Extenders RF 2.0x teleconverter.

[Dave Williams]

With weight issues a major concern nowadays I'm considering buying a 2x teleconverter to go with my RF 100-500. I have the 1.4 but as always , if you are in to bird photography you are often looking for more reach. I have owned and been happy with both the Mk2 and Mk3 EF versions, but I mount them on my 500mm f4 lens. There is a big difference in f8 and f14 especially in the light we typically have in the UK! Until I bought the 100-500 and 1.4 I didn't shoot past f8. f11 is ok on a bright day.
I did buy an RF 800mm f11 which is a nice lightweight inexpensive lens but it's considerably more bulky than having a TC in your bag. I wasn't happy with the performance with a 1.4TC or for the limited focus points that are available with that lens. It was stolen and I don't intend replacing it.
So, I'm looking for objective comments. Has anyone got one? What body and lens do you use it with? Is the IQ sharp? Is the bokeh an issue? Is it sitting unused in your bag?
Any guidance would be welcome.
TIA Dave

 

[RedCobra]

I have the 1.4ex and the 2ex which I use on the 100-500. The 2x AF is a little slower and the images aren't as sharp as the native lens or the native with the 1.4ex. I don't use it often, but when I do, it's OK as long as you have the light.

 

[dmiller68]

I don’t have the 2x, been happy with the 1.4x. I have used it on the 100-500 and 800. I have just heard the 2x is not very sharp.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

My experience and use mirrors Red Cobra's. It's not that it's not sharp, just not-as-sharp. If I was shooting the 600mm f4 and not the 100-500mm it would be different, and I'm not unloading it just for that reason because maybe, just maybe, one day I'll have one. Until then I'll move the 100-500mm w 1.4TC from the R5 to the R7 if I need the extra reach without the increase in aperture.

 

[Dave Williams]

My experience and use mirrors Red Cobra's. It's not that it's not sharp, just not-as-sharp. If I was shooting the 600mm f4 and not the 100-500mm it would be different, and I'm not unloading it just for that reason because maybe, just maybe, one day I'll have one. Until then I'll move the 100-500mm w 1.4TC from the R5 to the R7 if I need the extra reach without the increase in aperture.

Must admit, buying an R7 might be a better option as it would kill two birds as I don't currently have a back up to my R5. It won't take up much space in the bag or add much weight either. On the other hand there is rumour of a new body coming out soon and that might be a better alternative.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Must admit, buying an R7 might be a better option as it would kill two birds as I don't currently have a back up to my R5. It won't take up much space in the bag or add much weight either. On the other hand there is rumour of a new body coming out soon and that might be a better alternative.

All I'm hearing about is an R8, and if the numbering is consistent it should be less capable than the R7. I'm hearing something that's really geared to video/vlogging, but who knows. That said, if you're not in a hurry it's always good to have options.

 

[RedCobra]

Must admit, buying an R7 might be a better option as it would kill two birds as I don't currently have a back up to my R5. It won't take up much space in the bag or add much weight either. On the other hand there is rumour of a new body coming out soon and that might be a better alternative.

For me, the different control layout on the R7 negates it for me. My fingers got confused and if I practiced with the R7 then went back to the R5, same deal. 2 R5s are best for me.

 

[Dave Williams]

For me, the different control layout on the R7 negates it for me. My fingers got confused and if I practiced with the R7 then went back to the R5, same deal. 2 R5s are best for me.

It's a reason for me not having bought the R6 as a back up already. I'm seeing rumours of a 60mp camera maybe up soon which if it also cures the overheating problems would be an attractive proposition. That will probably be three times the price of an R7 when it arrives though.
I am aware of the need to have a back up especially as someone who I was with lost the use of theirs only two days in to a 14 day trip when it got totally immersed in sea water. I would have been totally gutted if it happened to me.

 

[Photofarmer]

For me, the different control layout on the R7 negates it for me. My fingers got confused and if I practiced with the R7 then went back to the R5, same deal. 2 R5s are best for me.

confused fingers yep and fat fingers even worse

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

As someone who regularly uses both, adapting between the different control layouts is confusing, yes. But after significant spending time with both I find that unless I'm switching directly from one to the other my brain rewires rather quickly. I use mine less as a "backup" than as an "alternate", and I rarely have them both actively shooting at the same time.

