RP and 100-400 EF (not version II) and 2X Canon converter

I fitted this combination on the RP while questioning the idea of trading this for a RF 800mm. 
I believe the 100-400 is a better lens. But for birds, 400 is somewhat short.

Suggestions and opinions?

Thanks.

Show us some pictures

jboyer wrote:

I fitted this combination on the RP while questioning the idea of trading this for a RF 800mm.
I believe the 100-400 is a better lens. But for birds, 400 is somewhat short.

Suggestions and opinions?

Thanks.

Teleconverter? Switch to a high res APS-C camera? Or maybe try the Sigma and Tamron super zooms? The 800mm f11 seem to only be good for certain situations and conditions due to the dark aperture and far minimum focus distance. It is sharp though and stabilization appears to be very good.

Also, I found through experience that you'll always want more focal length. I went from 250 to 400 to 600 over the years and I still find myself wanting more. Keep in mind that as you go higher in focal length, you'll find that the differences become less and less apparent. 400 is not really that different from 600. The best and cheapest way of increasing the size of your subject is to get closer.

jboyer wrote:

I fitted this combination on the RP while questioning the idea of trading this for a RF 800mm.
I believe the 100-400 is a better lens. But for birds, 400 is somewhat short.

Suggestions and opinions?

Thanks.

Both are kind of meh. The 800 is pretty good but obviously severely limited. It is the definition of a one trick pony.

I would rather have the RF 100-500. It will probably beat the RF 800 when using the 1.4x TC attached even though it is only 700mm. It is also f/10 at 700mm with the 1.4x TC.

Wintereater wrote:

jboyer wrote:

I fitted this combination on the RP while questioning the idea of trading this for a RF 800mm.
I believe the 100-400 is a better lens. But for birds, 400 is somewhat short.

Suggestions and opinions?

Thanks.

Teleconverter? Switch to a high res APS-C camera? Or maybe try the Sigma and Tamron super zooms? The 800mm f11 seem to only be good for certain situations and conditions due to the dark aperture and far minimum focus distance. It is sharp though and stabilization appears to be very good.

I tried this combo on the M50. A weird and unbalanced system. The reach was great but always required some support. I used a 7D with great success years past. The M50 is NOT a small 7D. The AF works wonders on the RP, not as well on the M50.

Also, I found through experience that you'll always want more focal length. I went from 250 to 400 to 600 over the years and I still find myself wanting more. Keep in mind that as you go higher in focal length, you'll find that the differences become less and less apparent. 400 is not really that different from 600. The best and cheapest way of increasing the size of your subject is to get closer.

I know the feeling...

Thanks for the suggestions.

shawnphoto wrote:

jboyer wrote:

I fitted this combination on the RP while questioning the idea of trading this for a RF 800mm.
I believe the 100-400 is a better lens. But for birds, 400 is somewhat short.

Suggestions and opinions?

Thanks.

Both are kind of meh. The 800 is pretty good but obviously severely limited. It is the definition of a one trick pony.

My take on it. Though using 12000 ISO in the RP is quite 'reasonable' offsetting the f11. (the 2X gets me close to F/9 /10 anyway.)

I would rather have the RF 100-500. It will probably beat the RF 800 when using the 1.4x TC attached even though it is only 700mm. It is also f/10 at 700mm with the 1.4x TC.

Budget is an issue. And I am sure it is a better combo than the 800 -- at a price to match.

jboyer wrote:

I fitted this combination on the RP while questioning the idea of trading this for a RF 800mm.
I believe the 100-400 is a better lens. But for birds, 400 is somewhat short.

Suggestions and opinions?

Thanks.

As others have said, you can get a teleconverter, either Canon or one of the 3rd party ones. I have the 100-400 IS L mk.1 and some old Kenko 2x and 1.4x extenders and the RP will autofocus with one or both of them on via the ef to rf converter as the RF will autofocus above F5.6 (used to be restricted on old DSLRs). It will only "report" the corrected f-number and the focal length if one of the extenders is attached (with both it only reports the correction for one of them depending on the order of the TCs).

My guess is that the new RF800f11 might be a bit sharper but maybe not be much. No idea about the speed of the autofocus.

jboyer wrote:

I tried this combo on the M50. A weird and unbalanced system. The reach was great but always required some support. I used a 7D with great success years past. The M50 is NOT a small 7D. The AF works wonders on the RP, not as well on the M50.

I regularly shoot with my M6 mark II + Sigma 150-600mm, so I definitely know where you're coming from haha. I love mirrorless way too much to switch back to DSLR though. I have a grip attachment from custombatterygrips.com for my M6 II that has greatly improved the comfort of my set-up when using large lenses, although it's still a tad front heavy (I've gotten used to it though). I believe the AF is similar to the one on the RP/R, but with a way faster burst rate.

Mark B. wrote:

jboyer wrote:

I fitted this combination on the RP while questioning the idea of trading this for a RF 800mm.
I believe the 100-400 is a better lens. But for birds, 400 is somewhat short.

