Extremely Sharp -- TC Use knocks off a star

The RF100-500 is very sharp even in the corners wide open throughout the zoom range.

The biggest drawback of the lens is its use with teleconverters. While the combination is very sharp, the use of the Canon RF1.4x or RF2x TCs limited the zoom dramatically. It takes you from a 5x zoom range down to only 1.67x.  This can be a major problem if you need the zoom range in a given shooting situation. The other major brand's similar lenses don't have this limitation.

Yes that is true. Thats the reason why I always have both extenders with me and think a lot which to mount. Also for packing it s a disadvantage since with the extender attached it stays quite long. Nevrtheless I adore the optical quality of all combinations. So in total I am very happy with this lens and prefer it over the ef100-400II I had before.

Depends on the subject, for birds it’s not a problem 😊

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

For aircraft the bare 100-500 can be a tad short but more flexible in zoom. I found the 100-400 MKII on the 7D2 pretty ideal, as it was effectively a 160 - 640 lens.

... I sold my 7d2 (4.09micron pixel) since the R5 crop potential (4.39micron pixel) and speed replaces it for me. Great combi with the rf100-500 and its extenders if needed,

TimP111 wrote:

tbh you can argue if you are mounting the TC for what your doing then you are probably looking for more reach anyway and the fact you cant zoom back all the way isnt really a disadvantage

TBH, many subjects are dynamic in their distance from the camera. Let's say when shooing outdoor sports or, in my case, airplanes. In these cases, the lack of zoom range is a serious handicap.

The pictures below are from a test run I made of a small airshow before a major airshow.

The first picture below is at 700mm. Note this is with a very large plane with a wingspan more than 2x that of a small fighter plane.

700mm at the start of the takeoff run

Now, as the plane passed by zoomed all the way out to 420mm

As the plane passes by at 420mm

Then you have mixes of planes flying in various directions and distances and formations of multiple airplanes. It turns out that 140 to 700 would have been a nearly ideal zoom range most of the time. At 700mm, I could isolate a single plane or better capture planes further away. Based on these and other tests, I gave up on using the TC. Using the TC meant giving up too many shots as the plane(s) approached.

So you just crop, right? Well, below is a smaller plane at 700mm. I would already be cropping the 700mm shot. There would not be much left at 500mm.

Smaller plane landing at 700mm

Because of the time and risk of damage, it is impractical to change out the TC.

At the big airshow, I ended up using the RF100-500 on the R5 and my RF24-240 on my RP backup camera to catch planes that were taxiing close by where I needed less than 100mm, sometimes a lot less. The 1.4X TC stayed in my bag after trying it for a few shots.

I also have two bodies (R5, R) in operatiln to be more flexible in such situations.

Well in this conditions you are not gaining anything with using tc , it would be better with bare lens to have 100mm and crop the 500mm shots.

Kristian

birdbrain wrote:

Depends on the subject, for birds it’s not a problem 😊

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Yup, I think they had us birders in mind (praise the heavens!) when they designed this thing!!  😁

R2

Karl_Guttag wrote:

TimP111 wrote:

tbh you can argue if you are mounting the TC for what your doing then you are probably looking for more reach anyway and the fact you cant zoom back all the way isnt really a disadvantage

TBH, many subjects are dynamic in their distance from the camera. Let's say when shooing outdoor sports or, in my case, airplanes. In these cases, the lack of zoom range is a serious handicap.

The pictures below are from a test run I made of a small airshow before a major airshow.

The first picture below is at 700mm. Note this is with a very large plane with a wingspan more than 2x that of a small fighter plane.

700mm at the start of the takeoff run

Now, as the plane passed by zoomed all the way out to 420mm

As the plane passes by at 420mm

Then you have mixes of planes flying in various directions and distances and formations of multiple airplanes. It turns out that 140 to 700 would have been a nearly ideal zoom range most of the time. At 700mm, I could isolate a single plane or better capture planes further away. Based on these and other tests, I gave up on using the TC. Using the TC meant giving up too many shots as the plane(s) approached.