That said, I really wish Canon wouldn't mix things up like this. Heck, the R5 & R6 not only have different controls but they even have different remote connections - something I found out the morning of a shoot where I planned on using the R6 with a remote but had an R5 cable. It's like design teams work in a vacuum.

 

[Dave Williams]

It's like design teams work in a vacuum.

I'm sure they did when it came to the 100-500 plus TCs. Crazy that you limit the zoom range.

 

[RedCobra]

As someone who regularly uses both, adapting between the different control layouts is confusing, yes. But after significant spending time with both I find that unless I'm switching directly from one to the other my brain rewires rather quickly. I use mine less as a "backup" than as an "alternate", and I rarely have them both actively shooting at the same time.

.

When on Safari, I keep a different lens on each camera and may switch between the two every 10 minutes or so.

 

[mikey12654]

With weight issues a major concern nowadays I'm considering buying a 2x teleconverter to go with my RF 100-500. I have the 1.4 but as always , if you are in to bird photography you are often looking for more reach. I have owned and been happy with both the Mk2 and Mk3 EF versions, but I mount them on my 500mm f4 lens. There is a big difference in f8 and f14 especially in the light we typically have in the UK! Until I bought the 100-500 and 1.4 I didn't shoot past f8. f11 is ok on a bright day.
I did buy an RF 800mm f11 which is a nice lightweight inexpensive lens but it's considerably more bulky than having a TC in your bag. I wasn't happy with the performance with a 1.4TC or for the limited focus points that are available with that lens. It was stolen and I don't intend replacing it.
So, I'm looking for objective comments. Has anyone got one? What body and lens do you use it with? Is the IQ sharp? Is the bokeh an issue? Is it sitting unused in your bag?
Any guidance would be welcome.
TIA Dave

I think it comes down to what you think is acceptable sharpness when using a TC on a lens, we're all different in that regard. Personally speaking, sharpness is the highest priority for me and though I don't have the RF 100-500 (wish I did) I do own the EF 100-400 ii and I tried the TC 1.4x iii with it and didn't care for the resulting IQ...but like I said, we're all different. I would think your EF 500 f/4 would be sharper than your RF 100-500 at the far end but maybe I'm wrong, I'm assuming your 500 f/4 is an EF lens also. I do have the RF 800 lens and know it limitations but for me it's the best-bang-for-the-buck lens by far and I find it's level of sharpness very acceptable when done right. I shot the moon with the RF 800 & R5.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I'm sure they did when it came to the 100-500 plus TCs. Crazy that you limit the zoom range.

I'm not sure that was a vacuum or a conscious decision based on the desired footprint, but yeah, it's a real PITA.

 

[RedCobra]

I'm not sure that was a vacuum or a conscious decision based on the desired footprint, but yeah, it's a real PITA.

In my understanding of the physics, due to the spacing of the back glass to the sensor it was not possible to do it any other way. It does work with the RF 100-400, but if you look at the lens it's shorter zoom creates more space in the rear of the lens.

 

[Dave Williams]

I think it comes down to what you think is acceptable sharpness when using a TC on a lens, we're all different in that regard. Personally speaking, sharpness is the highest priority for me and though I don't have the RF 100-500 (wish I did) I do own the EF 100-400 ii and I tried the TC 1.4x iii with it and didn't care for the resulting IQ...but like I said, we're all different. I would think your EF 500 f/4 would be sharper than your RF 100-500 at the far end but maybe I'm wrong, I'm assuming your 500 f/4 is an EF lens also. I do have the RF 800 lens and know it limitations but for me it's the best-bang-for-the-buck lens by far and I find it's level of sharpness very acceptable when done right. I shot the moon with the RF 800 & R5.

