New type of teleconverter coming from Canon alongside a Supertelephoto zoom

[EOS 4 Life]

And twice the weight probably, and more to the point, you can already do 200-800mm but I wouldn't recommend 2x on it.

Yeah, getting an RF 800 f/11 would be better except for the minimum focus distance.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

You can already do 200-800mm but I wouldn't recommend 2x on it.

Have you shot with the RF 100-400mm and 2x extender? At the moment, I have the RF 100-400mm (alongside RF 70-200 & 100-500mm) and I was considering getting an extender to use with the 100-400mm and maybe for specific use cases the RF 100-500mm. I'd love to hear about your (or anybody else's experience) with the 2x on the RF 100-400mm.

I tested the RF 600mm with a 2x extender on zoo and park animals and I was pleasantly surprised by the IQ with F22 (in bright daylight tough), but I ended up selling the 600mm because it was too close to 100-500mm and not worth bringing both lenses at the same time.

I shot with the RF 100-500mm and 1,4x extender on Safari. It was a good compromise between reach and light (only losing one stop). I generally like using extenders (that's why I'm considering one for the RF 100-400mm) but I absolutely hate the fact the 100-500mm can only work with them between 300-500mm...

 

[AlanF]

Have you shot with the RF 100-400mm and 2x extender? At the moment, I have the RF 100-400mm (alongside RF 70-200 & 100-500mm) and I was considering getting an extender to use with the 100-400mm and maybe for specific use cases the RF 100-500mm. I'd love to hear about your (or anybody else's experience) with the 2x on the RF 100-400mm.

I tested the RF 600mm with a 2x extender on zoo and park animals and I was pleasantly surprised by the IQ with F22 (in bright daylight tough), but I ended up selling the 600mm because it was too close to 100-500mm and not worth bringing both lenses at the same time.

I shot with the RF 100-500mm and 1,4x extender on Safari. It was a good compromise between reach and light (only losing one stop). I generally like using extenders (that's why I'm considering one for the RF 100-400mm) but I absolutely hate the fact the 100-500mm can only work with them between 300-500mm...

I have shot with it - I wouldn't make a recommendation if I hadn't. It works, and how well depends on the resolution of the sensor. It does increase the resolution, even on the R7. But, it loses contrast, which you can improve at the expenses of some artefacts by subsequent sharpening, and it slows down AF. The 2xTC works better on the RF 100-500mm in terms of IQ, which I use frequently. As @EOS 4 Life has in the preceding post, if you are after distance, the 800mm RF/11 is in a different league with much better resolution and contrast and AF. And the RF 100-500 on the R7 resolves just as well at 500mm with hugely better AF as well as field of view. Even though I use the 2x a lot on the 100-500 on the R5, I have to admit for much of the time the extra focal length doesn't in practice give better resolution and the AF is much slower and less reliable.

 

[AlanF]

Have you shot with the RF 100-400mm and 2x extender?

Here are some results from yesterday. I was sitting next to my wife in a hide, and we both took photos of Mandarin Ducks. Here are hers with the R7 + RF 100-400mm, upscaled 2x by Topaz Gigapixel, and mine with the R5 + RF 100-500mm + 2xTC (with work on my mine with some sharpening and adjusting colours), the two below.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I have shot with it - I wouldn't make a recommendation if I hadn't. It works, and how well depends on the resolution of the sensor. It does increase the resolution, even on the R7. But, it loses contrast, which you can improve at the expenses of some artefacts by subsequent sharpening, and it slows down AF. The 2xTC works better on the RF 100-500mm in terms of IQ, which I use frequently. As @EOS 4 Life has in the preceding post, if you are after distance, the 800mm RF/11 is in a different league with much better resolution and contrast and AF. And the RF 100-500 on the R7 resolves just as well at 500mm with hugely better AF as well as field of view. Even though I use the 2x a lot on the 100-500 on the R5, I have to admit for much of the time the extra focal length doesn't in practice give better resolution and the AF is much slower and less reliable.

Wow, thx for the informativ and lengthy reply! That sure helps. I might get the RF 2x mainly for the RF100-500mm and just occasionally use it on the RF 100-400mm. Still can't finally rule out getting an R7 and just letting my RF 100-500mm live on it... But I really really don't want to be carrying two cameras around

I took the RF 100-400mm yesterday to the "Federal Horticultural Show" in a nearby city and put it to the test. I really, really like the pics. By accident (I scrolled down the exposure time) I took a pic of a great white egret with ISO 8000 and even that one turned out good. I like the weight/ size/ reach combo a lot and the lens fits mounted on my R in all my backpacks... even in my small peakdesign everyday backpack (20L). So I'm keeping it and selling my 70-200mm F4 the near future.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Here are some results from yesterday. I was sitting next to my wife in a hide, and we both took photos of Mandarin Ducks. Here are hers with the R7 + RF 100-400mm, upscaled 2x by Topaz Gigapixel, and mine with the R5 + RF 100-500mm + 2xTC (with work on my mine with some sharpening and adjusting colours), the two below.View attachment 209398View attachment 209399View attachment 209400View attachment 209401

