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

I recently picked up the 100-500 lens, which has been great on my R6. Been thinking I should pick up an extender, and trying to decide between the 1.4x and 2.0x.

100-500 with extenders becomes:

420-700mm f/8-10 L IS with 1.4x

600-1,000mm f/11-14 L IS with 2.0x

Seems like the 2.0x converter is the one to get, as the 1.4 only really adds 200mm to your range. The 2.0 converter has no range overlap with the 100-500, so almost like having another lens. But, you do lose an extra stop. How much impact does that have on people?

Just wondering from people who have either, what their experience has been.

My plan is to start getting more into wildlife and bird shits as a hobby. Also interested in trying some moon shots, even saw someone post pictures of Saturns rings from the Sigma 600mm.

How does the added length of the teleconverter affect balance handling of the 100-500? (.8" vs 1.5" longer)

If doing handheld birds/wildlife, how difficult is subject acquisition at 600mm+ ?

Is 700mm max at one faster stop better (and enough difference over 500mm) to get the 1.4? I have the R6 so can crop in some, but not to extent as say R5....

I guess basically if I only plan to buy one, on paper seems like 2.0x is way to go. Anyone have different opinions or feedback I'm not thinking about?

For pretty much every generation of teleconverters, 1.4x is a lot more sharper than 2x. Mostly to and extent where 1.4x means not much visible impact and 2x means clearly visible impact

Having said that, I have no experience with RF adapters yet, so if the 2x is at par with 1.4x, go for it

I have the R5 and the RF100-500 and the RF1,4x. Which is a fantastic combo. With the R6 the actual pixelsize is 1,4x bigger. In order to arrive the same details on your distant object you would have to chose the 2x extender so I would propose to take this one. On the R5 the RF2x may be stretch and gaining no extra real detail. I had the same experience with the EF mark III extenders when using them with my 5d3 and the 7d2 with similar pixel size differences ...

First off, get into bird photography first and learn it using the bare lens.  you can get an extender later.

Second, the 1.4 will sharper and faster to AF than the 2X.  In fact, the 2X may be very slow because you will not be getting much light in after dropping 2 stops.  I strongly advise you to NOT get the 2X.  Beginners don't need either one, frankly, and by the time  you are ready, you can get a refurb'ed one and save some cash.

If you must get one because you have money burning a whole in your pocket, get the 1.4x. 700mm is not bad.  Also, learning when you use a teleconverter is a thing unto itself.

RogerZoul wrote:

First off, get into bird photography first and learn it using the bare lens. you can get an extender later.

Second, the 1.4 will sharper and faster to AF than the 2X. In fact, the 2X may be very slow because you will not be getting much light in after dropping 2 stops. I strongly advise you to NOT get the 2X. Beginners don't need either one, frankly, and by the time you are ready, you can get a refurb'ed one and save some cash.

If you must get one because you have money burning a whole in your pocket, get the 1.4x. 700mm is not bad. Also, learning when you use a teleconverter is a thing unto itself.

Probably good advice, but I'm interested to know why beginners don't need a TC when others do.

Here is what the 100-500 and RF 1.4  looks like on my R.

Here is how I transport it locally. I don't even remove the lens hood. Cheap tool box.

I have been shooting Canon gear for years including long lenses and teleconverters.  I have owned the 1.4x & 2x version I, II, III.  As of switching to the R5, I have decided that I do not like the IQ loss of any of the 2x extenders I have tried to date.

I shot for for 17 days in YNP/GTNP with the R5 + RF 1.4x TC + 100-500 f4.5-f7.1, every thing from birds to bears.

• The 100-500 is as good or better than the 100-400 II with only a little loss of light @400mm.  
• the 100-500 is nice to carry at almost 1/2 lb lighter than the 100-400 II
• AF is fast/accurate shooting both bare and with the RF 1.4x TC.
• You can crop the R5 + 100-500 + 1.4x image to an 800mm FOV and and still have a 33mp image. 
• The 100-500 + 1.4x looks is sharp and looses very little IQ if any.  
• I do not plan to purchase a 2x extender, I would just rent a 600mm f4 and use a 2x extender
  • I bought / returned the RF 800 f11, liked the IQ but didn't like the bokeh and f11.  
• Here is what I don't like about the 1.4x + 100-500
  • lens has to be extend to 300mm before you can add the 1.4x and will not retract below 300mm
  • Loose the use of the 100-420 range of the lens with the 1.4x TC connected
  • Inconvenient to add/remove TC when animals are rapidly changing distance  and limits creative framing to include the environment.  
  • Solution:  If you have the 100-400 II, keep the lens and place it on your backup body for the 100-400 range shots.  Treat the R5 + 1.4x + 100-500 as a dedicated 420-700 zoom.  

mikepro74 wrote:

That's a cool setup! How far would you say you were from the rabbit for the first pic?

About 12 feet

Zeee wrote:

Here is what the 100-500 and RF 1.4 looks like on my R.

Here is how I transport it locally. I don't even remove the lens hood. Cheap tool box.

WaySor wrote:

David, I am wondering if you have ever shot with the EF200-400mm and have any opinion to offer in relation to the new RF100-500mm? I have recently received my R5 and now looking to update some glass. This one has been a good lens for me shooting and art prints for wildlife and I don't want to go backwards in quality. But the lighter weight and cost is oh so appealing. Appreciate your thoughts.

