06-02-2021 12:15 PM
I was actually thinking I may need the DLSR because I have the 70-200 with the 2x. It appears that the RF 70-200 does not accept the extender. But maybe they will fix that... or fix the website with the compatibility information.
You must be reading something different from what I have read. There are separate extenders made for the RF and EF mounts.
06-02-2021 12:21 PM
Yes there are separate extenders for the RF and the EF mounts but... for the RF extenders... Canon says:
"This extender is only compatible with the following RF lenses RF600mm F11 IS STM, RF800mm F11 IS STM, RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM. Use is not accessible with previous RF lenses. Additionally, please see the lens and/or camera body manual for full compatibility information with the Extender RF1.4x."
So it would seem the RF extender is not compatible with the RF 70-200.
Sorry I was not clearer.
06-02-2021 12:30 PM
If I was you I would ditch the 2x tel-con idea altogether. If you must, use the Extender RF1.4x. It seems to work well on the EF side with the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom family.
I would almost bet you that a cropped native EF or RF 70-200mm f2.8L lens photo is just as good compared to a compatible uncropped 1.4x tel-con photo. Perhaps even better but I don't like extenders so I do whatever needed to not use them.
06-02-2021 02:44 PM
And then... the R3 is announced... Maybe I should wait.
I think that is the correct move.
06-09-2021 12:44 PM - edited 06-09-2021 12:45 PM
If you need something soon the R5 with the 100-500 might meet your needs. I don't shoot low light very much so I don't know how the R5/100-500 would do indoors, but I have been very happy with it. The problem with the RF tele-converters is the amount of the front extends into the lens. Even with the 100-500 the lens must be extended to at least 300mm for it to mount.
06-09-2021 05:11 PM
At long last and with a lot of advice (all apprecited) I went with the R5 and the Canon 70-200 L ISII 2.8 w/ an adapter. I chose the Canon 70-200 L ISII 2.8 over the new lens because:
The RF lens might be really cool but I do not think it is substantially better than the II.
I would have gotten the III but it is not available,
But the main reason is:
The RF lens extends out of the body of the lens and retracts into it - and I should 80% outdoors. That means 80% of the time I am exposing the outer half of the lens to dirt and pollen and then retracting it back into the lens. That can't be good. The II is fully encased. I may lose a little, but I think the gains are great. And the II with an adapter was about $1,700 and the RF lens is $2,700.
So... shortly I will be shooting the R5 with the Canon 70-200 L ISII 2.8 and the extra battery/handle.
Give me a couple of weeks and I will let you all know how that turned out.
06-09-2021 06:01 PM