So you just crop, right? Well, below is a smaller plane at 700mm. I would already be cropping the 700mm shot. There would not be much left at 500mm.

Smaller plane landing at 700mm

Because of the time and risk of damage, it is impractical to change out the TC.

At the big airshow, I ended up using the RF100-500 on the R5 and my RF24-240 on my RP backup camera to catch planes that were taxiing close by where I needed less than 100mm, sometimes a lot less. The 1.4X TC stayed in my bag after trying it for a few shots.

Have you tried one of the 150-600's, adapted?  That is almost exactly the range you are looking for.

For myself, I love my EF 100-400 II for airshows.  If I am right up on the flight line, the lens is just about perfect as-is.  It also takes the 1.4 converter really well, with great image quality, if needed.  I haven't tried the 2.0 converter; I will probably get one, but I seldom run out of reach with the 1.4.

The other possibility, is one that I am about to try:  That is adapting an M6II, and putting the 100-400 on it, with the 1.4 converter where reach is important.  I suspect that running the 100-400 on the M6II, might be a sharper combination that going to the 2.0 converter, but we'll see.

• Mark B. wrote:

Karl_Guttag wrote:

The RF100-500 is very sharp even in the corners wide open throughout the zoom range.

The biggest drawback of the lens is its use with teleconverters. While the combination is very sharp, the use of the Canon RF1.4x or RF2x TCs limited the zoom dramatically. It takes you from a 5x zoom range down to only 1.67x. This can be a major problem if you need the zoom range in a given shooting situation. The other major brand's similar lenses don't have this limitation.

Does anyone know why the focal range is limited with the TC?

Erm…. The rear element of the lens would crash into the TC is the simple answer.

Presumably optic design constraints are the reason it is made that way?

kristian1 wrote:

Well in this conditions you are not gaining anything with using tc , it would be better with bare lens to have 100mm and crop the 500mm shots.

Kristian

Obviously, I would be gaining resolution by 1.4x in each direction if I could use the TC. I went through thousands of pictures with the RF100-500, but none were in the 100-140 range. A 1.4x TC would center the focal length range where I want it most.

Optically, the TC combination is very good, with very little loss from using the TC. While it would be extremely difficult to prove it, I would assume that the focus would be better without the TC, so there is that gain in not using the TC.

The glass half full side would be that the 100-500 is like having a 1.25X on the long end over a 100-400.

My original reason for pointing this out is that it is a significant limitation of an otherwise excellent lens.

William Woodruff wrote:

Karl_Guttag wrote:

TimP111 wrote:

tbh you can argue if you are mounting the TC for what your doing then you are probably looking for more reach anyway and the fact you cant zoom back all the way isnt really a disadvantage

TBH, many subjects are dynamic in their distance from the camera. Let's say when shooing outdoor sports or, in my case, airplanes. In these cases, the lack of zoom range is a serious handicap.

The pictures below are from a test run I made of a small airshow before a major airshow.

The first picture below is at 700mm. Note this is with a very large plane with a wingspan more than 2x that of a small fighter plane.

700mm at the start of the takeoff run

Now, as the plane passed by zoomed all the way out to 420mm

As the plane passes by at 420mm

Then you have mixes of planes flying in various directions and distances and formations of multiple airplanes. It turns out that 140 to 700 would have been a nearly ideal zoom range most of the time. At 700mm, I could isolate a single plane or better capture planes further away. Based on these and other tests, I gave up on using the TC. Using the TC meant giving up too many shots as the plane(s) approached.

So you just crop, right? Well, below is a smaller plane at 700mm. I would already be cropping the 700mm shot. There would not be much left at 500mm.

Smaller plane landing at 700mm

Because of the time and risk of damage, it is impractical to change out the TC.

At the big airshow, I ended up using the RF100-500 on the R5 and my RF24-240 on my RP backup camera to catch planes that were taxiing close by where I needed less than 100mm, sometimes a lot less. The 1.4X TC stayed in my bag after trying it for a few shots.

Have you tried one of the 150-600's, adapted? That is almost exactly the range you are looking for.

