RF 200-800mm vs EF 100-400mm mark II + 2.0x extender

[Bazsl]

Has anyone seen a comparison of the RF 200-800mm vs EF 100-400mm mark II + 2.0x extender or has anyone used both? I am using a R5 Mark II with the RF 200-800mm vs EF 100-400mm mark II + 2.0x extender and the results are very good. I'm wondering if the RF 200-800mm would be an improvement in sharpness since the RF 200-800mm gets softer past 600mm according to the reviews I have read and the test charts at The Digital Picture. Any thoughts from anyone who has used both are appreciated.

[Tronhard]

When one is shooting at these focal lengths, I would normally expect that the subjects are wildlife, which is my own genre of preference.  I have used both lenses but not on the same bodies.  I had the EF 100-400L MkII with both the EF 1.4xMkIII and 2.0MkIII extender, on the EOS 7DII, 5DIII and IV.   Honestly, I felt that the 2.0xMkIII was not a great combination and when I used an extender (which was rare), I used the 1.4MkIII, which was more acceptable.

I prefer to use a optic with the native focal range I want.  There are practical reasons for this.  If one has an extender on, but need to get wider, unless one has an extra body with an appropriate lens, then one has to turn off the camera, remove the extender, replace the lens and turn the camera back on again. Obviously, the reverse is also true.   Wildlife does not normally hang around waiting for us to do that kind of thing.  There is also a normal loss of both aperture and optical quality with any extender.

As regards the RF 200-800, softness in the range past 600mm is not my experience: perhaps I was lucky but the images.  A lot of reviewers get more clicks by emphasizing the negative in a product, but much depends on context.  When using such optics, the body used, the setup of the camera's focusing system, and how the camera is handled all have significant impacts on the results. 

I have posted numerous examples of shots with the 200-800,  using the R5, and both versions of the R6 in the Gallery > Share Your Photos section of this site if that is of any value.  I no longer use extenders, but I did a comparison of the 200-800 on the R6II with the R5 and the RF100-500 and I have separately shot with the EF 100-400 on the R5 if you care to check out that section, FWIW

[Bazsl]

Thanks for the detailed information.

Cheerio, Bill

[wq9nsc]

That will be an interesting comparison because most comparisons are geared towards how much the 2X reduces the performance of otherwise high quality optics making a comparison between a quite good 100-400 vs a versatile and low cost long zoom interesting and I hope that you test them together perhaps via rental. 

I have 1.4X and 2X converters and I have yet to be satisfied with the 2X used on anything but that is largely because I am comparing the drop off in quality from a bare lens to the same lens with the 2X. 

I have a lot of different Canon lenses including several primes and two of my most used are two of their sharpest ever, the 300 and 400 f2.8 glass.  These lenses produce exquisite images bare and are still extremely good with the 1.4X but to me the drop in quality (sharpness and contrast) is too great with the 2X.  Realistically, these lenses still produce extremely good images with a 2X compared to a lot of decent glass but when compared to what they do without the 2X then the comparison doesn't look so good.

A good lens with a 2X will still produce quality images so it is definitely worth trying, maybe rent a 2X and see what you think.  I have a Canon EF 800 f5.6 and it is an excellent lens but still a slight step down in quality from the EF 300 and 400 f2.8 in terms of image quality BUT the EF 800 f5.6 produces somewhat better images than the 400 f2.8 with 2X.

And "pixel peeping" becomes a very real danger because it is so easy to lose sight of the overall image by digging too deep into the technical aspects of the image.  For daytime sports events, I am still torn between the versatility of using the EF 200-400 f4 which can become a 280-560mm @ f5.6 by flipping the lever of its built in 1.4X converter or the excellent EF 400 f2.8.  The ultimate image quality of the 400 prime is a little better and it can achieve focus very slightly faster but most people looking at game images would never notice the difference in images between these two lenses.  So don't get pulled too deeply into the depths of "pixel peeping" while overlooking relevant decision factors such as the versatility of a lens "kit" that can be either a moderately fast 100-400 or a long 200-800 depending upon the use of a converter.  If you are doing a lot of field work in varying light conditions, that would be an important consideration.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

 I don't have the RF 200-800mm but I do have a couple 2x tele-cons. I have never liked what they produce on any lens I have ever used one on. So I never recommend anyone else use them either. That said it does still depend on what your needs and standards for IQ are, not mine.