Extenders

[Only RF]

I've watched a few of his videos and I like his explanations. When I got my R6III I took the 1.4 off the 100-500 and often pushed cropping a bit too much. I put it back on a few months ago. I just came across this video today.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Si Keen]

My 1.4 TC sits permanently on my RF600 f4, and produces great images, not so much on my 100-500. I often use 2x on the 600mm especially shooting small birds with the R1 as you can't crop as aggressively, Plus high ISO isn't an issue on the R1 . I only tend to use the 1.4 if I'm shooting the R5 mkii as although it handles noise well its not in the same league as the R1

 

[Only RF]

My 1.4 TC sits permanently on my RF600 f4, and produces great images, not so much on my 100-500. I often use 2x on the 600mm especially shooting small birds with the R1 as you can't crop as aggressively, Plus high ISO isn't an issue on the R1 . I only tend to use the 1.4 if I'm shooting the R5 mkii as although it handles noise well its not in the same league as the R1

I had an EF 400 DO II at one time. While the 100-500 is a great lens it is tough to beat a prime. I was considering a 2X but not anymore, unless I had a prime.

 

[Archibald]

I've thought about getting the 1.4x for my 100-500L, but haven't done it. The online reviews are not that positive for the 1.4x/100-500mm combo. I figure the main optical job of the 1.4x is putting more pixels on the subject. Since I use the lens on my R7, I have more than enough pixels. So I crop instead, and that works well.

Still not sure though, as the 1.4x might help with focusing.

 

[Only RF]

I like his videos as well. Sorry about the ads.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I've always done really well with the 100-500 and 1.4 on a FF. Fast AF and good IQ I think. OK on the R7 but my keeper rate really dropped so I stopped using it. I sold the R7 last year.

These are all cropped between 25 and 50%

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[RickyRed]

I've thought about getting the 1.4x for my 100-500L, but haven't done it. The online reviews are not that positive for the 1.4x/100-500mm combo. I figure the main optical job of the 1.4x is putting more pixels on the subject. Since I use the lens on my R7, I have more than enough pixels. So I crop instead, and that works well.

Still not sure though, as the 1.4x might help with focusing.

Using 100-500 with the R7. You have an effective 200-800 reach.

 

[Archibald]

Using 100-500 with the R7. You have an effective 200-800 reach.

Not sure about your math there, but for me it's about resolution, not "effective reach".

 

[gossamer88]

Not sure about your math there, but for me it's about resolution, not "effective reach".

It's a little off...it is 160-800 but at long end it's F/10. But the most annoying aspect of the tc on the 100-500L is that it starts at 300mm. And you have to remove it if you're bag isn't long emough to keep it attached. I do get decent results though.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Archibald]

It's a little off...it is 160-800 but at long end it's F/10. But the most annoying aspect of the tc on the 100-500L is that it starts at 300mm. And you have to remove it if you're bag isn't long emough to keep it attached. I do get decent results though.

View attachment 49907

Good timing and good focus on that shot.

I have no doubt the 1.4 gets great results. The question is whether I could get just as good results by cropping bare lens shots.

 

[gossamer88]

Good timing and good focus on that shot.

I have no doubt the 1.4 gets great results. The question is whether I could get just as good results by cropping bare lens shots.

TY!

It's always in my bag and I rarely use it but in this particular case, hummingbirds are so small and always best to capture them as far aways as possible so as not to disturb them.

 

[Only RF]

Megapixels and cropping in bird photography - the big misunderstanding​

Fabian Fopp

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

The REACH MYTH: what actually gives you more detail.​

Simon d'Entremont

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

ARE EXTENDERS WORTH IT? Find out from someone who's taken 500K images with them!​

Simon d'Entremont

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[gossamer88]

Here's Jan Wegener take. His take is that they work best with fast lenses (600 F/4 or 400 F/2.8) since the loss of light is very minimal.

https://youtu.be/CDyEM5dpaPw?si=mmlNN4qpIly60fvS

 

[Only RF]

Sorry if I'm repeating myself. My findings. When I first got my R6III I decided to go without the 1.4 for a while. I found I was pushing my crops too much so I put the 1.4 back on. It helped quite a bit. When I had the R7 the TC worked well but the keep rate really went down. I took off the R7 and 100-500 and shot like that for a year and I preferred it. TC at full zoom with an APS-C it's 1120mm.

When it hit it did very well.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Only RF]

Here's Jan Wegener take. His take is that they work best with fast lenses (600 F/4 or 400 F/2.8) since the loss of light is very minimal.

https://youtu.be/CDyEM5dpaPw?si=mmlNN4qpIly60fvS

Absolutely. Many years ago Lens Rentals had a blog about TC's. While they were zoom compatible they were tuned for primes.

I know with a 500mm f4 and a TC it would be sharper but I don't see enough damage on this ISO 32,000 shot to stop using it on my 100-500.

• Join to view EXIF data.

I have no choice anyway. I'm about to spend $20,000 CND on a RF 600 f/4. I have looked at the 800 f/11 but I'm on the fence. Same as the 200-800. Jan said in in videos the 100-500 had better IQ. For me the 100-500 is easier to travel with.

 

[Only RF]

As I stated before. Sometimes I can't get close enough so I have to crop. I can push the R6III quite a bit but there is breaking point. I get better results with the 1.4 and cropping a little instead of without it and cropping a lot. If I had an R7 or a different crop I'd likely not get a TC based on my experience.

 

[Archibald]

I have no choice anyway. I'm about to spend $20,000 CND on a RF 600 f/4. I have looked at the 800 f/11 but I'm on the fence. Same as the 200-800. Jan said in in videos the 100-500 had better IQ. For me the 100-500 is easier to travel with.

I had the 800/11 and found my 100-500mm out-resolved it after cropping. That is just anecdotal, I realize. Anyway, I got rid of the 800. It is a nice lens but is not necessary if you have the 100-500mm. The zoom is way more versatile and is only a little bit heavier (1460 g without tripod foot but incl hood, vs 1260 g + 90g for hood). The 100-500 is amazing. Its only downside is that it is very expensive. (... and is awkward with the 1.4x.)

The 600/4 will be wonderful.

 

[Only RF]

I had the 800/11 and found my 100-500mm out-resolved it after cropping. That is just anecdotal, I realize. Anyway, I got rid of the 800. It is a nice lens but is not necessary if you have the 100-500mm. The zoom is way more versatile and is only a little bit heavier (1460 g without tripod foot but incl hood, vs 1260 g + 90g for hood). The 100-500 is amazing. Its only downside is that it is very expensive. (... and is awkward with the 1.4x.)

The 600/4 will be wonderful.

Thanks for the info. I have been hoping Canon releases a 500 or 600 f/5.6 like the Nikon PF. Lighter and less expensive than the f4/. It would handle a 2X quite well. 1.4 would be very good on it. I'm not going to hold my breath.