RF 200-800 VS RF 100-400 and 2X extender.

[Jkarl]

I know that this probably has be hashed over before but here goes. 

Before I spend $2,000 dollars on a RF 200-800 what are the thoughts on a 2X extender and a RF 200-400.

[March411]

Hey Jkarl, what body(s) are shooting?

I've started using my 1.4x on both with pretty nice results but on overcast days the AF struggles a bit due to low light.

You're going to lose a couple stops of light and Loss of stops of light owing to the max aperture of the lens caused by adding the extender increase grain and possibly CA. When I've shot airplanes on blue skies with the 1.4x I do get a lot of CA.

[Jkarl]

Cameras are R5 and R6ii. I have seen posts on this forum that tout the many possibilities that the 200-800 open, but I am not sure if it is worth the investment. I do understand the drawbacks to using an extender, but I am not against spending the money for the lens if the return is worth it.

Thank you

Karl

[Jkarl]

I meant the RF 100-400.

[March411 · Accepted solution]

I guess it depends on what your planning to do with the lenses. You'll lose a little over a stop if you go with the RF200-800 until you mount the extender on the RF100-400, then they are pretty equal. I personally find the IQ better on the RF200-800 over the RF100-400 with the extender mounted.Weight wise the RF100-400 with the extender will be the lighter option, if weight matters.

I use RF200-800 quite a bit for wildlife and outdoor sports with a lot of success. Beyond my Macro lenses it may be the most mounted. If I'm hiking and in dense woods of travel I go to the RF100-400 and have the extender in my pack.

The RF200-800 has a pretty specific subject matter and the RF100-400 with the extender I would say combined is the more versatile choice if you need more of an everyday type lens. It is easily an all day carry where the RF200-800 gets heavy even when its on my black rapid strap.

I hope some of this is useful.     

[Jkarl]

Yes thank you for the suggestions. Are you using the 1.4x or the 2x extender on the 100-400? You mentioned the 1.4 in your earlier post.

I may just go your route and get both the 200-800 and the 2x extender for the 100-400. 

I know buying new toys. 😁  

[March411]

I'm using the 1.4x on both lenses. On a trip to Yellowstone the 1.4x mounted on the RF200-800 helped grab some frames that would have been tough without it. 

Honestly I love having the option for both lenses in my cabinet, they cover a wide range of possibilities.  

[TomRamsey]

I use the RF200-800 on the R6ii and I love the combo.  I live near the ocean so I spend a lot of time shooting along the beach and in the salt marshes, there is a lot of light there, even though I regularly shoot very early, even before sunrise.  If I go inland here we have the longleaf pine savanna which does not have a heavy canopy so a lot of light for wooded areas.  When I bought the lens those were considerations, because it starts at F9 at 800mm.  I wasn't sure how it would do in a heavy deciduous forest.  But I really don't have those concerns after using it for 18 months.  Myself, I would rather have to not use an extender if there was a way to get the same length without it.  I've not used either extender, but I've read that the 1.4x is superior to the 2x.  No matter what extender you use, you will lose light, 1 stop or two for the 2x.  I would be hesitant on using the 2x unless I was using an f2.8 or F4 lens.

[Jkarl]

Well I broke down and bought the 200-800 from B&H and their next day delivery was perfect. I had a couple of days to try it out and to say the least I am impressed with it. The only thing is that it will take some practice to be able to hold it steady.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback on this.

Karl

[March411]

Karl, with the hand supporting the lens I tuck my elbow up against my body to help steady the lens. With my belly I get plenty of support 😖

And congratulations, I think the longer you use it the more it will grow on you. I use mine for both long range and short macro shots of insects.