015d421f.jpg

8a0c8889c4ea41d782d1bcd2e766a5fd.jpg

cf4c3a7af87045bca02493b77c83185b.jpg
Click to expand...
Nice photos!

It's possible they could do a better 100-400 as a constant f/4 to compete with Olympus's latest 50-200mm 2.8 (100-400mm 2.8 equivalent). Even though Canon doesn't have a history of giving a flip about what Olympus is doing...
 
I need to try again with R5 Mark II, but when I compared this lens with and without extender on my 5DS, I saw no advantage to using the extender. The same subject, cropped and resized to the same pixel count were indistinguishable between the bare lens and lens with extender. Perhaps I'll take some time tomorrow for such a test.
 
picturetime2 said:
It's possible they could do a better 100-400 as a constant f/4 to compete with Olympus's latest 50-200mm 2.8 (100-400mm 2.8 equivalent). Even though Canon doesn't have a history of giving a flip about what Olympus is doing...
Click to expand...
What's an Olympus?? :-D
 
Victor Engel said:
I need to try again with R5 Mark II, but when I compared this lens with and without extender on my 5DS, I saw no advantage to using the extender. The same subject, cropped and resized to the same pixel count were indistinguishable between the bare lens and lens with extender. Perhaps I'll take some time tomorrow for such a test.
Click to expand...
+1 I always found the gains from adding the EF 1.4x iii to the EF 100-400ii to be minimal. The RF 1.4x is IME significantly better on the RF 100-500. In fact I have it mounted most of the time!

R2
 
R2D2 said:
Victor Engel said:
I need to try again with R5 Mark II, but when I compared this lens with and without extender on my 5DS, I saw no advantage to using the extender. The same subject, cropped and resized to the same pixel count were indistinguishable between the bare lens and lens with extender. Perhaps I'll take some time tomorrow for such a test.
Click to expand...
+1 I always found the gains from adding the EF 1.4x iii to the EF 100-400ii to be minimal. The RF 1.4x is IME significantly better on the RF 100-500. In fact I have it mounted most of the time!

R2
Click to expand...
 
picturetime2 said:
RAWInstincts said:
WIthout going into details, had the R5, RF 1.4x and RF100-500 which I did enjoy and when I switched systems mainly for macro, I realised what I missed; I wanted to keep my costs low to return to anon for wildlife.

I just love this combination. Physically it is slightly heavier and bulkier but it's not something that I've noticed compared to the RF 1.4x + RF 100-500.

I know there may be charts and calculations to the contrary of my opinion and I don't know how to explain it, but the colour/contrast and bokeh produced from this setup just feels so much "better" than the RF100-500 (I have used that on the R7 previously).

I have started to prefer the EF L series lenses over the RF equiavlents mainly due to how narrower the apertures seemingly getting in the RF telephoto lenses.

f74f5be4558a4811b96fae0d9b845d6c.jpg

9a9a3f3eda2f4d2fa01456d2015d421f.jpg

8a0c8889c4ea41d782d1bcd2e766a5fd.jpg

cf4c3a7af87045bca02493b77c83185b.jpg
Click to expand...
Nice photos!

It's possible they could do a better 100-400 as a constant f/4 to compete with Olympus's latest 50-200mm 2.8 (100-400mm 2.8 equivalent). Even though Canon doesn't have a history of giving a flip about what Olympus is doing...
Click to expand...
The equivalent aperture would be f/5.6. Had the OM1-Mk2 with the 300 f/4 PRO and 40-150 f/2.8 with the 1.4x and felt that the RAW images are not on par with Canon R7, R6 or R5. Canon in my view has a better colour and detail reproduction.

--
M
 
RAWInstincts said:
Andy01 said:
I think I would be inclined to shoot at a faster shutter speed than 1/500th when using a 560mm (896mm FF FoV equivalent) lens on a high resolution APS-C camera like R7.
Click to expand...
It depends on how steady you are and whether you use a support eg monopod/tripod. These are handheld and I usually shoot handheld for a lot of my photography.

The rule of 1/focal length for the shutter speed isn’t strictly accurate given the fact the lens has up to 4 stops of stabilisation along with the R7 IBIS. Even at 1/500th you could easily track a grey heron gracefully flying without issue.

I can understand the requirement of faster shutter speeds for action shots/taking off/landing / squabbling etc
Click to expand...
Often I find motion blur in bird feathers due to wind or unseen movement of the bird, so it’s not just movement of the camera to be considered.
 
RAWInstincts said:
Andy01 said:
I think I would be inclined to shoot at a faster shutter speed than 1/500th when using a 560mm (896mm FF FoV equivalent) lens on a high resolution APS-C camera like R7.
Click to expand...
It depends on how steady you are and whether you use a support eg monopod/tripod. These are handheld and I usually shoot handheld for a lot of my photography.

The rule of 1/focal length for the shutter speed isn’t strictly accurate given the fact the lens has up to 4 stops of stabilisation along with the R7 IBIS.
Click to expand...
I doubt that you are benefiting much from IBIS. Pitch/yaw compensation is what is most useful for hand-held telephoto, especially with people who have stable form when shooting. IBIS when used in conjuction with the lens' OIS only adds roll correction, which is only useful at very long hand-held exposure times, and X/Y translation, which is most useful at high absolute magnification. I am not the only person who believes that unneeded corrections can do more harm than good. On the R7, I find that added IBIS to OIS has low error, but on my R5, I really wish that I could disable IBIS, because the R5 had more blur than my 90D with the same lens and shutter speed.
 
John Sheehy said:
RAWInstincts said:
Andy01 said:
I think I would be inclined to shoot at a faster shutter speed than 1/500th when using a 560mm (896mm FF FoV equivalent) lens on a high resolution APS-C camera like R7.
Click to expand...
It depends on how steady you are and whether you use a support eg monopod/tripod. These are handheld and I usually shoot handheld for a lot of my photography.

The rule of 1/focal length for the shutter speed isn’t strictly accurate given the fact the lens has up to 4 stops of stabilisation along with the R7 IBIS.
Click to expand...
I doubt that you are benefiting much from IBIS. Pitch/yaw compensation is what is most useful for hand-held telephoto, especially with people who have stable form when shooting. IBIS when used in conjuction with the lens' OIS only adds roll correction, which is only useful at very long hand-held exposure times, and X/Y translation, which is most useful at high absolute magnification. I am not the only person who believes that unneeded corrections can do more harm than good. On the R7, I find that added IBIS to OIS has low error, but on my R5, I really wish that I could disable IBIS, because the R5 had more blur than my 90D with the same lens and shutter speed.
Click to expand...
I agree. We should be able to turn off IBIS with lens IS on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Test Shots, RF 200-800mm on R5 and RF 100-500mm on R5, R7
2
Replies
24
Views
14K
BirdShooter7
B
C
First try with R5 mk II + 100-500L
Replies
8
Views
34K
R2D2
R2D2
A
Looking for comparison of 100-400 f5.6 EF II vs 100-400 f8 RF onR7
2
Replies
23
Views
15K
Jumpingspider
J
M
Seeking Advice on Gear to Bring to Alaska
2
Replies
21
Views
15K
tdbmd
T
J
Opinions on lens choice please
Replies
15
Views
3K
Andy01
Andy01

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top