Rf 100-400mm f5.6-8 + 1.4 extender

[Catama]

Anyone have any experience with this combo? My wife shoots with this lens on her R5 l because it appeals to her weight-wise. I shoot with the EF 100-400 mm and the 1.4x III extender on my R5 with excellent results. I’m concerned because her lens is not an L lens and before I plunk down $500 I’d like to know if it will work without significant resolution degradation. Thanks!

 

[Chimpy boy]

Anyone have any experience with this combo? My wife shoots with this lens on her R5 l because it appeals to her weight-wise. I shoot with the EF 100-400 mm and the 1.4x III extender on my R5 with excellent results. I’m concerned because her lens is not an L lens and before I plunk down $500 I’d like to know if it will work without significant resolution degradation. Thanks!

Simple just borrow the wives and try it out ? Or check her files out to see how it performs ? How does the combo work for her ?

 

[here_and_there]

Try looking at this comparison charts: The-Digital-Picture.com Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Image Quality

Judging from the charts above, the RF100-400 with 1.4X gives a similar IQ to the EF II with the 2X converter, which is pretty reasonable, IMO, depending on your pixel-peeping level.

Here are a few real life photos of the RF, some taken with both 1.4X or 2X extenders: Fred Miranda - Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 Image Thread

I own both the RF 100-400 (but not the extender, yet) and the EF 100-400 L II (with both the 1.4X and 2X), plus the R5. Many consider the EF with 2X to be soft, but in real life usage, the IQ is pretty good.

I'm actually considering getting the RF 2X, but I need to find more real life images to evaluate before spending the $600. Since getting it, I find that the RF 100-400 is so compact and light I'm using it much more because of that, so much so that I'm considering selling the EF lens+extenders to pay for new gear.

 

[tkbslc]

Anyone have any experience with this combo? My wife shoots with this lens on her R5 l because it appeals to her weight-wise. I shoot with the EF 100-400 mm and the 1.4x III extender on my R5 with excellent results. I’m concerned because her lens is not an L lens and before I plunk down $500 I’d like to know if it will work without significant resolution degradation. Thanks!

400mm f8 + 1.4x = 560mm f11

You might do just as well buying the 600mm f11, which doesn't cost much more than the 1.4x TC. It appears to have much better image sharpness as well:

Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

 

[here_and_there]

Anyone have any experience with this combo? My wife shoots with this lens on her R5 l because it appeals to her weight-wise. I shoot with the EF 100-400 mm and the 1.4x III extender on my R5 with excellent results. I’m concerned because her lens is not an L lens and before I plunk down $500 I’d like to know if it will work without significant resolution degradation. Thanks!

400mm f8 + 1.4x = 560mm f11

You might do just as well buying the 600mm f11, which doesn't cost much more than the 1.4x TC. It appears to have much better image sharpness as well:

Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Good point. However, the 600 is almost twice the weight of the RF 100-400, and I guess twice the size since it needs to be extended to be used. And no zoom.

 

[tkbslc]

Anyone have any experience with this combo? My wife shoots with this lens on her R5 l because it appeals to her weight-wise. I shoot with the EF 100-400 mm and the 1.4x III extender on my R5 with excellent results. I’m concerned because her lens is not an L lens and before I plunk down $500 I’d like to know if it will work without significant resolution degradation. Thanks!

400mm f8 + 1.4x = 560mm f11

You might do just as well buying the 600mm f11, which doesn't cost much more than the 1.4x TC. It appears to have much better image sharpness as well:

Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

Good point. However, the 600 is almost twice the weight of the RF 100-400, and I guess twice the size since it needs to be extended to be used. And no zoom.

R5 is still 18MP in 1.6x crop mode. Have you considered using that? Gives 640mm for zero additional weight.

 

[EBCowboy]

Dude, buy her the extender! Happy wife, happy life. Be glad she's not asking for the RF 600 f4.

 

[Catama]

Thanks everyone!

 

[gscotten]

here_and_there wrote:

Good point. However, the 600 is almost twice the weight of the RF 100-400, and I guess twice the size since it needs to be extended to be used. And no zoom.

