RF 100-500 Lens with 1.4 or 2X Extender

[waldojess]

Wondering to get either a 1.4 or a 2X extender with the Rf 100-500 lens. Two concerns, one is a lot of wildlife photography is in lower lighting conditions and the 2X drops it to 11/14. Also, was surprised to see that the extender only works 300-500mm (not 1-299mm). Anyone have any experience with this lens and extenders?

[ebiggs1]

I wouldn't do it. It's already a slow lens and the tele-con will only make it slower f9 to f14 in the case of the 2x. Very slow starting apertures!

Since I wouldn't do it, I don't know if they work or not personally. Canon tel-cons do not work on all Canon lenses. Make sure the Rf 100-500 is listed before you buy one.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

We have two users with a good amount of experience with this lens and extenders.

@Tintype_18

@Tronhard

I'm still holding out (hopeful) for an RF in this range that can be used with a 1.4x TC below 300mm. Maybe a mkII if it happens. Before going all in, I want to see if canon makes a lens in this FL with something lower than f7.1 and that doesn't have a limit when used with a TC. Its basically the last RF lens I will need to complete my "L" catalog. I don't need it until summer next year, so I'm going to wait on it. I purchased the 100~400 to get me through the wait. Canon is continuing to fill out their RF line, and I've got some time. I'll let the guys know you are looking for info.

[shadowsports]

TC's work on the 100~500 but only at 300mm+. This in conjunction with the f7.1 is what's got me holding out. My Sigma 600c does better at f6.3, but the lens is unwieldy in comparison.

The RF 100~500 is a full pound lighter than the 600c and 1.63 lbs lighter that the 600s which I know Ernie owns.

I wouldn't recommend the 2.0x as it would really limit use to anything but bright, bright light. At that point, you have to bite the bullet and get a prime. (Cha-Ching$)

[waldojess]

Thank you

[waldojess]

With my EF lenses I really like my 70-200 2.8. And a 300 F4. Both handle extenders very well in lower light. I prefer zoom vs prime because it gives you much more flexibility for wildlife.

if seems the best advice is to push the ISO.

I am also awaiting more Conor rf lenses. I’d like to see a 150-600 to compete with Tamron.

[waldojess]

The problem with the prime is the enormous price delta. I saw a video where they pushed the ISO to 6,400 and 12,800 with good results using the 1.4 and 2.0. Wish o could afford both.

[jrhoffman75]

" surprised to see that the extender only works 300-500mm (not 1-299mm)"

Telextenders are a compromise. As a rule they slow down autofocus and decrease image quality. They really should only be used to extend the maximum focal length of the lens.

[ebiggs1]

Two lenses I do confess work well with the 1.4 tele-con is the 70-200mm f2.8L and the 300mm f4L.

[Waddizzle]

I think you would be better off with the RF 800mm prime compared to the 100-500 with a teleconverter. The prime would focus faster and more accurately. For that price I would take the f/11 fixed aperture..

With either setup, your available AF points will no longer cover edge to edge. You will probably be limited to a center AF Zone comparable in size to what you might see in a high performance DSLR.