Extenders 2x TC question with RF 100-500mm

View Latest Canon RF Lens Deals At: B&H Photo

lostnomore

Active Member
Pro Member
Pro Member
Followers
2
Following
0
Joined
Jan 7, 2023
Posts
58
Likes Received
41
City/State
Alberta
I realize that the RF 2x teleconverter can be only used on this lens from 300-500mm. What is the max. (widest) aperture at 300mm and also at 500mm when this TC is attached?
 
I realize that the RF 2x teleconverter can be only used on this lens from 300-500mm. What is the max. (widest) aperture at 300mm and also at 500mm when this TC is attached?
From this thread:

"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"
 
That is what I read as well but I can't back that up. I know I decided I would not put the 2X on that lens. I only have the 1.4 and I decided cropping would do the rest.
 
That is what I read as well but I can't back that up. I know I decided I would not put the 2X on that lens. I only have the 1.4 and I decided cropping would do the rest.
Same with me. I completely agree.
 
I have the 100-500mm and both the 1.4x and 2x TC's. I just went back through my Lr catalog and to my astonishment I don't have a single shot with the combination of the 100-500mm and 2x. That could be for a variety of reasons, but the one suspect by omission is that I never got anything worth keeping.

That said, I may need to make it a priority to test out the combinations against a static target in the next couple days.
 
Perfect, thanks for your replies. I've read that the 2x isn't quite as sharp as having the 1.4x attached. Any thoughts?
I can verify this. I have both.
 
I have neither the lens nor either of the extenders, but I recall reading somewhere that due to the physics/optics involved all 1.4x converters out-perform 2x converters. I wish I could remember the details or where I read that bit, but sadly I don't.
 
One thing I learned in my decades in photography is never stack a 2x TC on a zoom lens. 1.4x TC, on the other hand, works really well with the 100-500. In fact, there's no discernable differences in IQ with or without the TC. If greater reach is needed but without a TC, the RF 800 f/11 is a much better option than the 2x TC for just USD$300-$400 more than the cost of 2x TC. While I have all three -- 100-500, 1.4x and RF 800 -- I've been heavily favoring the RF 800 for bird photography lately. Its IQ is as good as the 100-500.
 
Ahhh. I was waiting for the OP to respond with the 800 f11 in mind. For the price for one and especially two TC's that is a good option. I was this close to getting one but decided to go with the R7 instead. When I travel (which is when I shoot the most) I do a lot of walking so I don't like to carry too much gear. I have a little pouch I strap to my belt for my TC and the camera plus that lens are on my PK shoulder strap.

I think about the 800 f11 quite often.
 
Frankly, I have the 2X TC and use it with the 100-500. Contrary to what I read on here, the IQ is quite good with the 2X TC. Just like with the smaller apertures on RF lenses that everyone said would ruin the IQ and whole experience, but which turned out not to be an issue, I suspect that mirrorless is different in that regard.

Now, any TC is likely to cause some degradation, and a 2x is likely to cause more than a 1.4, but in my real world examples it is simply not apparent!

Chris
 
I use the R5 with the RF 2X on an RF 100-500 quite frequently and that combination can provide some quite acceptable images if you are careful about it. Of course, less magnification with the RF 1.4X is a bit better if you aren't in need of the extra reach. It all comes down to balance, IMHO. If you need the shot and the subject is too far away, the RF 2X is a definite option. If you can shoot with a prime lens and no extenders, that's great. Different tools for different situations is the rule. These full-frame images were shot in our backyard with the R5, RF 2X, RF 100-500. For my purposes, they are very usable. If I want to get out the EF 500 f/4 II and mount it on a tripod, I might do better, especially with the EF 2X III extender which is quite sharp with the EF lens.
 

Attachments

  • LORD3351_DxO-1FF.jpg
    LORD3351_DxO-1FF.jpg
    473.8 KB · Views: 81
  • LORD3179_DxOFF.jpg
    LORD3179_DxOFF.jpg
    712.7 KB · Views: 77
My feeling is that using a 600-1000mm zoom for BIF is definitely challenging. Especially for me. I find that the combination can be made to work if Iit is zoomed out to 600mm to find the bird and then zoomed in carefully to 1000mm. The shutter speed then must always be set very high. When the shutter speed is high, the f/14 aperture makes for high ISO especially when adding EC while shooting against the sky. The bare RF 100-500 is actually quite nice for BIF if the animal is close enough. The zooms all have worked well for me with the Sandhill Cranes in Bosque del Apache because they don't always fly in the same direction. At times, they will veer directly at us. They're also large enough to use less focal length.
 
