RF 800

[Pat]

looking for them to get back in stock...I am seeing some great images with it

 

[Dave Williams]

Poor light today so it's high ISO, slow shutter and f16 but the results using a 1.4TC with the 800mm are not too shabby

• Canon EOS R5
• RF800mm F11 IS STM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 1,120.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 6400

even with a fairly big crop.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF800mm F11 IS STM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 1,120.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 6400

 

[Brianajo]

I have the rf 800 it is a game changer for me
it focused on the subject very well for me, i am not new to capturing bif.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I've been reminded that this is about the 800mm f11, which I've shot with, but after reading this thread this AM I decided to stick a 2x TC on the 100-400mm f5.6-8 (ie. 200-800 f11-16) and I'll say that in decent or better light the stop difference isn't unmanageable and the results are better than I expected. It's a slight more pricey, but ultimately far more flexible investment. Wish I had the 800mm to shoot side-by-sides (I only shot with it once), and if I can borrow one again I will.

 

[Dave Williams]

I've been reminded that this is about the 800mm f11, which I've shot with, but after reading this thread this AM I decided to stick a 2x TC on the 100-400mm f5.6-8 (ie. 200-800 f11-16) and I'll say that in decent or better light the stop difference isn't unmanageable and the results are better than I expected. It's a slight more pricey, but ultimately far more flexible investment. Wish I had the 800mm to shoot side-by-sides (I only shot with it once), and if I can borrow one again I will.

Before you jump in, are you sure that when you attach a TC to the 100-400 it's not compromised like the 100-500 is and has to be extended before you attach one? You may find that the range is less than anticipated. The 100-500 would I think become a 600-1000 with the 2x TC as the barrel has to be extended to 300mm before you can actually physically make room for the TC.
I'm presuming that it's identical on the 2x although the TC itself will be bigger than the 1.4.

In a comparison with the RF 800, the 100-400 might also have reduced AF point availability and be slower to gain focus with the 2x. Personally, I have always found the 1.4TC to be a better option for speed and IQ than the 2x versions but my experience is limited to all the EF versions. As yet I haven't tried the RF 2x and I'm very interested to see anyone's results.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Before you jump in, are you sure that when you attach a TC to the 100-400 it's not compromised like the 100-500 is and has to be extended before you attach one? You may find that the range is less than anticipated. The 100-500 would I think become a 600-1000 with the 2x TC as the barrel has to be extended to 300mm before you can actually physically make room for the TC.
I'm presuming that it's identical on the 2x although the TC itself will be bigger than the 1.4.

In a comparison with the RF 800, the 100-400 might also have reduced AF point availability and be slower to gain focus with the 2x. Personally, I have always found the 1.4TC to be a better option for speed and IQ than the 2x versions but my experience is limited to all the EF versions. As yet I haven't tried the RF 2x and I'm very interested to see anyone's results.

There's no waiting to jump, I've had the 100-500mm and both TC's since summer. My wife enjoys shooting when the weather is good (currently with my old Nikon D500 rig) and on our last vacation she found the primes that I used for wildlife very limiting when there were other things to shoot, so I picked up the 100-400mm to go on my R6 for her to use moving forward. Unlike it's big brother the 100-400mm accepts both TC's with zero limitation on zoom range.

I wouldn't expect to use the 2x with it that often, but I wanted to suggest it as a more flexible budget option to the 800mm alone. I fully expect it to be sharper and quicker with the 1.4x, and it'll be a little friendlier at 140-560mm for my wife - and she can feel like she's getting a little closer than me, even if I've got more pixels on a bird.

 

[Dave Williams]

There's no waiting to jump, I've had the 100-500mm and both TC's since summer. My wife enjoys shooting when the weather is good (currently with my old Nikon D500 rig) and on our last vacation she found the primes that I used for wildlife very limiting when there were other things to shoot, so I picked up the 100-400mm to go on my R6 for her to use moving forward. Unlike it's big brother the 100-400mm accepts both TC's with zero limitation on zoom range.

I wouldn't expect to use the 2x with it that often, but I wanted to suggest it as a more flexible budget option to the 800mm alone. I fully expect it to be sharper and quicker with the 1.4x, and it'll be a little friendlier at 140-560mm for my wife - and she can feel like she's getting a little closer than me, even if I've got more pixels on a bird.

Excellent bit of information re the TC and fitting to the 100-400.How I wish it was the same with the 100-500 , and why isn't it I ask!?

I'm going off topic now...how do you rate the 2x on the 100-500?

The 100-400 is approximately the same price as the 2x ( how crazy is that!) and I think you make an extremely valid point about the flexibility of the set up compared to the 800mm if that is the only lens you have in the bag.

If you had a choice of just one TC which would you choose? I'm thinking you would go for the 1.4?

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Excellent bit of information re the TC and fitting to the 100-400.How I wish it was the same with the 100-500 , and why isn't it I ask!?

I'm going off topic now...how do you rate the 2x on the 100-500?

The 100-400 is approximately the same price as the 2x ( how crazy is that!) and I think you make an extremely valid point about the flexibility of the set up compared to the 800mm if that is the only lens you have in the bag.

If you had a choice of just one TC which would you choose? I'm thinking you would go for the 1.4?

I'll be honest and say I haven't spent a lot of time with the 2x and the 100-500mm only because a 600-1000mm lens is limiting in what it wants to shoot and I've yet to find the time to get out and give it a good test. That said, the images I got were little different in quality level from what I saw with the 800mm f11. Not soft but certainly not super sharp. The 1.4x is definitely sharper and would be much more usable if it allowed the full range of the zoom, and it's the one I'll throw in the bag "just in case".

Speaking of which, it's only a guess but I have to assume that when Canon engineers designed the 100-500mm they were looking to replicate the size of the 100-400mm EF, which they did remarkably well. I just suspect that those engineers failed to speak to the folks developing the TC's until it was too late and they likely had to compromise to get them to work. No idea if it's true, but I spoke with a Canon rep and that seems to be part of the gist of things.

I'll say this as well, if I was limited to 20MP's like I was with my old D500's then the 2x might be more tempting. But I find myself often putting the R5 in 1.6X Crop mode and using that without a TC and still getting great results. So if you don't have to have all those pixels then a 1.4x is probably all you need.

 

[Dave Williams]

Bit like the Americans and Russians not communicating the size of the entrance to the Space Station...one talked inches the other millimetres I believe!

 

[Red Dexs]

I have the 800 and in my experience it struggles with fast moving birds e.g. Eleonora Falcons, luckily I tend to use it for vultures and it works well. I have not long bought the 100-500 + the 1.4x extender and this may make the 800 redundant, time will tell.

 

[Dave Williams]

The focus point seems to change size and jump around a lot more when I use the 800mm. I get a far higher percentage of softish images but that said considering the price you pay the lens is indeed outstanding value . Here's two shots taken in similar conditions, one with an EF 500mm Mk2 which costs more than 10x the price ! Neither image is cropped and only a small amount of PP with no noise reduction. The availability of light using the more expensive lens allows a much higher shutter speed and lower ISO.

• Canon EOS R5
• EF500mm f/4L IS II USM +1.4x III
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 3200

• Canon EOS R5
• RF800mm F11 IS STM
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/200 sec
• ISO 6400