Yes, I have the EF500mm Mk2 and it's a great lens but heavy, especially if walking around with it for some time. You also need to thing about a tripod too and my Gitzo /Wimberley combination doubles the weight I'm lugging about.It performs very well with both 1.4 and 2.0x TC's. Hardly any loss of sharpness or AF speed with either.
The EF100-400mk2 was the first lens I tried on the R5 and I was knocked out by the results, even with the 1.4TC.
The EF 2x TC didn't work for me on the EF 100-400. Very slow to AF but, I had only just acquired the R5 and perhaps I hadn't set it up correctly, however, the RF 1.4 on the RF100-500 isn't that brilliant either, still sharp but a bit slow for AF so action shots are more difficult
The RF800 didn't perform at all well with a 1.4TC, it lost considerable sharpness and at 1120mm picking up a subject in the viewfinder is more difficult as the view is limited.
If you have a decent combo at 700mm ( 100-500 +1.4TC) there is little need for the 800mm in the bag as well if you are not happy with the performance with the 1.4TC.

Best bang for buck? No doubt the 800mm performs extremely well at the price point but it's extremely limited in it's uses. If you can only have one lens the 100-500 covers a lot more options.

I have anyway decided to pass on the RF2.0TC and I'm undecided on the R7 too.
Maybe the secret is to be patient and all good things come to you...except maybe the moon!

and as for bang for buck, I took the shots attached with my EF85mm1.8 USM which you can pick up for peanuts, £200 for a used version from MPB. Both taken through the double glazing in the kitchen and both full frame images. Who needs long reach!!

 

[Deepgreen]

With weight issues a major concern nowadays I'm considering buying a 2x teleconverter to go with my RF 100-500. I have the 1.4 but as always , if you are in to bird photography you are often looking for more reach. I have owned and been happy with both the Mk2 and Mk3 EF versions, but I mount them on my 500mm f4 lens. There is a big difference in f8 and f14 especially in the light we typically have in the UK! Until I bought the 100-500 and 1.4 I didn't shoot past f8. f11 is ok on a bright day.
I did buy an RF 800mm f11 which is a nice lightweight inexpensive lens but it's considerably more bulky than having a TC in your bag. I wasn't happy with the performance with a 1.4TC or for the limited focus points that are available with that lens. It was stolen and I don't intend replacing it.
So, I'm looking for objective comments. Has anyone got one? What body and lens do you use it with? Is the IQ sharp? Is the bokeh an issue? Is it sitting unused in your bag?
Any guidance would be welcome.
TIA Dave

I have an R5 body which I use with an RF100-500mm and a 2x. I find it excellent with reasonable light levels, but it's slightly annoying that the 2x only works in the 300-500mm range (i.e. 600-1000mm). Good for wildlife, astro and aircraft.

 

[mikey12654]

Yes, I have the EF500mm Mk2 and it's a great lens but heavy, especially if walking around with it for some time. You also need to thing about a tripod too and my Gitzo /Wimberley combination doubles the weight I'm lugging about.It performs very well with both 1.4 and 2.0x TC's. Hardly any loss of sharpness or AF speed with either.
The EF100-400mk2 was the first lens I tried on the R5 and I was knocked out by the results, even with the 1.4TC.
The EF 2x TC didn't work for me on the EF 100-400. Very slow to AF but, I had only just acquired the R5 and perhaps I hadn't set it up correctly, however, the RF 1.4 on the RF100-500 isn't that brilliant either, still sharp but a bit slow for AF so action shots are more difficult
The RF800 didn't perform at all well with a 1.4TC, it lost considerable sharpness and at 1120mm picking up a subject in the viewfinder is more difficult as the view is limited.
If you have a decent combo at 700mm ( 100-500 +1.4TC) there is little need for the 800mm in the bag as well if you are not happy with the performance with the 1.4TC.

Best bang for buck? No doubt the 800mm performs extremely well at the price point but it's extremely limited in it's uses. If you can only have one lens the 100-500 covers a lot more options.