I rented the 200-400 several times shortly after introduction and loved the lens. I eventually bought a factory refurb in 2015 (or early 2016) and believe it is one of the best and most versatile safari / wildlife lenses on the planet with IQ that rivals the Big White primes. The only downside was carting around the 8lbs + sturdy tripod / WH 200  head (leave the tripod /head home for Safaris) - including a 6mi trek down a stream in Alaska photographing bears. Whether you were shooting it at 200-400 f4, 280- 560 @ f5.6, or 400-800 @ f8 with a 2x extender the lens produced stellar results. I waited eagerly for Canon to do a Mark III weight reduction program on the lens, but it has not happened yet. I sold the lens this year in preparation for moving to the R system ((2) R5 + RF 24-105 + RF 100-500). If Canon creates a RF 200-500 (600) with similar characteristics @ 6lbs I am in on announcement even with a sky high price.

As to the 100-500, I am still going through the photos from my YNP/GTNP trip but it looks pretty darn good. The lens is a dream to carry / shoot handheld and produces great results. The 100-500 is as good or better than the 100-400 II and seems to retain more sharpness when you add the 1.4x TC.

I don't believe the 100-500 equals the IQ of the 200-400 and it certainly doesn't have the wider aperture of the 200-400. There is also the versatility issue of the restricted focal length range when the 1.4x is attached (previous post). The IBIS and IS Lens stabilization make it possible to handhold the lens, but I believe you might have to shoot a slightly higher shutter speed when using the R5 with it's higher resolution sensor. I am still reviewing the photos and believe I am seeing a bit of softness in the image when I pushed the IBIS a bit too hard on a windy day. I noticed this on some shots of an relatively static elk taken at 1/800 sec @ 700mm (I know, pushing it a bit).

At the end of the day, I do miss the 200-400 for that absolute best quality and wider aperture but the tradeoffs of weight and versatility are really nice. I do not regret selling my 1dx II or 200-400 and replacing with the R5 + 100-500. I also like being able to shoot fast rather than having to maneuver the 200-400 into position on a tripod. I could handhold the lens for brief periods, but it was a beast and I am getting older.

If you have the 100-400 II and it meets most of your needs, the 100-500  is an improved version of the EF lens (you only loose a little light @ 400mm) with the added benefit of 500mm reach and lighter weight with slightly better IQ performance when using the 1.4x TC.  It is not a 200-400, but I am sure you weren't expecting a 1:1 replacement.

These are my totally non-scientific opinions.

David

frostybe3r wrote:

I'm just going to say, don't bother with an extender on a non prime lens like this, especially as the cost of the extenders are ridiculous, you're new from what it seems and despite the 1.4X not necessarily losing much clarity in general, it will due to your using a zoom and don't forget that you're going down to f10 or so at 700mm, which just by basic physics will already lessen your quality a small bit, f10 just isn't ideal for light nor shutter speed or bokeh.

This isn't a professional lens and it does focus breath so bare in mind with your 1.4X extender, it's still not 700mm.

Read my posts about experience with the lens, comparison to the 200-400 f4 L IS, and some other thoughts. Basically, the 100-500 is a professional zoom lens with performance at least as good or better than the EF 100-400 II - which many consider one of the best professional zooms available. While I wouldn't shoot the 100-500 with a 2x extender (or lenses other than a big white or f2.8 zooms), the 100-500 + 1.4x can deliver stellar results. I have shot all of the Big Whites primes and the f2.8 & f4 zooms. I also know several top professionals that would not hesitate to use the 100-500 as their "go to" lens for wildlife in the field. That doesn't mean they would give up their BW primes, but the lens is another tool in their bag that delivers outstanding results.

Look at all the charts you want, but the truth is in the photos. Since you are new and have not updated your gear list, it is difficult to get a sense of your real life experience with photography.

David

mikepro74 wrote:

I recently picked up the 100-500 lens, which has been great on my R6. Been thinking I should pick up an extender, and trying to decide between the 1.4x and 2.0x.

100-500 with extenders becomes:

420-700mm f/8-10 L IS with 1.4x

600-1,000mm f/11-14 L IS with 2.0x

They both overlap.

100-500 with extenders becomes:

140-700mm f/8-10 L IS with 1.4x

200-1,000mm f/11-14 L IS with 2.0x

rodor wrote:

mikepro74 wrote:

I recently picked up the 100-500 lens, which has been great on my R6. Been thinking I should pick up an extender, and trying to decide between the 1.4x and 2.0x.

100-500 with extenders becomes:

420-700mm f/8-10 L IS with 1.4x

600-1,000mm f/11-14 L IS with 2.0x

They both overlap.

100-500 with extenders becomes:

140-700mm f/8-10 L IS with 1.4x

200-1,000mm f/11-14 L IS with 2.0x

The lens has to be extended to 300mm before you add the extender. Once you add the extender, you can not retract the lens below the 300mm mark (blocked by extender). This is the one gripe I have against the lens. The range with the extender attached:

1.4x 420 - 700

2x. 600 - 1000

I can tell you this is accurate because I have the RF 1.4x & 100-500. It is also in the Canon RF 1.4x & RF 100-500 material. I do not own the RF 2x and don't plan to purchase. Personally, I don't like the results with 2x extenders other than the EF 200-400 f4 L IS and the Big White Primes. The EF 70-200 F2.8 II/III also does a decent job with 2x extenders.

Just in case you are not aware, the 1.4x TC does not work with the RF 70-200. It has to do with the rear element sitting so close to the mount, doesn't allow the 1.4x extender to be attached.

I was too lazy to find it in the Canon material, but this is from the RF 1.4x TC product page on B&H. Lens compatibility in the description:

• RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM (can only be used within 300-500mm range)
• RF 600mm f/11 IS STM
• RF 800mm f/11 IS STM