The 600 is about 8 oz more than the 100-400 (32.8 to 24.4 oz) which is almost exactly the weight of the 1.4x extender. So the weight of the combo is the same and the pack size is the same. But the MFD on the combo is 3 feet vs. 15 feet for the 600. And the combo has a macro magnification of .6. And it zooms. The main advantage to the 600 mm is that it costs a lot less than the combo. $1150 vs $700. I am thinking it might be worth it for the versatility, but I am not quite there yet.

 

[John Sheehy]

Good point. However, the 600 is almost twice the weight of the RF 100-400,

Are you sure about that? I thought that the RF100-400 + RF1.4x is about 1.9 pounds, while the RF600/11 is about 1.7 pounds. The RF800/11 is about double the weight of the bare RF100-400.

and I guess twice the size since it needs to be extended to be used. And no zoom.

 

[John Sheehy]

R5 is still 18MP in 1.6x crop mode. Have you considered using that? Gives 640mm for zero additional weight.

Crop mode does not increase resolution of small and/or distant subjects. Using equivalent focal length as a proxy for subject resolution is not meaningful.

 

[davel33]

From a post I made about one month ago

"I ended up with the Canon RF 100-400 f5.6-f8. Its a very good all around lens. Focus is FAST and dead on with both my R and R6. It is the ONLY RF zoom that is 100% compatible with the the RF 1.4X and 2.0X extenders. It works well with the 1.4x. From the testing I have done, its hard to see a loss in resolution but there is a slight loss of contras"

 

[tkbslc]

R5 is still 18MP in 1.6x crop mode. Have you considered using that? Gives 640mm for zero additional weight.

Crop mode does not increase resolution of small and/or distant subjects. Using equivalent focal length as a proxy for subject resolution is not meaningful.

Using 400mm in 1.6x on R5 is like using 400mm on a very advanced 18MP APS-C camera. We would call it 640mm equivalent if it were a native 1.6x crop sensor.



Feel free to continue your pedantry if you wish.

 

[John Sheehy]

R5 is still 18MP in 1.6x crop mode. Have you considered using that? Gives 640mm for zero additional weight.

Crop mode does not increase resolution of small and/or distant subjects. Using equivalent focal length as a proxy for subject resolution is not meaningful.

Using 400mm in 1.6x on R5 is like using 400mm on a very advanced 18MP APS-C camera.

Yes, but what does that have to do with the fact that the full sensor mode captures all the same detail as the 1.6x crop mode, and you don't get any more by enabling it. It was that very lack of desired subject resolution that is there in both full sensor mode and crop mode that likely created the desire for more focal length.

We would call it 640mm equivalent if it were a native 1.6x crop sensor.

I used 400mm lenses with APS-C cameras for 17 years. I never thought of the crop factor as some optical "power" or "magnification", and always though in terms of the actual focal length. The only thing "640-equivalent" in your example above that meant anything to me was the fact that the angle of view was narrower than if the lens was used on a FF camera, eliminating more of the image circle. I used the concept more with wide-angle lenses, where the crop factor was a clear limitation. It is the pixel density and the real focal length that primarily determine maximum detail. There are resolution reasons to use crop-sensor cameras when they have more pixel density than your FF sensor, but using crop mode is inferior to using an extender on a FF, as long as the optical quality of the TC is good, and AF works as well as needed. There are some practical reasons to use crop mode, but "focal-length times 1.6" is not one of them, IME, unless you're talking about the viewfinder magnification, which does not increase subject detail.

Feel free to continue your pedantry if you wish.

One person's clarity is another person's pedantry.

 

[here_and_there]

Good point. However, the 600 is almost twice the weight of the RF 100-400,

Are you sure about that? I thought that the RF100-400 + RF1.4x is about 1.9 pounds, while the RF600/11 is about 1.7 pounds. The RF800/11 is about double the weight of the bare RF100-400.

and I guess twice the size since it needs to be extended to be used. And no zoom.

I hadn't realized how much those extenders weight. I stand corrected.

So the 100-400 zoom trades off some IQ for a slimmer but heavier package than the 600 f11, extended length seems to be about the same for both; but the zoom gives variable focal length, and maybe better AF (nano-USM v. STM)?

As always a tradeoff between IQ and size/weight/convenience. Both are nice options.

 

[here_and_there]

Good point. However, the 600 is almost twice the weight of the RF 100-400, and I guess twice the size since it needs to be extended to be used. And no zoom.