Suggestions and opinions?

Thanks.

I have the original 100-400 and tried it with a Canon 1.4x (II I believe), but was not happy with the results so I can't imagine a 2x would be very good. The 800 would definitely be better in terms of IQ. But with either combo you'll need a lot of light.

Mark

I believe the mark ii has much better image quality, and works better with teleconverters as a result, but yes, no teleconverter will always lead to better results

jboyer wrote:

I fitted this combination on the RP while questioning the idea of trading this for a RF 800mm.
I believe the 100-400 is a better lens. But for birds, 400 is somewhat short.

Suggestions and opinions?

Thanks.

My news isn't exactly good...
The EF 100-400mmL Mk 1 is an older, 22 year old, pre-digital lens with a slower AF module that was designed for film cameras and not for digital cameras. It will WORK on a modern digital camera but Canon do NOT recommend using it on an R-Series camera due to the age difference. The performance is therefore unreliable and slow compared to the Mk II lens and Mk III Extenders.  The EF 100-400mmL Mk 1 was announced in September 1998.  This is something of a prehistoric lens when used on an R camera.  I've had arguments with other photographers who claim their Mk1 lens and Mk II Extenders work just fine on their R cameras... and then later, I tend to see the very same people complaining on the Facebook R groups about optical quality and under-performance.
.
The EF 2x II Extender is likewise a pre-digital Extender that has a slower, older microprocessor in it.  This Mk II Extender is also optically inferior to the Mk III Extender and again, Canon do not recommend the use of it with modern digital cameras from the 6D Mk II onward.  And the 6D II can only use the EF 1.4x III Extender for AF via the Viewfinder.
.
The newer EF 100-400mmL II was released in 2014 and has improved AF designed to work with modern digital cameras.  The same applies to the EF Mk III Extenders, both of which were redesigned completely to improve optical performance and have a far stronger redesign for structural integrity and new optical coatings.  They also have new microprocessors with faster AF speeds and greater accuracy when used with the EF 100-400mmL II lens and similar Mk II white-series L-lenses.
.
If you don't believe me, contact Canon directly and tell them what you are using.   The EF 100-400mmL II lens performs quite closely to the RF 100-500mmL lens in terms of AF speed and accuracy... even with extenders... but this performance is more notable on the R6 and R5 cameras which have an improved AF module and a more advanced Eye-AF detect system compared to the RP and even the R.  Due to the higher megapixel count on the R5, these lenses actually perform a little better on the R6 (as noted by other members here).
.
Solution:  Trade in your Mk 1 lens and Mk II Extenders and buy the EF 100-400mmL II lens and the EF 1.4x III and/or EF 2x III Extenders.  You could probably get a good price for new gear... although second hand equipment is an option but ONLY if you can be assured it is optically and mechanically sound.  Unfortunately there will always be a performance issue using the older lens gear (especially from 1998) on a recent model Digital Camera like the R-series.

jboyer wrote:

I fitted this combination on the RP while questioning the idea of trading this for a RF 800mm.
I believe the 100-400 is a better lens. But for birds, 400 is somewhat short.

Suggestions and opinions?

Thanks.

i had a friend with the 100-400mki and i have researched and looked at a lot of photos from that lens and came conclusion that evan without a converter and with no cropping the IQ from that lens is border line for ..the RF 800 is MUCH sharper than the 100-400 + X2 but the 800 is a one trick pony

here you can see the tamron 150-600 G2 is  better than the 100-400 + 1.4X mkiii and faster at F6.3 VS F9

the tamron 150-600 + 1.4x vs RF 800mm the 800 has the edge but the tamron is faster evan with the X1.4 at F9 vs F11

i would not entertain the 100-400 mki...the 800 has the best IQ but i think the versatility of the 150-600 makes it a much more usable lens unless you are only ever need 800mm

Marco Nero wrote:

jboyer wrote:

I fitted this combination on the RP while questioning the idea of trading this for a RF 800mm.
I believe the 100-400 is a better lens. But for birds, 400 is somewhat short.

Suggestions and opinions?

Thanks.

