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.

 

[Tim Mayo]

I don't have either of the teleconverters yet. I am thinking about the 1.4x to go with my 100-500 though so please let me know how you get on with it Dave.

 

[Dave Williams]

Will do Timothy.
Considering the cost of the TC, especially the 2x, vs that of an 800mm RF you do wonder which you should buy although from a portability point of view the TC is obviously a lot smaller!

 

[KWilles]

I have both the 1.4 and the 2.0. I use the 1.4 on my 100-500 lens more often because I can still track flying birds with the eye focus setting quite easily and can still be handheld. It’s much more difficult as the field of view narrows.

 

[Dave Williams]

I have both the 1.4 and the 2.0. I use the 1.4 on my 100-500 lens more often because I can still track flying birds with the eye focus setting quite easily and can still be handheld. It’s much more difficult as the field of view narrows.

Anything you can add about the 2.0xTC in terms of AF speed, IQ etc would be very gratefully received Karen !!

 

[luckyheel]

Has anyone compared the RF teleconverters with the adapted EF ones? Any loss of image quality?

 

[Dave Williams]

Are you asking if there is a loss of quality using an EF TC on the R5 using an adapter then the answer in my opinion is no more than there might be on a DSLR. the 1.4 none, the 2.0x not as sharp but still very good.
If you are asking about the RF TC on an RF lens my experience is extremely limited as I have only just received mine and I only have the 100-500 RF lens. So far the images look suitably sharp BUT when you stick a TC on a lens then you loose light due to the narrower aperture. As yet Canon haven't really released lenses that should really combine well with the RF TC's. The obvious choice you'd think would be the RF 70-200 f2.8 but they are not compatible. So you have a choice of three,. the RF 100-500, 600 and 800.
I can't see the 2x being top of anyone's shopping list but some have chosen it over the 1.4. Reach isn't the only thing to consider, you need light.

 

[Lookyloo69]

I don't have either of the teleconverters yet. I am thinking about the 1.4x to go with my 100-500 though so please let me know how you get on with it Dave.

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

 

[Dave Williams]

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

Can you not install it at 400mm then wind the lens back in?

 

[Lookyloo69]

Can you not install it at 400mm then wind the lens back in?

Extender Zoom Restrictions​

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the only slightly negative aspect of the 100-500mm is that it is restricted to a widest focal length of 300mm when used with either of the new RF mount Extenders. As you can see in the following image, the rubber-coated lens element protruding out of the Extenders prevents the back element of the lens from moving to back to its full extent. This means that instead of a 200-1000mm lens with the 2X Extender, we get a 600-1000mm lens, and with the 1.4X Extender, we’re looking at a 420-700mm lens. This does reduce the versatility of the lens when combined with the Extenders and was a bit of a disappointment, but this is the first time that the shorter distance between the back of the lens and the sensor has added a negative aspect to Canon’s RF Mount and Mirrorless line-up.

 

[Lookyloo69]

Can you not install it at 400mm then wind the lens back in?

i took this from another site and all i did was confirm with my set up ... however i dont know about r6 but r5 you can change from full frame aspect to 1.6 and still get your distance without the teleconverter ... just an idea

 

[Dave Williams]

i took this from another site and all i did was confirm with my set up ... however i dont know about r6 but r5 you can change from full frame aspect to 1.6 and still get your distance without the teleconverter ... just an idea

Better to start with 45mp than 17 and then you can crop as you want it perhaps?
I have decided against buying a 2x TC due to the fact I'd have to work at f14. f10 is challenging enough.



I posted this on the FB page too which might be of interest to potential purchasers of the 100-500 and the implications of using a TC.

