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

 

[Tappa]

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.

OK, I just realized I was exporting jpeg but I had it restricted to a smaller image. I'm going to try posting some now at 100% and see if there's much of a difference.

• Canon EOS R5
• 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Sports 018 +1.4x
• 840.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/8000 sec
• ISO 3200

• Canon EOS R5
• 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Sports 018 +1.4x
• 840.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/8000 sec
• ISO 1600

• Canon EOS R5
• 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Sports 018 +1.4x
• 840.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1600

 

[Tappa]

OK, I just realized I was exporting jpeg but I had it restricted to a smaller image. I'm going to try posting some now at 100% and see if there's much of a difference.View attachment 13176View attachment 13177View attachment 13180

It made a difference but still not as sharp as I would like. I'll keep working on it and try converting in a different program before editing in LRc.

 

[BirdBrainPhil]

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

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF2x
• 1,000.0 mm
• ƒ/14
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 4000

I am very impressed with the 2x results on the 100-500.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF2x
• 1,000.0 mm
• ƒ/14
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 6400

 

[RedCobra]

I personally find the RF100-500 with the 2x extender a little soft. You also run into atmospheric distortions at 1000MM. When I use an extender, it is almost always the 1.4. Under rare circumstances will I use the 2x.

I found a different solution for long reach in another camera makers line. Cheaper and much lighter than a RF 600 f/4 which I was considering.

 

[BirdBrainPhil]

I’ve not had anyone look at my printed pictures at A3+ and comment ‘they look soft because you were using the RF 2x.’
Yes it is more demanding to hold with the 2x on. And as I use it for shooting at closer subjects, I don’t find atmospheric conditions a problem. Yes at much longer range, which is not something I do.
I think it’s well worth the money to have in your kit bag.

In comparison to the EF 2x MKIII it’s chalk and cheese. The EF 2x did not give very good results at all. The RF version is far, far better. IMHO

 

[PhotoJim58]

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.View attachment 12765

Outstanding.

 

[Bert-63]

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.

The 1.4X has always been the sweet spot for me. The 2X is soft unless you're shooting a big prime - at least that's the case for me. The 1.4X offers extended reach and none of the IQ loss of the 2X.

 

[SYSO]

When I'm shooting birds, particularly small birds which is the most of the time, my go-to lens is the RF 800 f/11. When I'm shooting wildlife in general, with much larger subjects, my go-to lens is the RF 100-500/1.4x combo. There's no discernable IQ difference between the RF 800 f/11 and the RF 100-500, as well as the RF 100-500/1.4x combo. For me, the advantages of the RF 800 for bird photography far outweighs any disadvantages it has. That extra 100mm FL means greater chance at filling the subject in the frame and less cropping in PP, which all translate to greater detail in the image. Even with the RF 800 and the 1.4x combo, the IQ is about the same as without the 1.4x, as long as the light is decent and the camera/lens support is there to dampen vibrational movements. The RF 800 is a one-trick pony of a lens that I use almost exclusively for bird photography. I don't remember when was the last time I took the RF 800 off of my R5 and replaced it with the RF 100-500/1.4x. I will switch to the RF 100-500/1.4x when I'm on my next trip to the Yellowstone with the RF 800 as a sidekick lens.

 

[Dave Williams]

I actually find myself avoiding using the 1.4TC on my 100-500, never mind the 2.0x which at the price I just haven't bothered buying. However, a friend had one so I took the opportunity to take a few snaps to see the end product.Initially the shots looked a bit soft but running the RAW through Photoshop then the jpeg through Topaz AI with strong sharpening and denoise I think the image is OK. It's uncropped and the birds were say 30 feet distance. Eye detect spot on the nearest Puffin. The only question is why use a 2x when at that distance you can use the bare lens and have more control on aperture and ISO then crop? I guess it depends what the image is intended for.
As for the RF800 f11. Mine was stolen and I have no intention of replacing it as I wasn't that impressed but it cost less than the current price of the 2x!!

 

[Bert-63]

How much is the 2x now? <shuffles off to google...>

EDIT: YIKES! $780 for the 2X? That's whacked. I'll stick to my RF 1.4X...

I've been pretty happy with the results out of my 800mm..