I have anyway decided to pass on the RF2.0TC and I'm undecided on the R7 too.
Maybe the secret is to be patient and all good things come to you...except maybe the moon!

and as for bang for buck, I took the shots attached with my EF85mm1.8 USM which you can pick up for peanuts, £200 for a used version from MPB. Both taken through the double glazing in the kitchen and both full frame images. Who needs long reach!!
View attachment 12879View attachment 12880

Your words regarding weight are spot-on, I just can't carry that much weight like I used to in my younger days, I can only imagine having to carry your EF 500 ii plus tripod etc. I can appreciate having a RF 100-500 for sure, weight is a primary consideration these days as I hit 70. It's nice to see that you love your EF 100-400 ii like I do mine, I remember years ago having a new Sigma 150-600 lens but sold it and got a used but in perfect shape EF 100-400 ii for $1275 from a pro photographer selling all his EF gear to go mirrorless, I had an 80D at the time and it was that camera & lens combo that I had tried the TC. Yes for sure I wish I had the RF 100-500 but can't afford it, it was all I could do just to buy the R5 and only have 2 RF lenses, the RF 800 and RF 24-105L IS lens. I'm very curious how my R5 & EF 100-400 ii with a TC would perform? I think better than with the 80D I had tried on earlier.

I can easily understand that the RF 800 didn't do well with a TC, that lenses limitations are just made worse with a TC but for me and understanding it's limitations it remains the best for the buck lens. I mean when conditions are right what other lens will give you that kind of range & weight for that price? There are trade offs for sure but I agree that having a RF 100-500 & TC combo at 700mm might be preferable over the RF 800 extra 100mm's but that's if you're satisfied with the IQ. No matter what though I'd love to have your EF 500 and/or RF 100-500 lenses, one thing that I love is how well EF glass works with the R5! That also applies to 3rd party lenses, I only have 1, it's a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens and is incredibly sharp and the R5's IBIS works perfectly with it! The only negative is how much it weighs! I'm curious, have you ever shot in the crop 1.6 mode on your R5? I think doing that results in a 17mp image. For me, the best EF bang for the buck lens is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm IS lens, outstanding optics for the price! MPB and Adorama both are great places to get used lenses, I had sold my 85mm 1.8 lens to them.

 

[Tappa]

I'm still shooting with EF lenses and will for a while. My go to lens for birds and wildlife used to be a 4oo f2.8 with a 2X tele-converter and still sharp as a tack. As I get older I just couldn't handle the weight as the lens weighed about 13 lbs plus the 1DX body and converter was upward of 16 pounds. I hand held that combo on many occasions with great results, but of course most of my shooting with it was tripod mounted with a Wimberly gimbal, also very heavy to carry. I sold all that equipment and bought the Sigma 60-600mm lens and have been quite happy with it and rarely remove it from my r5. It's still a little heavier than I would like but it's built like a tank. I recently tried my old Canon 1.4 converter on it and it worked great from 60mm=84mm all the way through the zoom range and as far as I can tell all focus points are available and the best thing is it's 840mm with f9 at the top end. So far I've only been able to shoot a few test shots, so the verdict is still out as far as sharpness goes. It's looking very promising. I posted several shots on another thread if you're interested. Enjoyed all the posts to this thread and learned a lot from it. Thanks everyone.

 

[mikey12654]

I'm still shooting with EF lenses and will for a while. My go to lens for birds and wildlife used to be a 4oo f2.8 with a 2X tele-converter and still sharp as a tack. As I get older I just couldn't handle the weight as the lens weighed about 13 lbs plus the 1DX body and converter was upward of 16 pounds. I hand held that combo on many occasions with great results, but of course most of my shooting with it was tripod mounted with a Wimberly gimbal, also very heavy to carry. I sold all that equipment and bought the Sigma 60-600mm lens and have been quite happy with it and rarely remove it from my r5. It's still a little heavier than I would like but it's built like a tank. I recently tried my old Canon 1.4 converter on it and it worked great from 60mm=84mm all the way through the zoom range and as far as I can tell all focus points are available and the best thing is it's 840mm with f9 at the top end. So far I've only been able to shoot a few test shots, so the verdict is still out as far as sharpness goes. It's looking very promising. I posted several shots on another thread if you're interested. Enjoyed all the posts to this thread and learned a lot from it. Thanks everyone.

I have an R5 too and would love to see shots taken with your Sigma 60-600 lens, both with and without a TC. Is your TC the iii version?