Took my newly acquired 100-500 for a bit of testing to a local site where some Snow Buntings have been over wintering. Carrying the combination is a wonderful lightweight relief from my 500mm f4Mk2 with a DSLR, especially my now departed 1DX2. I have attached a Wimberley QR plate to create a better hand grip/carry handle at twice the length of the lens foot ( 4 inches in total) as I don't us the carry straps that either camera or lens come with.
Unfortunately my ordered RF 1.4TC didn't arrive in time for the shoot but it has now so I'll test the combination later. No doubt you will by now realise that if you attach the TC to the lens you have to first extend the barrel to 300mm otherwise the TC won't fit. You now have an effective 420-700mm lens so as long as you are happy with that all is fine, however one thing I hadn't considered is if you want to leave the TC attached and stow it away in your bag, or even have it hanging from your carry strap, with the lens hood attached it is considerably longer than it was before..an extra four inches long in fact. You might like to factor that in to your decision about a camera bag amongst other things.
One of the known problems of zoom lenses with extending external barrels is their weakness to taking in dust. The L class lens does it's best to prevent this I'm sure but my 100-400 shows slight evidence it inside the lens and no doubt in due course so will the 100-500. It doesn't show in the shots you take but it is there. Having the barrel permanently extended when you have the 1.4TC attached will increase the likelyhood of it collecting dirt and worse still, salt in the wrong environment. So beware, maybe taking a cloth to wipe it down before taking it apart might be a good idea, especially in maritime locations.
Anyway, here's my Snow Bunting on a rather dull day. ISO 800, 1/800th f7.1 at 500mm. An approximate 70% crop.
I have run the final image through Topaz but at ISO 800 there is no discernible difference to the final image.

 

[Lookyloo69]

Better to start with 45mp than 17 and then you can crop as you want it perhaps?
I have decided against buying a 2x TC due to the fact I'd have to work at f14. f10 is challenging enough.



I posted this on the FB page too which might be of interest to potential purchasers of the 100-500 and the implications of using a TC.

Took my newly acquired 100-500 for a bit of testing to a local site where some Snow Buntings have been over wintering. Carrying the combination is a wonderful lightweight relief from my 500mm f4Mk2 with a DSLR, especially my now departed 1DX2. I have attached a Wimberley QR plate to create a better hand grip/carry handle at twice the length of the lens foot ( 4 inches in total) as I don't us the carry straps that either camera or lens come with.
Unfortunately my ordered RF 1.4TC didn't arrive in time for the shoot but it has now so I'll test the combination later. No doubt you will by now realise that if you attach the TC to the lens you have to first extend the barrel to 300mm otherwise the TC won't fit. You now have an effective 420-700mm lens so as long as you are happy with that all is fine, however one thing I hadn't considered is if you want to leave the TC attached and stow it away in your bag, or even have it hanging from your carry strap, with the lens hood attached it is considerably longer than it was before..an extra four inches long in fact. You might like to factor that in to your decision about a camera bag amongst other things.
One of the known problems of zoom lenses with extending external barrels is their weakness to taking in dust. The L class lens does it's best to prevent this I'm sure but my 100-400 shows slight evidence it inside the lens and no doubt in due course so will the 100-500. It doesn't show in the shots you take but it is there. Having the barrel permanently extended when you have the 1.4TC attached will increase the likelyhood of it collecting dirt and worse still, salt in the wrong environment. So beware, maybe taking a cloth to wipe it down before taking it apart might be a good idea, especially in maritime locations.
Anyway, here's my Snow Bunting on a rather dull day. ISO 800, 1/800th f7.1 at 500mm. An approximate 70% crop.
I have run the final image through Topaz but at ISO 800 there is no discernible difference to the final image.View attachment 610

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

 

[Andrea]

I picked up my 100-500 yesterday and have been using it with the 1.4x and R6 body today. I'm relatively happy so far, not bothered by the f10 as I have been using the RF 800 f11 for a couple of months and got used to it. Here's a couple from today that have been slightly cropped.