All very nice pics thx for sharing

 

[Finn]

Biggest drawback for the RF 70-200 was not being able to use a teleconverter. If they could somehow make it work with the RF 70-200 with low levels of IQ loss it is a win and I'll probably prefer a RF 70-200 + TC over the 100-500 for maximum flexibility. Perhaps the IQ can be recovered in post with a bit of sharpness and micro-contrast applied.

But with my limited knowledge around optic design the physics surrounding such a design are probably hard to overcome if not impossible.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Biggest drawback for the RF 70-200 was not being able to use a teleconverter. If they could somehow make it work with the RF 70-200 with low levels of IQ loss it is a win and I'll probably prefer a RF 70-200 + TC over the 100-500 for maximum flexibility. Perhaps the IQ can be recovered in post with a bit of sharpness and micro-contrast applied.

But with my limited knowledge around optic design the physics surrounding such a design are probably hard to overcome if not impossible.

EF 70-200 is always available&viable.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Yes, all you’ll need is a rumored TC and a red rubber band.

I already put red paint on my RF100-400's silver-ring.

And spend as much on the TC as on 3 RF 100-400!

RF100-400+TC+R50...still cheaper than 1 RF 1200L.

 

[Del Paso]

Biggest drawback for the RF 70-200 was not being able to use a teleconverter. If they could somehow make it work with the RF 70-200 with low levels of IQ loss it is a win and I'll probably prefer a RF 70-200 + TC over the 100-500 for maximum flexibility. Perhaps the IQ can be recovered in post with a bit of sharpness and micro-contrast applied.

But with my limited knowledge around optic design the physics surrounding such a design are probably hard to overcome if not impossible.

It would also surprise me if such a specialized-specific TC works with a wide array of lenses. It's being primarily designed for the new big white zooms. So, Canon won't necessarily pay much attention to universal compatibility...

 

[usern4cr]

Here are some results from yesterday. I was sitting next to my wife in a hide, and we both took photos of Mandarin Ducks. Here are hers with the R7 + RF 100-400mm, upscaled 2x by Topaz Gigapixel, and mine with the R5 + RF 100-500mm + 2xTC (with work on my mine with some sharpening and adjusting colours), the two below.View attachment 209398View attachment 209399View attachment 209400View attachment 209401

First, thanks so much AlanF for posting the lovely photos from your wife and you!

But after pixel peeping at the detail shown in the photos (which might have been scaled down due to upload restrictions?), it seems very clear that the photos in your wife's R7 + 100-400 + Topaz 2x uprez and very much sharper than yours with the R5 + 100-500 + 2xTC in the eye area which I looked at.

This makes me wonder if that surprising result is only because I looked at the eyes to make the comparison, and it's possible that the focus happened to be locked onto the eyes in your wife's shots and not quite on the eyes in your 2 shots? That would explain the marked difference I'm seeing.

Do you have a chance to tell us where the AF box(s) were in all 4 photos (maybe from the image review in the camera itself unless you can see it somehow see it in post)? That would answer that question.

If the focus wasn't as close to the eyes in your photos then it would tell me that we shouldn't infer anything from comparing them.

But if it turns out that the focus was on the eyes in all 4 photos, then it would indicate to me that the R7 + Topaz 2x uprez is a much better way to take these kinds of photos than the R5 + 2xTC. That might tell me thatusing Topaz 2x uprez in beats using the 2xTC, and/or that the R7 higher pixel density on the sensor is noticeably better than the R5 in showing this kind of distant detail. (I can only assume that the 100-500 should still give at least more detail than the 100-400)

Either way, I find this kind of comparison a really important one for all of us to see if we can get the focus points to be identical. It might even make some of us (myself included) decide to consider the R7 and/or Topaz uprez'ing now instead of using the R5 and/or 2xTC for distant birding shots. Or it might make me hope to see a future R full frame sensor with even higher MP which would give similar (or maybe better) distant sharp images as compared to the R7?

I suppose the best thing would be a comparison (with the same lens) of a distant image with the same eye focus from the R5 and R7 alone, and another such comparison using a 2xTC vs Topaz 2x uprez so that we could compare them independently?

 

[koenkooi]

[...]This makes me wonder if that surprising result is only because I looked at the eyes to make the comparison, and it's possible that the focus happened to be locked onto the eyes in your wife's shots and not quite on the eyes in your 2 shots? That would explain the marked difference I'm seeing.

