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?

[Guyster]

Yeah, there's no reason to use the extender at anything under 300 because the lens will get you there (well, almost) without it...unless you're just getting too much light.  😋  Thanks again Rick and I hope you enjoy your Sunday!

[Guyster]

Now that I've bought the 100-500, I'll be pissed if you get what you want.  😋  Especially if it's f/5.6 or something like that.  That would be just about a perfect lens for me.  Of course price range would be a factor as well.

[Guyster]

I did some testing today comparing the Sigma 150-600 C to the RF100-500 +1.4x extender.  With both lenses zoomed all the way (600mm and 700mm respectively).  I set the Sigma lens at F/8 and the Canon at F/10, at 1/1000.  I adjusted the ISO to compensate for the Canon's smaller aperture.  I used a tripod and turned off image stabilization for both lenses. It's really hard to tell the difference at the center of the images, but I think the Canon has just a slight edge.  Some of this may be due to the extra 100mm, but in some images, it looked a smidge sharper.  Out towards the edges though, the Canon was clearly superior.  I was photographing still objects (a telephone pole, a palm tree, and a different tree).  I turned on IS and I could see the Sigma focus point dancing around while the Canon was much more stable.  I think this might give the Canon a bit of an advantage when shooting moving subjects hand-held.  Here's a couple shots that show what I'm talking about.