The Moon and Jupiter.

[FloridaDrafter]

These were shot hand held with the EOS R5, an RF 100-500 with RF 1.4X tele converter or an RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L IS USM. I just bought the RF 1.4X extender, so these were my first shots using it. Lots of light and atmospheric pollution in my area, so it's a miracle Jupiter and its moons are even recognizable. If I was more interested, I would properly do it by stacking multiple shots, so these are understandably underwhelming. Still pretty cool though, considering. The colors of the clouds are pretty accurate and was the main reason I was shooting, plus I wanted to see how the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L would handle it. Practice, practice 🙂

Shot Raw and processed in DPP 4 with a little editing, Framed in PSP '22.

Cropped - 700mm, 1/800th, ISO 400, f/10 - 11/4/22Heavily Cropped - 700mm, 1/800th, ISO 400, f/10 - 11/4/22

Jupiter and three of its Galilean moons.

Heavily Cropped - 700mm, 1/500th, ISO 1600, f/10 - 11/7/22

You have to look hard to see Jupiter lower right of the moon.50% Cropped - 17mm, 1/40th, ISO 6000, f/2.8 - 11/5/22

Once again, you have to look close to see Jupiter right on the edge of the clouds.25% Cropped - 17mm, 1/30th, ISO 6000, f/2.8 - 11/5/22

Newton

[shadowsports]

Newton,

Thanks for posting.  Love the moon shots.  I have the 15~35.  I'm considering the 100~500 with 1.4x TC.  What happens when you reduce the zoom to 300mm.  Does the lens just stop and not allow you to go below this FL?

Thanks,

[FloridaDrafter]

Yes, it limits zoom to 300-500mm (420-700mm), but I knew that and it kept me from buying it for a while. It feels OK when you bring it back to 300mm, I mean, there is no hard thump or anything. Is hard to get used to having to extend the lens to attach it, but that will work itself out in my head after a few more uses 🙂

I bought it mainly for my wife to use on her R6 and RF 100-400mm which has no restrictions on zoom. She hasn't tested it very much, but so far it's done a good job.

Newton

[FloridaDrafter]

---

@shadowsports wrote:

"I'm considering the 100~500 with 1.4x TC."

---

Sorry, I meant to mention this earlier, but was sidetracked, old age I guess 🙂 I bought the RF1.4X for the my wife's R6 and RF 100-400, but have now had a chance to mess with it on the R5 and RF100-500. I doubt I will use it much, but it is nice when lighting is fair to good. We shoot tiny birds, 3 to 5 inches, generally in the shadows, and I have a need for detail. Generally, 400-500mm is all I need, so I've never wanted more and shied away from the supper tele lenses. It will be good for BIF out in the open at some of the ponds we go to for sure.

Now, my observation has been that the RF 1.4X produces a bit better IQ than the EF 1.4X III. Not a scientific study, just my observation. I used the EF 1.4X III on the 5D mark IV and EF 100-400 L II and have pixel peeped both, on the 5D4 and R5 (with adapter). Granted, most can't see it, but I do. I also understand people have different ways of doing things and settings may make a difference. Although I am not a big fan of extenders, I do own them (the 1.4X's) and think the RF 1.4X is a good addition and you won't be disappointed 🙂 , except that pesky 300mm limit, LOL!

Newton

[johnrmoyer]

I do not have any RF lenses, but I also use the EOS R5 and EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM with the EF 1.4x III and with the EF 2.0x III. I find that the EF 1.4x III seems to work better on my EOS R5 than on my EOS 80D.

On the EOS R5, usually I can see no difference in quality at the pixel level between EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II without 1.4x or with 1.4x. I do use digital lens optimizer in Canon DPP software. With the same lens, it seems to me that there is a little less contrast when using the 2x than when using the 1.4x and also a little diffraction blur. With the EOS R5, I have found that when using the 2x it seems to help to use F/13 instead of wide open at F/11.

Edit: I forgot to add metadata for the Osprey photo.

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) at Lake Thunderbird in Norman, Oklahoma, October 18, 2022

• F Number11.0
• ISO 1000
• Shutter Speed Value 1/664
• Focal Length 800.0 mm
• Focus Distance Upper 64.14 m
• Focus Distance Lower 50.04 m
• Lens Model EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +2x III 

• Osprey carrying fish Oct. 18, 2022 scaled to 75% to make upload possibleFranklin's Gull (Leucophaeus pipixcan) on Red Mud at Lake Thunderbird in Norman, Oklahoma, October 31, 2022; F/13, ISO 320, 1/395 s, distance abou 400 meters, 800mm, EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +2x III, reduced to 75% to make small enough

[FloridaDrafter]

Sorry for the late reply, John. Another senior moment I guess, LOL! Anyway, great info 🙂 I've never used the 2X's, but have done a lot of research. I suspect that with a little extra editing, as  with the 1.4X's, they will work well with good lighting.

Newton

[shadowsports]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I used the EF70~300 on my 6D2 for travel.  Its a very nice, lightweight lens.  It also works very well adapted.  Due to the positive experience, I purchased the RF100-400  for my new body as the extra 100mm of reach will come in handy. 

RF primes, I would never use a 600 or 800mm at f11.  I am not a wildlife shooter, so the 100-500 is the only RF zoom at this FL.  I have a Sigma 600c as well, but I want to move away from using any of my EF lenses adapted.  I wish Canon would make a L series zoom to 600mm with better aperture (like the Sigma).  Side by side the 100~500 seems to hold its own with a higher number of keepers after a day of shooting.  Maybe we'll get a mkII that allows it to be used with a TC below 300mm, and with slightly better aperture.   

[FloridaDrafter]

My wife loved the EF 70-300 II. She used it on a T7i and then on here R6 before getting the RF 100-400. She has special needs and just can't handle the weight for extended periods, so as you know, these lenses are super light and  have great IQ for the price point.

I agree about the f/11 primes, although we could make them work in our bird photography, I just don't see how they would work for you with sports. I mean, from what I've seen of your work, you are already pushing ISO to the max with your f/2 and f/4 primes. There is no way you could make an f/11 work... I mean, you would have astronomical ISO speeds just to get a decent ss/aperture in your conditions.

So far, I am really liking the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM. Such a nice lens and plenty sharp. I've taken a few shots using HDR PQ, just tests mind you in low light, but dang impressive.

Newton

[Tintype_18]

Very nice photos. I have a lot of "light pollution" around my end of town so good photos are hard to come by.

[FloridaDrafter]

Thank you for the comps, John! I usually wait until mid winter here in Jacksonville, Fl to do any planetary or deep sky shots because the cool weather tends to clear up the atmosphere. But I couldn't resist this chance. I like to try and get the Orion Nebula when it's clear, sometimes I can get it, but it means being up at 2 or 3 a.m. and being motivated enough to drag the tripod out in the yard 🙂 I've got a few, but nothing to brag about. You really need to stack and use a tracking device. You can do it without a tracker, but it seems to be easier with one.