R5/EF Adapter compatibility

drodow
Apprentice

Hello, I have the EOS R5 with a Canon Mount EF Adapter and a 70-300mm 5.6L IS USM lens. I need to know it the Canon 1.4x extender will work with this configuration?  I hope so otherwise I will have to sell the 300 and buy the 100-400.
Thank you for your help.

2 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS

Tronhard
VIP
VIP

The EF 70-300L is NOT compatible with Canon's teleconverters - they will physically not fit on this lens.

If you want to get an extended reach, then the RF100-500L is a brilliant choice for the R5 (at a cost), but if you want to stick with EF lenses, then I can recommend the 100-400MkII or the Sigma 150-600c lenses. 

However, given that the R5 has 45MP,  it might be worth keeping your EF 70-300L and simply crop - it IS an excellent lens!

To demonstrate the potential of a higher MP sensor with this lens, this is the 70-300L with the quite unforgiving Canon EOS 5DsR, which has the cancelled AA filter and at 52MP shows any flaw in the lens or its use.  Of course, to post here, the images have had to be SERIOUSLY downgraded, but you should get the idea.

As taken: Helicopter ULR.jpg

After cropping:

Helicopter ULR FS.jpg


cheers, TREVOR

The mark of good photographer is less what they hold in their hand, it's more what they hold in their head;
"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris

View solution in original post

FloridaDrafter
Authority
Authority

@drodow wrote:

"Hello, I have the EOS R5 with a Canon Mount EF Adapter and a 70-300mm 5.6L IS USM lens. I need to know it the Canon 1.4x extender will work with this configuration?  I hope so otherwise I will have to sell the 300 and buy the 100-400.
Thank you for your help."


As mentioned, the extender won't physically fit the EF 70-300mm L f/4-5.6 IS USM II, so IMO if you are going to spring for the EF 100-400mm L f/4.5-5.6 IS USM II, I would go for the RF 100-500mm L f/4.5-7.1 IS USM. I agree with Trevor that the EF 70-300L II is a great lens. I have used it on all of my bodies, from an XSi, through various Rebels to the 7D mark II, 5D mark IV and now the R5 and R6. You will get good resolution with it on the R5 so you can crop in, if need be. I also have the EF 100-400mm L II and a 1.4X extender. I really don't care for that combo as it just doesn't give me the res I want, plus you are giving up a stop at 400mm. Like you, I shoot birds, more times than not, tiny birds like warblers. The EF 100-400mm L II and ring adapter on the R5 works great and if I get close, cropping still leaves plenty of detail and I could get a 10" print when needed.

Although I like the EF 100-400mm L II, I still bought the RF 100-500mm L for the R5 and let the EF 100-400mm L II live on the 5D IV. I like the RF glass and although I can only see a slight improvement in IQ in the RF L over the EF L glass I own, there is more to it then that, like they are generally lighter, designed better (according to specs), and I like the redesigned hood of the RF 100-500 L, I know, small thing, but it is what it is. Although EF glass works fine on the R systems, I think the RF glass is the way to go if you can afford it, it just feels right.

Tufted Titmouse - R5 and RF 100-500 L at 35 feet.

Tufted Titmouse Test-0000002a.JPG

Ruby-crowned Kinglet - R5 and RF 100-500 L at 40 feet. These birds are under 3" and a pain to shoot. They hardly ever sit still and rarely come out in the open.

Ruby-crowned Kinglet-0000002aS.jpg

 

Newton

View solution in original post

24 REPLIES 24

As you say "I don't think anyone is suggesting using this combo" but as John stated - on two occasions:
1.  "If you are willing to accept essentially a fixed 420mm lens then it will work."  and...
2.  'the 70-300 L's rear element retracts into the lens far enough that, at about 250mm, there is enough clearance for Canon extenders to mount.'... My solution to the damage risk issue was to Gaffer Tape the lens zoom ring to lock it at the 300mm mark while using extenders."

It is clear to me that we are talking about an unofficial and unsupported work-around to get an extender to mount onto the lens for which it is not designed, and is not supported by Canon - can you image them saying put gaffer tape on a lens as a safety feature?  I certainly would not suggest it as a solution to put forward to a third party who has come to the site looking for quality advice, but that is MY personal position.

In the end the fact that the extender can be made to fit is not really here or there.  While it can be made to fit, the question is SHOULD it be made to fit when it was not intended to, and should we be suggesting it on a site provided by Canon, and on which we are guests with privileges?

The difference between this and the RF 100-500 is that Canon clearly states that the extender is intended to be used with the lens, and the limitations thereof.  As I understand it, there is a lock that prohibits the mounting of the extender on the lens or the reduction of focal length while in use, thus safeguarding the integrity of the optics. 

 


cheers, TREVOR

The mark of good photographer is less what they hold in their hand, it's more what they hold in their head;
"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris


@Tronhard wrote:

"It is clear to me that we are talking about an unofficial and unsupported work-around to get an extender to mount onto the lens, and is not supported by Canon - can you image them saying put gaffer tape on a lens as a safety feature?"

 


LOLOLOL, you're killing me over here, brother! I was taking a sip of Drambuie right when I read that last statement and coughed it up my nose. I imagined tech support saying that.

BTW, Drambuie is better sipped than sniffed 🙂

Newton

😂 
In one of my careers, I worked on a support team back in the day, and if you knew some of the ideas that came up as they tried to brainstorm a solution under pressure...
The Drambuie sound good... sadly, I'm stuck at home right now with a pinched nerve in my back, trying to take photos of birds out my window in the hope of not going stark, staring, bonkers. 😝


cheers, TREVOR

The mark of good photographer is less what they hold in their hand, it's more what they hold in their head;
"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris


@jrhoffman75 wrote:

"The issue with the 70-300 lens is that for lengths shorter than around 250mm the rear element of the lens extends beyond the mount and will hit the extender. If you are willing to accept essentially a fixed 420mm lens then it will work."


That's pretty cool, John! I never thought to extend the EF 70-300 to 300 to attach the EF 1.4x III. I didn't realize that the rear element moves during zoom.

Newton

Waddizzle
Legend
Legend

Good.  I am late to the thread, but it is good to see two solutions.  

Here is another one, for future reference.  Download a PDF copy of full instruction manual, and search for the phrase “lens group”.

--------------------------------------------------------
"Enjoying photography since 1972."
Announcements