Have the Nikon Z6II and the Nikkor 100-400 zoom, which accommodates teleconverters. Have the 2.0 teleconverter and recently acquired the 1.4 teleconverter. Still deciding what's the best use of these are. My test shots show that they have some softness at the extreme ends, but this seems like a manageable problem with AI sharpening software. I have the new Nikkor 180-600 Zoom (which will accommodate these teleconverters) on pre-order and I look forward to trying them with that lens as well.
Have both canon EF1.4x & Sigma TC1401. But only used the TC1401 with the Sigma 150-600C. Practically unusable for moving subjects as AF doesn't work. AF works in live view mode but very slow, so only feasible for very slow or static subjects. Picture quality seems ok, but often find that my pictures aren't as sharp as those taken by reviewers, regardless of the lens. Maybe because I use neutral picture style with 0 sharpening. Do you use a picture style with sharpening?
Your RF versus EF experience matches mine. I have the 100-500 and the 1.4 and only use that combo in full strong light on the R7. Otherwise it is on the R6 which has better ISO performance. It is also important to keep in mind that the combo can be perfectly sharp and in focus but the atmosphere between the shooter and target can dramatically soften an image. I think those who have never shot a long lens sometimes have unreasonable expectations.
Thank you very much for your suggestion!!!! I have purchased 2.0 converter- I will test them beforehand. Thank you for the tips!!! Hope everyone is doing well. Big hugs.
Spot on Charl. I married my R5 to the 100-500 while in Chobe 2 weeks ago. But most of the time, I had the 2x or 1.4x attached. Excellent combo. The R3 had my ef 500 with 1.4x attached for the majority of the trip. Stopped down and fast shutter was the key to success in both cases. Right now, we're planning on CDK this time next year, and I'm contemplating the Rf400 vs the Rf600. I am starting to lean toward the RF400 with the 2.8 for lower light and better backgrounds now that I know I can get the reach with the extenders. Again, thanks for the video. You and Walter are driving the 400 2.8 and that's a good enough recommendation for me. :)
I've owned the RF 1.4 teleconverter for two years now. I use it with the rf 800mm f11 in comination with either my R6 or R5 and find it works brilliantly. Pictures are still sharp and I do a lot of handheld photography.
I really love watching your and pangolin gang videos. They are so precise and wonderful. Thanks for the informative video. My dream is to take one of your tours 😍
Hi Charles, excellent video many thanks. I have had the RF 1.4 extender for about two years and connected to my either R5 or R6 with the RF100-500m and I'm very happy with the results however, have been hesitating investing in the 2x variant until I have seen this video and your opinion . I'm looking forward to be with Pangolin in November for the Chobe,Delta & Kalahari trip and again in January for the Serengeti, Ndutu and Ngorongoro trip. Best Wishes, Bruce Gardner (South African but living in the UK)
Great video. I do like my 1.4x on the 100-500L/R7 combo although the focal length limitations can be frustrating. Obviously best in good light, but with a good noise reduction tools that extends the use even into lower light settings.
Thank you for this very informative and very timely video. Pangolin has a wonderful history of covering topics that are of great importance to all of us in the wildlife photography community. I strongly agree that the Canon RF and Nikon Z mount lenses, that are compatible with their respective teleconverters, perform exceptionally well compared to my prior experiences on their DSLRs. It is unfortunate that in the design of the Canon RF 100-500 mm lens, the teleconverter can only be attached when the lens is zoomed to 300 mm or more. This has been a significant limitation for me, because I am often concerned about the risk of inadvertently damaging the lens in the field when I’m carrying it in the partially extended position. The combination works very well when I’m shooting from a hide or from my vehicle where the risk of inadvertently damaging the lens is significantly reduced.
Another excellent video. I always think that if you have primes, you might just as well have the extenders for when you need more reach, but they are a lot less useful on zooms generally. My experience of extenders is confined to EF only, and I've never bothered to get an extender for the 100-500. I've been thinking about switching from my EF primes, and this video has made me consider switching to an RF400 rather than the RF600. It looks to be a more flexible option especially when used for larger animals and will be easier to travel with and to handle in the field. Food for (more) thought I think...