The 600 is about 8 oz more than the 100-400 (32.8 to 24.4 oz) which is almost exactly the weight of the 1.4x extender. So the weight of the combo is the same and the pack size is the same. But the MFD on the combo is 3 feet vs. 15 feet for the 600. And the combo has a macro magnification of .6. And it zooms. The main advantage to the 600 mm is that it costs a lot less than the combo. $1150 vs $700. I am thinking it might be worth it for the versatility, but I am not quite there yet.

Yes, you are correct. I hadn't realized how much the extenders weight.

As always, it's a tradeoff between IQ and size/weight/convenience. Zoom vs prime, etc. Both are nice options to have.

I went for the zoom, but I'm still on the fence on whether to get the 1.4X or the 2X for it (I'll probably go for the 2X, but need more convincing that the IQ is still acceptable for real life shots. In shooting charts, it doesn't look that great).

 

[Catama]

Thank you! This is what I needed to know. You’re the only poster who got this.

 

[The Light Stalker]

Try looking at this comparison charts: The-Digital-Picture.com Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Image Quality

Judging from the charts above, the RF100-400 with 1.4X gives a similar IQ to the EF II with the 2X converter, which is pretty reasonable, IMO, depending on your pixel-peeping level.

Here are a few real life photos of the RF, some taken with both 1.4X or 2X extenders: Fred Miranda - Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 Image Thread

I own both the RF 100-400 (but not the extender, yet) and the EF 100-400 L II (with both the 1.4X and 2X), plus the R5. Many consider the EF with 2X to be soft, but in real life usage, the IQ is pretty good.

I'm actually considering getting the RF 2X, but I need to find more real life images to evaluate before spending the $600. Since getting it, I find that the RF 100-400 is so compact and light I'm using it much more because of that, so much so that I'm considering selling the EF lens+extenders to pay for new gear.

Thanks for sharing the Digital-Picture link, I should have thought of using that myself earlier. That said, I'm shocked and amazed at how much better the EF performs compared to the RF version.

I own both also and have considered selling the EF stuff but after seeing the link, I think I'll keep both. The RF does have its advantages with the size and weight though as the EF isn't used nearly as often because of the size and weight.

I bought the RF 2x for the RF 800 as the thought of having 1600mm at my disposal seems intriguing. I doubt if I'll use the 2x with the RF 100-400 though, and using your link the 800 appears to outperform the EF with the 2x.

--
The Light Stalker

 

[John Sheehy]

Good point. However, the 600 is almost twice the weight of the RF 100-400,

Are you sure about that? I thought that the RF100-400 + RF1.4x is about 1.9 pounds, while the RF600/11 is about 1.7 pounds. The RF800/11 is about double the weight of the bare RF100-400.

and I guess twice the size since it needs to be extended to be used. And no zoom.

I hadn't realized how much those extenders weight. I stand corrected.

So the 100-400 zoom trades off some IQ for a slimmer but heavier package than the 600 f11, extended length seems to be about the same for both; but the zoom gives variable focal length, and maybe better AF (nano-USM v. STM)?

As always a tradeoff between IQ and size/weight/convenience. Both are nice options.

There is no one lens that is best at everything; my EF400/4 prime can give more sharpness, less noise, and shallower DOF than my RF100-400, but following an active subject with the 400/4 is like steering a boat, while doing so with the RF100-400 is more like steering a bike. In good light, the RF AF is a little faster, despite 2 stops, and when I lift the slow RF to initiate AF, the subject is less OOF and the AI AF is more likely to lock immediately onto what I am shooting, whereas the 400/4 might result in an AF stall or hunting when the background is much further away from the subject. If light is very, very low, the 400/4 may focus better or keep the R5's live view going at 120Hz when it may have dropped with the slower zoom.

 

[Rick Kempf]

I have the 400 and the 1.4 - quite pleased so far. The 600 Seemed to me to be not enough reach for the inconvenience of the minimum focal distance. I went all in and have over 800.

mostly small birds - and I’m not skillful enough yet to get close enough, so the extra reach of the 800 will be useful - and for those that I lure into my backyard, the 400 - with or without the 1.4 will serve.

Here’s a Costa’s humminbird in my backyard with the extender and the 400