I have tried BIF using the R5 and the RF800 F11 as well as the RF 100-500, and also with those two + the 2X TC. It is fine with then 100-500, manageable but challenging with the RF 800, and, for me, very difficult when using either of those lenses and the 2X TC. If you really want a challenge, try using the RF800 plus the 2X TC on a R7! It works pretty well for shots of the moon, but is hopeless (at least in my hands) for any moving object.

By the way, the IQ of the TC plus RF800 is also quite good, considering the extreme focal length and small aperture.
 
I use the R5 with the RF 2X on an RF 100-500 quite frequently and that combination can provide some quite acceptable images if you are careful about it. Of course, less magnification with the RF 1.4X is a bit better if you aren't in need of the extra reach. It all comes down to balance, IMHO. If you need the shot and the subject is too far away, the RF 2X is a definite option. If you can shoot with a prime lens and no extenders, that's great. Different tools for different situations is the rule. These full-frame images were shot in our backyard with the R5, RF 2X, RF 100-500. For my purposes, they are very usable. If I want to get out the EF 500 f/4 II and mount it on a tripod, I might do better, especially with the EF 2X III extender which is quite sharp with the EF lens.
I have both the 1.4x and the 2.0x and use on the 100-500mm on my r5. I find the 2.0X disappointing and am thinking of selling it--too much degradation of the photos with the 2.0x. I rarely use it.
 
I have tried BIF using the R5 and the RF800 F11 as well as the RF 100-500, and also with those two + the 2X TC. It is fine with then 100-500, manageable but challenging with the RF 800, and, for me, very difficult when using either of those lenses and the 2X TC. If you really want a challenge, try using the RF800 plus the 2X TC on a R7! It works pretty well for shots of the moon, but is hopeless (at least in my hands) for any moving object.

By the way, the IQ of the TC plus RF800 is also quite good, considering the extreme focal length and small aperture.
Okay, I am not that smart. I have seen the abbreviation "IQ" on this site before. What does it mean?
 
I have tried BIF using the R5 and the RF800 F11 as well as the RF 100-500, and also with those two + the 2X TC. It is fine with then 100-500, manageable but challenging with the RF 800, and, for me, very difficult when using either of those lenses and the 2X TC. If you really want a challenge, try using the RF800 plus the 2X TC on a R7! It works pretty well for shots of the moon, but is hopeless (at least in my hands) for any moving object.

By the way, the IQ of the TC plus RF800 is also quite good, considering the extreme focal length and small aperture.
Challenging with the TC on or off the 800?
 
Challenging with the TC on or off the 800?
I find it challenging with just the RF800. I find it next to impossible using the RF 800 and the 2X TC on the R5. The RF 800 on the R7 is extremely challenging, and it’s absolutely impossible on the R7 with the 2X TC. Frankly, the RF 800 and the 2X converter is, at least in my hands, for static subjects only (plus a good tripod or solid rest).
 

View Latest Canon RF Lens Deals At: B&H Photo

Latest reviews

  • Zoom Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
    5.00 star(s)
    Fast, sharp, and lightweight! A great lens
    This is my main workhorse of a lens and I love it. It's very light weight (only around 2.3 lbs) lens. I've been able to hand-hold it for an event...
    • Crysania
  • Canon EOS R6 Mark II
    5.00 star(s)
    Fantastic sport camera
    This camera is FANTASTIC. I'm a dog sports shooter, so very fast indoor action with a lot of obstacles to shoot in and around. This camera does a...
    • Crysania
  • Zoom Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM
    4.00 star(s)
    A good lens for what it does, with it's drawbacks
    I have had this lens since it came out and it is my lightweight go to lens for walking around in the city and using my infrared-converted camera...
    • Hali

New in the marketplace

Back
Top