My news isn't exactly good...
The EF 100-400mmL Mk 1 is an older, 22 year old, pre-digital lens with a slower AF module that was designed for film cameras and not for digital cameras. It will WORK on a modern digital camera but Canon do NOT recommend using it on an R-Series camera due to the age difference. The performance is therefore unreliable and slow compared to the Mk II lens and Mk III Extenders. The EF 100-400mmL Mk 1 was announced in September 1998. This is something of a prehistoric lens when used on an R camera. I've had arguments with other photographers who claim their Mk1 lens and Mk II Extenders work just fine on their R cameras... and then later, I tend to see the very same people complaining on the Facebook R groups about optical quality and under-performance.
.
The EF 2x II Extender is likewise a pre-digital Extender that has a slower, older microprocessor in it. This Mk II Extender is also optically inferior to the Mk III Extender and again, Canon do not recommend the use of it with modern digital cameras from the 6D Mk II onward. And the 6D II can only use the EF 1.4x III Extender for AF via the Viewfinder.
.
The newer EF 100-400mmL II was released in 2014 and has improved AF designed to work with modern digital cameras. The same applies to the EF Mk III Extenders, both of which were redesigned completely to improve optical performance and have a far stronger redesign for structural integrity and new optical coatings. They also have new microprocessors with faster AF speeds and greater accuracy when used with the EF 100-400mmL II lens and similar Mk II white-series L-lenses.
.
If you don't believe me, contact Canon directly and tell them what you are using. The EF 100-400mmL II lens performs quite closely to the RF 100-500mmL lens in terms of AF speed and accuracy... even with extenders... but this performance is more notable on the R6 and R5 cameras which have an improved AF module and a more advanced Eye-AF detect system compared to the RP and even the R. Due to the higher megapixel count on the R5, these lenses actually perform a little better on the R6 (as noted by other members here).
.
Solution: Trade in your Mk 1 lens and Mk II Extenders and buy the EF 100-400mmL II lens and the EF 1.4x III and/or EF 2x III Extenders. You could probably get a good price for new gear... although second hand equipment is an option but ONLY if you can be assured it is optically and mechanically sound. Unfortunately there will always be a performance issue using the older lens gear (especially from 1998) on a recent model Digital Camera like the R-series.

Thanks Marco.

Wisdom from Australia, as usual. Well researched and I can only agree with the proposed solution.

There is still a possibility: RF100-500 with 1.4X  -- Budget is the issue and I am not sure how well the 100-400 will trade for.

When fitted with the RF 24-105 L, the RP gives pictures that 'jump in your face'... The 100-400 feels 'mushy', even though sharp. These 'scientific' measures confirm your comments. Part of it is the IS, the shorter focal. But some is really that recent design and its fit to the new mount.

When I used the 6D, I found the 100-400 fine -- NO extender. But the percentage of use was very low: less than 10% of my pictures. Will a new longer lens change that?

Marco, your comments and suggestions are germane and, along with the other posters to this thread, give me a good direction on where to save my money towards!

H2ODoctor wrote:

Show us some pictures

A dark afternoon in a light forest. Unexpected sight.

As requested.

jboyer wrote:

Thanks Marco.

Wisdom from Australia, as usual. Well researched and I can only agree with the proposed solution.

There is still a possibility: RF100-500 with 1.4X -- Budget is the issue and I am not sure how well the 100-400 will trade for.

I've come very close to buying the RF 100-400mmL lens more than twice.  Just be wary of the possible design 'defect' in relation to cracked lens elements for the RF 100-500mmL lens.  See the PetaPixel discussions on this problem before laying out the cash for that lens. I'm sure Canon will resolve it but it's gaining publicity at the moment for all the wrong reasons.

When fitted with the RF 24-105 L, the RP gives pictures that 'jump in your face'... The 100-400 feels 'mushy', even though sharp. These 'scientific' measures confirm your comments. Part of it is the IS, the shorter focal. But some is really that recent design and its fit to the new mount.

I've had my eye on the RF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM lens.  I still have the EF variant so I'm finding it hard not to stay sitting on the fence.

When I used the 6D, I found the 100-400 fine -- NO extender. But the percentage of use was very low: less than 10% of my pictures. Will a new longer lens change that?

On my  6D (which has the same sensor resolution as the R6), I found the Mk II lens and Mk III Extenders to produce good and pleasing results... although using extenders meant Live View only and not the OVF.  The difference in performance when using these lenses and extenders on newer cameras with DPAF sensors is almost breathtaking.

Marco, your comments and suggestions are germane and, along with the other posters to this thread, give me a good direction on where to save my money towards!

Thanks.  I was actually a little worried that my comments might have been perceived as 'negative' if they weren't what you expected to hear.  I think that there's enough information available out there now (since enough time has elapsed since the release of the new cameras, lenses and accessories) that most people can find what they need online and make a fairly informed decision as needed.  With the higher cost of modern lenses and cameras, it's getting to be a big decision when buying new equipment.  In order to buy the RF 85L lens, I had to trade in my absolutely pristine copy of the EF 85mmL II lens... which turned out to be the right decision for me since the EF lenses (even good copies) were still a little hit and miss.  The RF lens has been remarkable in never missing the target in thousands of pictures.  That's peculiar for an f/1.2 lens, it really is.  Another thing to note is that the 6D has a 100K shutter lifespan average and the R6 has a 300K average.  So for me, the migration made some sense.... I still have my 6D but the trade price for it was so low that I'd rather keep it for something risky (eg solar photography or a high dust environment event).
.
The R system is a mature one now.  I like the original R model and the RP.  The R6 (and the R5) seems to offer a bit more for people wanting even more AF speed/accuracy. I've tried about 7 different EF lenses and two RF lenses on the new R cameras and I've been really happy with the performance (though the EF 24mm f/1.4L II lens vignetted hard on my EOS Ra camera, something that Canon is at a loss to explain).