2X Teleconverter With RF100-400mm vs a Longer Lens

[Cantrell]

All,

I have a R10 and use the RF100-400mm lens. On a recent trip to the Texas Gulf Coast I took pictures of birds flying, but they were too far away. Could not make any details of the birds. Would the 2X teleconverter be an option or do I need to consider a longer lens? Information states that the converter and lens are compatible. Any and all comments are appreciated. 

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

In general, a longer lens is a better option than the 1.4x or 2.0x TC.  TC's can work well, but in many cases, an image captured with a native lens with a longer focal length is better than an image captured with a TC and lens of shorter focal length.  For me, the choice is primarily due to overall image quality (consistency), and partly to do with investment strategy.  Lenses you might want to consider are the RF 100-500 or RF 200-800.  

Others will also recommend the Tamron or Sigma EF 150-600 G2 or C.  These are not bad lenses.  I shot with Sigma lenses for years.  They of course need to be adapted.  There are millions of people out there using them very happily.  Today, I am a proponent of RF.  If you own EF and want to adapt it, then yes, by all means.  If you are buying / investing in new glass and own a mirrorless body, I'd buy RF as it will provide a higher return on investment over the long term from a performance, serviceability and longevity perspective.  In satisfaction also, but we all have different expectations and use cases.  Just my opinion, I encourage people to make their own choices.  

[ebiggs1]

"Would the 2X teleconverter be an option or do I need to consider a longer lens?"

Short answer, no, yes.

" I am a proponent of RF. "

I am too always keep all your gear Canon.............if possible. If you are like me and money is a consideration than other alternatives are logical. I never buy off brand unless Canon doesn't make it or the price is out of reason for my circumstance. In this case that is why I recommend the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2. For the life of me I still can't understand why Canon did not make that lens. They still do not have a direct compatible product.

Money and specs dictate a look see so check it out before you buy anything. 

[ctitanic]

Canon TCs usually are designed to be used with L lenses. I do not think that they will work in the RF100-400. I currently use the TC1.4x in my EF100-400L and it work well. Keep in mind that by adding a TC you are losing light and with that AF will not work the same and sharpness may be affected a little. I have not tested the TC2.0x but the overall opinion around the web is that the TC1.4 works better than TC2.0.

In any case, before buying any Canon TC check the manual of the Teleconverter to check the compatibility lens list.

[p4pictures]

Just to update you, the RF 100-400mm lens is unusual in that it is not L-series, but is compatible with the RF 1.4x and RF 2x extenders. These extenders like the EF ones do restrict the light by 1-stop for the 1.4x and 2-stops for the 2x. 

I do agree that sharpness suffers with extenders, but RF lenses and extenders are better than EF in this respect. 

R-series cameras don't have a hard limit for lens aperture like a DSLR, where f/5.6, or for some cameras f/8, is the minimum aperture for AF. However in some cases the available area for AF is reduced. 

[ctitanic]

Thanks for the update Brian.

[Cantrell]

All,

Thanks to everyone for their replies. Getting a longer lens seems like the most reasonable solution to my question. 

Reese

[Tronhard]

I am somewhat bemused by your reference to the use of an adapter.  As written, your post says you have an RF 100-400 (that does not need an adapter), so do you actually mean an EF 100-400 lens? 

An RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 IS USM would accept a teleconverter and, as my colleagues have pointed out, you pay a price in terms of sharpness and at least a stop of light.   If you considering to use an EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM via a stacked EF-RF adapter and then a teleconverter, I would recommend  instead getting the RF 200-800, which will give you the reach you are seeking and will be a much simpler  solution and a better performer.

Each teleconverter and adapter adds mechanical interfaces between the body and lens, which increases the possibility of environmental pollution. Stacking an adapter and a teleconverter means 4 such points of vulnerability and also adds bulk and, not insignificantly, length to your lenses.  The EF 100-400 is not a featherweight to begin with, and it will create much more torque on the connections to the camera unless held on its centre of gravity, which will extend out as you zoom in.

Taking on and off extenders takes time, and if you need to do so in the field, you should first turn the camera off to prevent the sensor (which has a slight charge when on) attracting dust onto it, showing up in all your images. The camera should be pointed down, remove the lens and converter, replace the lens, put away the converter, and then you are ready to shoot when you turn the camera back on.   This all takes time, and with wildlife you often don't have that if you want to catch action.

Also, when you look at the cost in terms of light transmission efficiency, the RF 200-800 comes out faster by a stop over the EF 100-400 (as per the image below, at 560mm the RF 200-800 shoots at f/8). Here are the comparative specs:

So, in summary... If you want a focal range of 200-800, don't buy a teleconverter, get the right lens for the job.  It's a more efficient configuration and, in the long term, the better investment.

Here is a link to images posted on this site using the RF 200-800:
Search - Canon Community

[ctitanic]

TCs add weight. I do not use my TC1.4x with my EF100-400L unless I know:

• 1- That I will need that reach
• 2- That it's a sunny day

For birding I find 100-400 most of the time adequate. When you adding too much reach it's hard to find BIF in your viewfinder and in another cases you are adding haze to your pictures caused by the ground heat. According to other photographers, for a Safari the 100-400 is short. So all depend on the needs.  800mm I think that it's too much for Birding. The maximum I would go would be 600mm.

[Tronhard]

I don't see a reference to the actual camera in use, so knowing that would have significant relevance to the situation.  An APS-C camera with a zoom up to 600mm, would have a the same Field of View as a 960mm lens on a FF camera.  So, knowing the body is not insignificant here.

I think this is a case of situational requirements.  I totally respect that Frank can get images at 600mm, but for my situation, having 800 in native FL meant I could ditch the teleconverter. 

Talking in FF terms:  I have, and love, the EF 100-400L MkII adapted to my R- bodies, and if one really wanted to go only to 600mm, then the Sigma 60-600 is brilliant as an all-in-one solution.  The latter is bigger and heavier than the RF 200-800 but when one looks at the focal range, it's easy to understand why!  Both of those obviously still require the EF-RF adapter.

I use the RF 200-800 a lot - of course I don't have to shoot at 800 but I have the capability.  It is relatively light, has a better aperture at 600mm than the prime RF 600mm lens, and one has the benefit of the zoom to work up and down the range as required. In effect, one has a lot of choice, but without having to deal with the on/off issue of the TC and the degradation of the image (the 1.4x is much better than the 2.0x in that respect).

I think in open country the more reach the better for wildlife, and for safety sake with large mammals (in my experience) you want to give them a lot of space.  Still, birds can be spooked as we get closer.  I would not have had the chance to get this shot of a Korimako (Bell Bird) if I had tried to cut down the distance, even in bush.

R6II, RF 200-800@800mm, f/9, 1/60sec, ISO-6400R7II, Sigma 150-600@562(899)mm, f/7.1, 1/800sec, ISO-125 

While the Masked Lapwing (on the right), in the open, bolted as I took just one more step - it's a good technique to get long shots while one can, move closer, and shoot again until the bird takes off.  While the physical FL in this case was 562mm, on the 7DII its FoV was equivalent to 899mm.

Some birds are more chill than others! 😋