70-200 f/2.8 Z Performance with Extenders vs 100-500

[cgliden]

I currently own the RF 100-500, and plan to pick up the new 70-200 Z here soon. Most of the work I do is traveling, so minimizing my kit as much as possible is quite important to me. My question is, although the image quality and autofocus would be degraded on the 70-200 with a 2x extender, would it be significant enough to justify keeping the 100-500, and having it in the bag at the same time? I'm also looking to potentially sell the 100-500 to offset the cost of the 70-200, as it is quite expensive. I also have a 600 prime that I use for longer wildlife shooting, and am curious if having the 70-200 with 1.4x and 2x extenders, as well as that, would serve me well enough to justify not keeping the 100-500.

[ebiggs1]

IMHO, the 1.4x is yes. or perhaps OK is a better word, and the 2x is a no but that's me as everyone has their goal of what is good and not. Some people think an iphone is good so there you are. And, for snapshots the iphone is good but that's where it ends in my idea of good.

These types of questions are always in the eye of the beholder unless you are worried what others think of your photos. If you are the latter you won't use any tel-con on a fantastic lens like the 70-200mm f2.8L as all extenders degrade the IQ of the lens.

You don't want any extra gear in your bag and that too is a consideration. Does that limit equal a decrease in IQ perhaps it does since any photo you get is better than the one you didn't or can't get.

[mdac356]

 I have both the 100-500 RF and the RF 70-200 UZM Z with the 2x TC. Tested both on tripod with my R1 to see which is better. Now this could be due to copy variation, but to my eyes the 70-200 is better with the 2x converter than the 100-500. The 70-200 UZM Z is the sharpest lens I've ever experienced, including the 100-300 2.8 which I've also shot with. Frankly, the 70-200 Z is too sharp. Don't like it for people.

70-200 for better balance, weight savings, and much better zoom throw feel. 100-500 for image quality if you like softer images—not that the 100-500 is soft, it's just softer than the 70-200 z (which is clinical sharpness overkill).

[johnrmoyer]

With the extender, it appears to me from the MTF charts that one might expect the RF 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM Z with 2x extender to have a little more contrast and resolution than the RF 100-500, especially if one were to stop down to F/8. I have not tried this myself, so your results might differ.

 https://personal.canon.jp/product/camera/rf/rf70-200-f28lz/spec 

https://personal.canon.jp/product/camera/rf/rf100-500-f45-71l/spec 

RF 100-500

https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/training-articles-list/reading-and-understandin...