 

[Lookyloo69]

I'm jealous I tried to shoot a cardinal in a tree , forgot to animal priority on focus and it kept focusing on the branches and manual focus wit ha bird like a cardinal is a joke lol

 

[Ed Cordes]

I use my R5 and the 10-500 all the time. Occasionally I use the 1.4 TC and also like the light weight of the 700 mm and no tripod. Yes, I only have F10, but to me, that is a small price to pay for the light weight and maneuverability. Here is my example. It is cropped to about 80% of full frame size.

 

[Hanley]

Better to start with 45mp than 17 and then you can crop as you want it perhaps?
I have decided against buying a 2x TC due to the fact I'd have to work at f14. f10 is challenging enough.



I posted this on the FB page too which might be of interest to potential purchasers of the 100-500 and the implications of using a TC.

Took my newly acquired 100-500 for a bit of testing to a local site where some Snow Buntings have been over wintering. Carrying the combination is a wonderful lightweight relief from my 500mm f4Mk2 with a DSLR, especially my now departed 1DX2. I have attached a Wimberley QR plate to create a better hand grip/carry handle at twice the length of the lens foot ( 4 inches in total) as I don't us the carry straps that either camera or lens come with.
Unfortunately my ordered RF 1.4TC didn't arrive in time for the shoot but it has now so I'll test the combination later. No doubt you will by now realise that if you attach the TC to the lens you have to first extend the barrel to 300mm otherwise the TC won't fit. You now have an effective 420-700mm lens so as long as you are happy with that all is fine, however one thing I hadn't considered is if you want to leave the TC attached and stow it away in your bag, or even have it hanging from your carry strap, with the lens hood attached it is considerably longer than it was before..an extra four inches long in fact. You might like to factor that in to your decision about a camera bag amongst other things.
One of the known problems of zoom lenses with extending external barrels is their weakness to taking in dust. The L class lens does it's best to prevent this I'm sure but my 100-400 shows slight evidence it inside the lens and no doubt in due course so will the 100-500. It doesn't show in the shots you take but it is there. Having the barrel permanently extended when you have the 1.4TC attached will increase the likelyhood of it collecting dirt and worse still, salt in the wrong environment. So beware, maybe taking a cloth to wipe it down before taking it apart might be a good idea, especially in maritime locations.
Anyway, here's my Snow Bunting on a rather dull day. ISO 800, 1/800th f7.1 at 500mm. An approximate 70% crop.
I have run the final image through Topaz but at ISO 800 there is no discernible difference to the final image.View attachment 610

Hi Dave have you managed to do much testing with the RF 100-500 and the 1.4 TC yet?

I have the 100-500 and considered the 1.4 TC but I'm just not sure if I'd use it enough to justify the cost, especially given the amazing cropping ability we have on the R5.

 

[Dave Williams]

Hi Dave have you managed to do much testing with the RF 100-500 and the 1.4 TC yet?

I have the 100-500 and considered the 1.4 TC but I'm just not sure if I'd use it enough to justify the cost, especially given the amazing cropping ability we have on the R5.

Yes, I have been using it a lot! The problem is reach is often king in my kind of photography which is usually avian, and small birds at that. Like my 500mm f4 I nearly always end up with the 1.4TC bolted on the end. The other day I actually took the EF500mm f4 plus 2.0x TC to photograph a particular bird which I knew would be too distant at 700mm despite the crop I would be making.It was a steep hill to climb carrying it too!
The RF 1.4TC is expensive...the 2.0x is even more ridiculous really and that's why I have not bought one...well that and the fact I'd need bright light to use it at f14.
Only you can decide if it's worth investing in but I imagine if most shots that you are taking are at 500mm then the answer would be yes!

 

[LaurieAndersonPhotography]

I picked up my 100-500 yesterday and have been using it with the 1.4x and R6 body today. I'm relatively happy so far, not bothered by the f10 as I have been using the RF 800 f11 for a couple of months and got used to it. Here's a couple from today that have been slightly cropped.

What was your ISO set at?

 

[Andrea]

What was your ISO set at?

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

 

[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.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[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.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[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.