The 1.4x and the 2x both work extremely well with my RF400f2.8. Like you said, the 70-200 doesn't accommodate any extender so I currently have a gap between 200 & 400. Great video as alway Charl 😃
I got joined by the wallet to Canon in 2004 when I went ‘all in” with a 8MP 20D with EF-S 10-22mm, 24-70 mm 2.8 L and 70-200mm 2.8L and a pair of 580ex flashes I used for non-professional PJ shooting for my church and at work when photo were needed. I last upgraded to a 15MP 50D in 2008 because it and my good glass more met may needs until last year when I decided to photograph bird and other small animals. My first step was to buy a 2X converter for the 70-200mm not expecting the IQ to be stellar but on par with a 200mm capture cropped and resized with some Photoshop mojo until Canon released the R6mkII which checked off all boxes for me. I initially used the R6mkII with my EF lenses to see how the added megapixels would affect results, using the Canon EF-RF adapter for stills and Meike VND adapter for Clog3 video. I then decided to buy the RF100-500mm, RF 800mm f/11 and most recently added a second R6mkII body. If planning to shoot only stills I carry the two R6mkll with the 100-500mm and 800mm. If planning on shooting stills and video I’ll use the 100-500mm on one body and used the Meike VND adapter and either the EF 24mm-70mm or EF 70-200mm. I don’t use the 2x converter with the 70-200mm unless I’m shooting video from a tripod. The EF-S 10-22mm mostly lives on the 50D for wide establishing shots but I have used it on the R6mkII with Meike VND for cropped 1080p videos. I started doing PJ work in 1971 with a pair of Nikon Fs with 35mm and 85mm lens suspended a strap attached just the right side and set-up both my R6mkII bodies with Small Rig cages which have QD swivel socket on the bottom. I added Kirk feet with QD sockets to the 100-500mm and 800mm and bought two cross shoulder straps X with Kirk QD swivels. This set-up gives me the option to suspect the camera and lens from the bottom of the cage or with the RF lenses the QD connector on the foot. I find it actually more comfortable carrying two cameras on each hip than one because the weight is distributed evenly.
Hello, I enjoyed your presentation. Actually I’ve found every Pangolin video useful and entertaining. Some challenge me to think from another POV. To the point, I’ve used the 1.4 and 2.0 for years with my 5D and 5D III. However, I’ve also found using the same lens with my 7Ds quite satisfying.
Well I will say yes.. depending on the F Stop on the lense One Has and low light capabilities in the camera body with high ISO.. I love mine Gives me good result
I have a Sigma 1.4 extender paired with a Sigma 150-600 Sport that I use mainly for sports action with my Canon 1DXiii which I have found a bit soft at times which I think from your video is mainly from shooting wide open and too slow - looking forward to trying this on wildlife when I join you in October!
A great video, particularly your tips at the end. I recently bought the EF 2x for my 70-200 on the R5. The RF lens are just too pricey at the present. I got the extender for shooting the whale migration off the south coast of Western Australia, and so far I’m pretty happy with the results, but your tips will definitely improve the results further. Again many thanks for the tips. 👍😁
Great summary. I have the x1.4 on an R5 with the RF100-500 and mainly shoot birds. I never liked the x2 on the DLSRs and only used the x1.4 after a dalliance with a x2. I preferred the larger 50MP sensor of the 5Ds to allow enlargement of the image instead. Interesting you are using the R3; the higher MPs of the R5 would be better for birds and with using that the x2 may not be that necessary (I'm looking forward to the R5 Mk2 !!). To get good pics with a x2 on the R3 speaks a lot for the quality of the R system and I will reconsider getting a x2. On a separate note, I also use the cheapie RF800 and this is just an unbelievably good lens. OK, its only F11, but the R5 quality allows you to crank up the ISO with relative impunity and the light availability here in Oz (and I suspect with you) makes it quite viable. Its also very compact and light and I tend to have it on my hip ready to go whilst using the RF100-500.
I occasionally use the 1.4 Extender with an RF 100-500mm on an R6, normally it stays in the camera bag owing to the loss of zoom at the lower range owing to the extender protruding into the lens, a total pain.
That is the main source of my hesitation in purchasing the 1.4x, as I like to photograph butterflies, flowers, and bees when I am out in the field when the birds are taking their afternoon siestas or hiding from me.
I have used the RF 100-500 with a RF 1.4x extender quite extensively. I have used it on both an R5 and latterly with the R3 . It’s a good walk around combo as opposed to using a EF500 prime and EF extender with the RF adapter., in which case I generally have to use a tripod and gimbal head. In an urban environment that is not always practical ( blocking walkways etc.). My primary species is peregrines which are residing on buildings, and I try for a minimum shutter speed of 1/2000 th for action. On a dull day I can’t get that speed, even with a high iso (12800 max) due to the loss of light . But when I do get the light then it works fine, particularly on the R3 , which I feel gives me more keepers.
For a FF camera with a relatively high resolution (say 40MP or higher) rather than using a teleconverter, I tend to shoot the image (typically with a 100-400 lens) and then crop in post. I can then be more precise with my composition, get an image with a reasonable resolution and I don't end up with a slower aperture.