Do you have a chance to tell us where the AF box(s) were in all 4 photos (maybe from the image review in the camera itself unless you can see it somehow see it in post)? That would answer that question.[...]

One of my annoyances with the R5 and M6II is that the focus will drift a bit during a burst, but it will still draw a "Yes, this is in focus!" rectangle around the slightly-out-of-focus section. I've only seen this happening using eye-AF, but that's the mode I'm in for >90% of the pictures I take.

The R8 hasn't really done that yet, but I've only used that for a few weeks so far.

 

[AlanF]

First, thanks so much AlanF for posting the lovely photos from your wife and you!

But after pixel peeping at the detail shown in the photos (which might have been scaled down due to upload restrictions?), it seems very clear that the photos in your wife's R7 + 100-400 + Topaz 2x uprez and very much sharper than yours with the R5 + 100-500 + 2xTC in the eye area which I looked at.

This makes me wonder if that surprising result is only because I looked at the eyes to make the comparison, and it's possible that the focus happened to be locked onto the eyes in your wife's shots and not quite on the eyes in your 2 shots? That would explain the marked difference I'm seeing.

Do you have a chance to tell us where the AF box(s) were in all 4 photos (maybe from the image review in the camera itself unless you can see it somehow see it in post)? That would answer that question.

If the focus wasn't as close to the eyes in your photos then it would tell me that we shouldn't infer anything from comparing them.

But if it turns out that the focus was on the eyes in all 4 photos, then it would indicate to me that the R7 + Topaz 2x uprez is a much better way to take these kinds of photos than the R5 + 2xTC. That might tell me thatusing Topaz 2x uprez in beats using the 2xTC, and/or that the R7 higher pixel density on the sensor is noticeably better than the R5 in showing this kind of distant detail. (I can only assume that the 100-500 should still give at least more detail than the 100-400)

Either way, I find this kind of comparison a really important one for all of us to see if we can get the focus points to be identical. It might even make some of us (myself included) decide to consider the R7 and/or Topaz uprez'ing now instead of using the R5 and/or 2xTC for distant birding shots. Or it might make me hope to see a future R full frame sensor with even higher MP which would give similar (or maybe better) distant sharp images as compared to the R7?

I suppose the best thing would be a comparison (with the same lens) of a distant image with the same eye focus from the R5 and R7 alone, and another such comparison using a 2xTC vs Topaz 2x uprez so that we could compare them independently?

It depends on distance and the degree of detail whether an extender helps. If the subject is sufficiently close that there is enough detail resolved, in my experience about 1200x1200 pixels or greater per bird, then the extender does not give sufficient extra detail, degrades IQ, and doubling using gigapixel is at least as good and maybe better. Other factors such as light and movement come into it, with lower light mediating against the longer lens, in all cases the results depend on the degree of aberration introduced by the extender. At longer distances or smaller subjects, the extender wins out. Here, we both had good focus on the eyes and head - two screenshots from DPP, one from 400mm on the R7 (1st), the other 1000mm on the R5 (2nd). Remember, as the sensor gets more and more dense, eventually only the diameter of the lens and not its focal length determines diffraction limited resolution. The take home lesson for me from this last session is that I use the 2x extender too much on the R7 and R5.

 

[usern4cr]

One of my annoyances with the R5 and M6II is that the focus will drift a bit during a burst, but it will still draw a "Yes, this is in focus!" rectangle around the slightly-out-of-focus section. I've only seen this happening using eye-AF, but that's the mode I'm in for >90% of the pictures I take.

The R8 hasn't really done that yet, but I've only used that for a few weeks so far.

I'm also usually in the eye AF mode when taking (R5) birding/animal photos. I have also noticed a frequent blurriness when I take a 3 frame exposure compensation burst of photos. I usually use H (hi speed, but not H+) mode, and electronic 1st curtain, with bracketing sequence -0+. The blurriness could often be a result of a slower shutter in the 0+ images when the shutter speed gets low. So I'm not really sure if it's a problem with the eye AF changing with bracketed shots as it may be just the slower shutter speed effect.

 

[koenkooi]

I'm also usually in the eye AF mode when taking (R5) birding/animal photos. I have also noticed a frequent blurriness when I take a 3 frame exposure compensation burst of photos. I usually use H (hi speed, but not H+) mode, and electronic 1st curtain, with bracketing sequence -0+. The blurriness could often be a result of a slower shutter in the 0+ images when the shutter speed gets low. So I'm not really sure if it's a problem with the eye AF changing with bracketed shots as it may be just the slower shutter speed effect.

When using the electronic shutter I also see the drift and things just in front or behind the intended focal plane are sharp. But I've also had situations like you're describing, which I attribute to me being not steady enough in between shots

 

[Aussie shooter]

Wouldn´t it be advantegeous for Canon to make it compatible with other RF-glasses as well ? At least I hope it will. Could be used with RF 70-200mm:s and hopefully also with RF 100-500mm for the whole focal length.

