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

 

[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!!

• Canon EOS R5
• EF85mm f/1.8 USM
• 85.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 8000

• Canon EOS R5
• EF85mm f/1.8 USM
• 85.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 8000

 

[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.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF2x
• 1,000.0 mm
• ƒ/14
• 1/640 sec

 

[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?