Do remember that some adaptors will only fit certain lenses. Sony for example you might expect the adaptors might fit all G series lenses but it will fit the 7-200 f2.8 but not the f4.0 . Make sure you find a compatability chart for your lens manufacturer and adaptor
Hi Chartes, maybe now the RF 200-800 MM (in NL now € 2499,00 but not in stock) as shown in the item from Janine will be an option as a extra lens :) greatings Leo Lengton The Netherlands
A good review Charl, but why should I expect anything less from you! I shoot Olympus, photographing wildlife and birds daily at and before sunrise. My 2.0 teleconverter Olympus MC20 is always on my 40-150mm Pro lens and Olympus EM1 Mark ii body giving me 600mm of reach in 35mm speak. I have not noticed any noticeable degradation of quality while using this combination. I photograph almost everything in low light at a fixed 5.6 aperture which is the largest that I can get with this setup.
Hi Charls, a friend of me who also has the R6M2 reminded me at the possibility of "Still Photo Cropping" and "Digital Tele-Converter". Mind this will only work in JPEG-mode. Can be found in the EOS R6 Mark II Advanced User Guide (English), but also in the NL-version, on page 172 - 175. Did some tests this weekend with Elks and I must say it looks nice also. Mind this is only possible in JPEG. greetings Leo
Thanks for this wonderful video, was trying to figure this out, i was guilty of shooting wide open with my R7 100-500 with the 1.4 extender. Is the 2x extender not good for the R7?
In my mind teleconverters should only be used on fast super teles that they are matched with, and then, most of the time you should limit them to a 1.4. Use a 2.0 normally only to fill the frame with a close subject (like a songbird). Even then I would recommend locking down the tripod and shooting with a remote if possible. Having said that, I have had some success using a 1.4 handheld with the EF 100-400 (Canon) on my R6. Haven't tried it on the R7.
Extender Tubes are a whole different device from the Teleconverter. Extenders just move the lens further way from the sensor and act much as a macro lens might only you can get much closer with and extender tube. Extenders don't actually have any glass, they only act as an "extender".
I have an EOS R6 II which I use with an adaptor on m EF 400mm 2.8 prime lens can I still use RF extenders on this set up with success I have used the old EF extenders with some success
I have a Nikon 70-200 f4 and I want to buy a 2x teleconverter, but I heard opinions that the image is blurry. Is it better to replace it with Nikon 80-400 f4.5-5.6?
Hi Charles, I love watching your videos. I have a Canon R5 and the 100-500 lens. Would you recommend to buy the 1.4 extender or the Canon lens rf 800 f11 as it gives about the same focal length. Thanks
Need your advice on lens choice from a wildlife shooter perspective. Should I buy the RF 400mm 2.8 and 1.4 tee or should I get the RF 600mm f4 to use with my Canon R6 Mark II? If this was you what lens would you most use?
I have the EF 1.4, which I do use a lot. With my 7D mark 2 . I also have the R6 I do want to get the RF 1.4 it just the price of it. Will you be doing the competition this year?
Dear Sir would you use manual focus with auto iso and f8 or would you use appiture prioity with f8 and auto iso for shooting wildlife i am shooting with a canon r6 with a canon rf 100-400 5.6-8 lens
In general what are the lighthing conditions for shooting in the Chobe area in the early morning? Do you need the to have an f4 lens for or a f6.3 is good enough for the buttery backgrounds you speak about, especially early morning shoots? I mostly use a 1.4x teleconverter which drives the f6.3 to a f9. Hence my question.
if the background is closer to the subject does it look more blurry if you shoot without the extender and crop or with the extender (cause you are adding mm and increasing Dof).
Hello I’m a photographer wildlife eagles birds. I have own Canon R8 mirror less. I just pre order of canon Rf 200-800mm. I’m looking forward buy the canon rf 2x It would be worth it?
I am having Canon R6 Mark II and RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1 L USM. I am not satisfied in reaching the wildlife subject. When i am cropping image, losing quality. Thinking to switch to R5 or to buy RF 2x extender. Which is is best option?. Switching to R5 or RF 2x ?
Don't buy an extender just yet! Yes it a rumor at this stage but it does sound like Canon will soon bring out a 1, 1.4 and 2x extender all in one, though this would certainly be expensive it would be most conveniant.
Please say "aperture" which means opening. And please don't say "appreture" which is something completely different. Appreture is a chemical or mechanical treatment of certain materials like cloth or wood.
Well, there we go...thank you. Charl's native tongue is Afrikaans and English a second language but I am sure he will appreciate learning a new word ;-)
Rather use cropping in post than a 1.4x teleconverter. You get a better low light performance and at least the same image quality on a modern camera. 2.0 teleconverters are rubbish by design, you cannot trick the laws of physics.