 

[Tappa]

I have posted a number of images in the gallery and all are using the Sigma lens. The TC I have is the first version so I would assume the second or third would be even better or you can use a Sigma TC which is made to work with their lenses. I will upload more images with the TC in a day or two as I just got to use it some yesterday all hand held. I need to do some on a tripod to see how sharp it is when stable. Thanks for the response to my post.
I just uploaded a few images all taken with the 60-600mm Sigma lens.

 

[Tappa]

 

[mikey12654]

View attachment 13135View attachment 13142View attachment 13138

View attachment 13135View attachment 13142View attachment 13138View attachment 13139View attachment 13140

View attachment 13139View attachment 13140

I have posted a number of images in the gallery and all are using the Sigma lens. The TC I have is the first version so I would assume the second or third would be even better or you can use a Sigma TC which is made to work with their lenses. I will upload more images with the TC in a day or two as I just got to use it some yesterday all hand held. I need to do some on a tripod to see how sharp it is when stable. Thanks for the response to my post.
I just uploaded a few images all taken with the 60-600mm Sigma lens.

Hi Gary, thanks for posting your pics, I especially liked the shot of the bird on the tree branch...great detail, would love to see your shots with the tripod too. I'm looking forward to seeing your shots using the TC with your Sigma lens! Regarding the Canon TC 1.4x, from what I've read the iii version is better than the older versions. I'm curious now, I wonder if the Sigma TC would out perform the Canon iii TC on your R5, would love to see the results of that. I'm loving how the R5 performs with Sigma lenses, their only drawback is their weight as you already know, I think your lens weighs around 6 lbs doesn't it?

 

[Tappa]

Hi Gary, thanks for posting your pics, I especially liked the shot of the bird on the tree branch...great detail, would love to see your shots with the tripod too. I'm looking forward to seeing your shots using the TC with your Sigma lens! Regarding the Canon TC 1.4x, from what I've read the iii version is better than the older versions. I'm curious now, I wonder if the Sigma TC would out perform the Canon iii TC on your R5, would love to see the results of that. I'm loving how the R5 performs with Sigma lenses, their only drawback is their weight as you already know, I think your lens weighs around 6 lbs doesn't it?

Yes, I believe you're right about the weight of the Sigma lens. Heavy but tough as I've had it out in a thunderstorm and accidentally bumped on things a few times and it just keeps on working. Here are a few image I just shot this afternoon with the 1.4 TC. See what you think of them, I did use a tripod for these and found it much easier to hold on target. The last wide shot was hand held.

 

[RedCobra]

No offense, but these shots would make me NOT buy this lens. I don't find them very sharp. Maybe it's the conversion or something.
RF100-500 with RF 1.4ex

 

[RedCobra]

Here's one with the RF 100-500 and the RF 2ex.

 

[Tappa]

No offense, but these shots would make me NOT buy this lens. I don't find them very sharp. Maybe it's the conversion or something.
RF100-500 with RF 1.4exView attachment 13155

Thanks for the input, no offense taken. I have to agree yours is sharper for sure. Part of the problem may be the TC not being made for my lens and some is my technique. It's just an experiment at this point. The second one is another one to compare to yours with 1.4TC almost, but still not as sharp to my eyes. The first one is without the 1.4TC, definitely better than with the TC.

image I shot the other day that I think is pretty close in sharpness.

 

[Tappa]

Here's one with the RF 100-500 and the RF 2ex.View attachment 13157

That's an amazing image. Extremely sharp.
Also you may have a point about the conversion. As of now I'm importing directly into LRc and I know there is better conversion software available. What would you recommend?

 

[Tappa]

I have an R5 too and would love to see shots taken with your Sigma 60-600 lens, both with and without a TC. Is your TC the iii version?

The first 4 are the Sigma 60-600mm at 600mm. The last two are with the 1.4 TC. The last one is out of focus as I don't have a gamble mount for my tripod and was trying to use a ball head which didn't work well for panning shots. Raw conversion in LRc.

 

[RedCobra]

That's an amazing image. Extremely sharp.
Also you may have a point about the conversion. As of now I'm importing directly into LRc and I know there is better conversion software available. What would you recommend?

My shots were jpegs exported from LrC with no resizing and 100% quality setting sRGB. Originals were imported into LrC, then to DxO Pure RAW converted to DNG then back to LrC for any edits, crops.