Not necessarily. Chances are in order to optimize it for the big whites it won't be very effective with other lenses. I have an ef 2x teleconverter and it is honestly s#$t with my 70-200 2.8.

 

[SwissFrank]

One of my annoyances with the R5 and M6II is that the focus will drift a bit during a burst, but it will still draw a "Yes, this is in focus!" rectangle around the slightly-out-of-focus section. I've only seen this happening using eye-AF, but that's the mode I'm in for >90% of the pictures I take.

Are you in servo AF or one-shot AF? What you describe may be in fact how one-shot is meant to work on this model, I'm not sure. And I've NEVER seen this even once on the R5 although you may well shoot far far far more than I do.

 

[usern4cr]

It depends on distance and the degree of detail whether an extender helps. If the subject is sufficiently close that there is enough detail resolved, in my experience about 1200x1200 pixels or greater per bird, then the extender does not give sufficient extra detail, degrades IQ, and doubling using gigapixel is at least as good and maybe better. Other factors such as light and movement come into it, with lower light mediating against the longer lens, in all cases the results depend on the degree of aberration introduced by the extender. At longer distances or smaller subjects, the extender wins out. Here, we both had good focus on the eyes and head - two screenshots from DPP, one from 400mm on the R7 (1st), the other 1000mm on the R5 (2nd). Remember, as the sensor gets more and more dense, eventually only the diameter of the lens and not its focal length determines diffraction limited resolution. The take home lesson for me from this last session is that I use the 2x extender too much on the R7 and R5.

View attachment 209405View attachment 209406

Thanks for the feedback and eye AF box photo, AlanF! It shows that the eyeAF "should" be on the eye in both shots.

But as I pixel peep on both images, the first one is in drastically better(sharper) focus than the 2nd one around the eye/face area. Do you think that it's just a result of luck where the AF focuses in one shot versus many other shots it could have taken (kind of like "focusing shot noise")? Maybe there was a significant difference in shutter speed or motion of the duck between them? I'm starting to think that the eye AF shot accuracy and motion blur might have had more of an effect than the R5 vs R7 or 2xTC vs Topaz 2x?

I wonder if a test setup with same lens and "stuffed (taxidermied) duck" at distance with a camera on tripod is needed to really see the difference between R5 vs R7, 2xTC vs Topaz 2x? Or Maybe the R7 with a newer higher res sensor and (maybe) newer AF software was better at zeroing in on the exact eye position within the displayed box to decide on the focus value?

Personally, I'd be hoping that not using a 2xTC and instead using Topaz 2x would be the best thing to do in general, since that's the easiest & cheapest solution and you retain the full zoom range of the 100-500 lens (which is the one I have) with either the R5 or R7.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for the feedback and eye AF box photo, AlanF! It shows that the eyeAF "should" be on the eye in both shots.

But as I pixel peep on both images, the first one is in drastically better(sharper) focus than the 2nd one around the eye/face area. Do you think that it's just a result of luck where the AF focuses in one shot versus many other shots it could have taken (kind of like "focusing shot noise")? Maybe there was a significant difference in shutter speed or motion of the duck between them? I'm starting to think that the eye AF shot accuracy and motion blur might have had more of an effect than the R5 vs R7 or 2xTC vs Topaz 2x?

I wonder if a test setup with same lens and "stuffed (taxidermied) duck" at distance with a camera on tripod is needed to really see the difference between R5 vs R7, 2xTC vs Topaz 2x? Or Maybe the R7 with a newer higher res sensor and (maybe) newer AF software was better at zeroing in on the exact eye position within the displayed box to decide on the focus value?

Personally, I'd be hoping that not using a 2xTC and instead using Topaz 2x would be the best thing to do in general, since that's the easiest & cheapest solution and you retain the full zoom range of the 100-500 lens (which is the one I have) with either the R5 or R7.

All of the shots with the 2x were worse this time - I did many. My wife just points her camera in the right direction and shoots away! I used my elbows as a "tripod" in the hide, resting on the ledge. I have done many tests in the past using a tripod and 2D charts, and the 2xTC increased the final resolution by 1.4x over the naked lens - it resolving power at 1000mm f/14 is like that of a 700mm lens compared with the bare lens at 500mm, f/7.1. I don't have any stuffed ducks but I have compared shots in the past on real ducks with the 2xTC on and off, and usually the 2xTC is slightly better.

 

[koenkooi]

Are you in servo AF or one-shot AF? What you describe may be in fact how one-shot is meant to work on this model, I'm not sure. And I've NEVER seen this even once on the R5 although you may well shoot far far far more than I do.

In servo, always