Looking more closely at my last post, I wondered if the actual resolution of the test chart was insufficient to distinguish between the RF 100-500 without and with the RF 1.4x. So I reshot the test chart at 20m, illuminated with a remote flash at ISO 400 - ambient illumination is negligible - none of the images indicated movement blur.. The files were imported into Lightroom, the white balance normalised at a consistent point and the exposure increased so that the whites were reading 90%. Screenshots were taken of paired images, with the higher res image at 100% and the lower res image at 143% (LR wouldn't allow 140%).
#1: The 700mm image at 5.0 is similar to the 500mm image at 4.0. The 700mm image has less local contrast.
#2: Adding 100% texture to the 700m produces similar contrast to the 500mm, but no increase in resolution
#3: I also moved the camera closer so that the chart at 500mm is similar to that of the 700mm. The 500mm resolves to 5.6 on the chart compared to 5.0 for the 700mm. The 700mm image has lower contrast.
#4: Converting the RAW file with DXO Pure Raw 2 significantly improves contrast with the 700mm
What does this mean in practice? I photographed some terns this morning, at 500mm and 700mm at the same distance.
#5: In good light, 700mm does resolve more detail than 500mm.
#6: The 500mm image is now upscaled with Gigapixel AI and sized on the screen to the 700mm at 100%. GP AI adds contrast, but not much in the way of fine feather detail.
I conclude that, in good light and good technique, the RF 1.4x adds noticeable resolution of subjects photographed at the same distance with the bare lens.





