Extenders RF Teleconverters

[Dave Williams]

Who has them? Which one/s? ......and with which lens do you use it with?

I have just ordered the 1.4 to go with the 100-500 which pushes the aperture to f10 at 700mm. Has anyone got the 2x to use with this lens? What are the results like? Do you lose AF points when using it? Is it slow to AF? Loss of IQ?

Were these teleconverters released ahead of their time to match up with the RF super telephotos when they are eventually released?

I find it hard too imagine that either work particularly well with the RF 600 and 800mm f11 lenses but perhaps you know better!

Please share your findings.

 

[LaurieAndersonPhotography]

Hi Laurie, sorry for the delayed response. The ISO settings were Robin 2500, Male Chaffinch 4000 and Female Chaffinch 3200

Wow! Nice!

 

[Andrea]

Wow! Nice!

I'm learning that the camera knows best and can handle ISO levels as these. I may include some noise reduction in post processing, depending on what I'm doing with the images.

 

[Copterdoc]

Who has them? Which one/s? ......and with which lens do you use it with?

I have just ordered the 1.4 to go with the 100-500 which pushes the aperture to f10 at 700mm. Has anyone got the 2x to use with this lens? What are the results like? Do you lose AF points when using it? Is it slow to AF? Loss of IQ?

Were these teleconverters released ahead of their time to match up with the RF super telephotos when they are eventually released?

I find it hard too imagine that either work particularly well with the RF 600 and 800mm f11 lenses but perhaps you know better!

Please share your findings.

I have the RF 100-500mm and the RF 1.4 Extender and I'm a happy camper. I have not shot extensively with the extender yet but the shots of the moon I posted are good in my mind. I'm curious to see if the autofocus area is smaller with the adapter installed because of the extender which would be similar to the RF 600mm or RF 800mm lenses. These lenses have an autofocus area reduced to more of the center of the viewfinder as I have seen on YouTube. I'm not sure how much the extender will affect the RF 100-500mm in this regard but I like the additional reach. Just be aware that with the extender installed on the 100-500mm lens you will not be able to zoom back to 100mm. the starting point will be 300mm plus the 1.4 times magnification. The zoom will be about 420mm to 700mm with the extender attached.

 

[Copterdoc]

thank you for the article ... I purchased the 2x before i ever recieved my lens lol so i will see what my lens can do in the next couple of days ... both with and without

I agree with Dave that the in-camera cropping will render fewer pixels. This is why I chose the RF 1.4 Extender.

 

[Dave Williams]

What I have noticed though is how when you use crop mode and eye detect the AF point seems to find the eye when in full view mode it doesn't. Canon apparently say it doesn't make a difference. Anyone else got their view on this!

The 1.4TC on the 100-500 doesn't reduce AF coverage of the screen as mentioned with the RF800 and 600. I'm still wondering if it's worth getting the RF 2x for use in very bright conditions.

 

[Genessi]

I picked up the rf 2x and in the instruction manual it states not to install it at 300 mm that it could damage the lens ... i too have the 100-500 ... the canon rep stated that the 1.4 might be preferable ... i acquired my 2x before i realized that i could change the camera from full to 1.6 crop onboard camera

You have to have your 100-500 at 300mm also with then 1.4.

 

[JayAy]

I borrowed an RF800 at the weekend, but was stuck to my garden only thanks to covid isolation restrictions. However I was able to test in both relatively bight, but cloudy conditions and right up to, though not in, a heavy rainstorm that dropped the light considerably. I also had access to 1.4x and 2.0x TCs. I only had time to play with this in combination with my R5, not my R.

As is known, the AF coverage is limited with the RF800, and the STM system is not as fast as the USM, especially the dual USM lenses. However, I was still impressed with the speed of the AF - though it did occasionally miss completely and cycle right through the range; the focus limiter switch helps, though it also caught me out the other way too - 6m is a surprisingly long way away when you are more used to macro distances! I didn't notice any change with the speed of focusing with the TCs attached, but I also wasn't measuring it in any scientific way, just using it seemed to be fast enough for me.

In terms of light performance I was also pretty impressed. even shooting at 12800 with the 2.0x extender at F22 I was easily able to recover detail in shadows and with a trip via Topaz DeNoise was able to reduce the noise enough for online use - though probably not for printing.

Definitely some softening of the images with the TCs, but again still OK for online use I think - some of the softening was no doubt introduced by my poor technique with a long lens, but you have to start somewhere.

All my shooting was handheld, and I have to say that i did feel it in my lower back after a while - that's probably more to do with me than the lens and poor technique and dodgy back, but I can see why dedicated long lens users look for every bit of help they can get with support or lighter glass.

Out of curiosity I also took some extreme long shots to see what the atmosphere introduced. I have a clear view across a valley to a now rather crumbling old stately home, Mentmore Towers which according to google maps is 8km from my house. The amount of haze was really quite alarming to see and although I could use LR to remove these, what was left wasn't very nice either. So unless you live somewhere with low humidity and no pollution (so not on this planet) then I'd recommended shooting things closer than 8km.

So, back on topic, the TCs worked pretty much as expected, with limitations of reduced light, and image softening. I was able to get images that are good enough for my social media use with both TCs in relatively low light on the RF800 and for most here the discussion is related to use on the RF100-500 which should produce cleaner looking results. Of course, with the R5 there's plenty of cropping potential without a TC, but sometimes you just need that little extra reach, and probably another crop for good measure too.

 

[Dave Williams]

Any updates on the 2.0x RF teleconverter anyone?
Since my previous posting I have reached the conclusion that the 1.6 in camera crop is basically not a good idea in most cases as you get the same result with cropping in post and composition can be
better as you have more space to play with.

I have been using the 1.4TC and the results are very impressive on the 100-500.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 1600

 

[RedCobra]

I have the RF 100-500 and the RF1.4. Have used it briefly, and even pixel peeping I don't notice much change in IQ or any for that matter. (500 vs 700 shooting a knarly tree trunk)), Took it out to shoot some eagles yesterday, and found how much harder it is to keep the birds in the VF at 700 vs 500 (which is hard enough) Shot mostly without the convertor.
Here is a shot *with convertor) of a non-flyer at 700,, f/11 1/500 ISO 200 Crop is about 70%
Sky was a compete grey wash yesterday.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/11
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 200

 

[Hali]

Thank you all for this thread. I have been on the fence as to which tele to buy. I’m sure B&H isn’t happy with me as I’ve ordered and cancelled the 2X from them twice. I think I will pick up the 1.4 from my local dealer if they have it in stock, they didn’t have one when I picked up my lens.