I have the RF100-500 and am not looking to try out other lenses. The RF100-500 is very sharp and couples well with the R5. I would expect that a 3rd party lens via an extender would not gain me anything with the difference between 500mm and 600mm.

For myself, I love my EF 100-400 II for airshows. If I am right up on the flight line, the lens is just about perfect as-is. It also takes the 1.4 converter really well, with great image quality, if needed. I haven't tried the 2.0 converter; I will probably get one, but I seldom run out of reach with the 1.4.

I have tested the image quality with the combo, and even pixel peeping, there is next to no image quality loss with and without the TC. A consolation is that the 100-500 has 1.25x more range than a 100-400. Likely the focus will be faster/better without the TC. I will still find uses for the TC, but not in the use that I had hoped.

The other possibility, is one that I am about to try: That is adapting an M6II, and putting the 100-400 on it, with the 1.4 converter where reach is important. I suspect that running the 100-400 on the M6II, might be a sharper combination that going to the 2.0 converter, but we'll see.

With the airshows, as you know, the subject distance and subject size change dramatically from moment to moment, so zoom range becomes important.

Karl_Guttag wrote:

kristian1 wrote:

Well in this conditions you are not gaining anything with using tc , it would be better with bare lens to have 100mm and crop the 500mm shots.

Kristian

Obviously, I would be gaining resolution by 1.4x in each direction if I could use the TC. I went through thousands of pictures with the RF100-500, but none were in the 100-140 range. A 1.4x TC would center the focal length range where I want it most.

Optically, the TC combination is very good, with very little loss from using the TC. While it would be extremely difficult to prove it, I would assume that the focus would be better without the TC, so there is that gain in not using the TC.

The glass half full side would be that the 100-500 is like having a 1.25X on the long end over a 100-400.

My original reason for pointing this out is that it is a significant limitation of an otherwise excellent lens.

This is true , but I wrote about your cinditions , the heat haze is limiting the resolution you can get.

Kristian

Mark B. wrote:

birdbrain wrote:

• Mark B. wrote:

Karl_Guttag wrote:

The RF100-500 is very sharp even in the corners wide open throughout the zoom range.

The biggest drawback of the lens is its use with teleconverters. While the combination is very sharp, the use of the Canon RF1.4x or RF2x TCs limited the zoom dramatically. It takes you from a 5x zoom range down to only 1.67x. This can be a major problem if you need the zoom range in a given shooting situation. The other major brand's similar lenses don't have this limitation.

Does anyone know why the focal range is limited with the TC?

Erm…. The rear element of the lens would crash into the TC is the simple answer.

Presumably optic design constraints are the reason it is made that way?

Is there something that would prevent the user from inadvertently zooming back far enough to do that?

Yes the converter when attached engages a stop to avoid you zooming out too much. In fact you can only attach the converter to the lens if it’s zoomed in beyond the lock limit.

kristian1 wrote:

Karl_Guttag wrote:

kristian1 wrote:

Well in this conditions you are not gaining anything with using tc , it would be better with bare lens to have 100mm and crop the 500mm shots.

Kristian

Obviously, I would be gaining resolution by 1.4x in each direction if I could use the TC. I went through thousands of pictures with the RF100-500, but none were in the 100-140 range. A 1.4x TC would center the focal length range where I want it most.

Optically, the TC combination is very good, with very little loss from using the TC. While it would be extremely difficult to prove it, I would assume that the focus would be better without the TC, so there is that gain in not using the TC.

The glass half full side would be that the 100-500 is like having a 1.25X on the long end over a 100-400.

My original reason for pointing this out is that it is a significant limitation of an otherwise excellent lens.

This is true , but I wrote about your cinditions , the heat haze is limiting the resolution you can get.

Kristian

I agreed on the heat haze issue with the B29 shot at 700mm, and I should have been clearer that I was only using it as an example of the dynamic focal length range in a sequence of shots. While the heat haze was limiting in that shot shooting down the runway, there are other cases where it is not the limiting factor. Soon after this experience, I put the TC away.