RF TC = RF-RF or RF-EF?

David - Sydney

EOS T7i
Dec 7, 2014
89
55
www.flickr.com
Can we confirm that the announced RF TCs are RF to RF? RF-RF could only be used on the 100-500mm (if new DO super tele is not released soon) and @1000mm f/14 (2x) would have few use cases. They can't fit the RF70-200 due to how close the rear element is to the mount.

If they are RF to EF TCs then it would make some sense ie to avoid RF-EF adapter + EF 1.4/2x TC and use the existing big whites. This would fit the current RF roadmap rumour but wouldn't help with future RF big whites.
RF 1.4x TC.JPG
EF-EOS R mount adapter.JPG
EF 1.4x TC.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556 and Sharlin

David - Sydney

EOS T7i
Dec 7, 2014
89
55
www.flickr.com
This actually makes sense to me (not that that means anything). It would be handy to have TCs that can be mounted to an EF lens and used without having an extra adapter. Although it would be better if the TCs had a control ring.
Only an extra 3mm/20gm for the adapter with control ring vs none. The photo shows external length to be much shorter than the EF TC (and protruding lens about the same length).
It wouldn't make sense to have a control ring on the RF TC and a control ring on the RF lens so that may be one reason to suspect that they are RF-RF TCs.
Adapter ModelDimensionsWeight
Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R2.8 x 0.9" (71.2 x 24.0 mm)3.88 oz (110 g)
Canon Control Ring Mount Adapter EF-EOS R2.9 x 0.9" (74.4 x 24.0 mm)4.59 oz (130 g)
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,262
1,918
Canada
If you use a RF to Rf teleconverter, could you then put on a Rf to Ef converter and then you would not have to worry about the teleconverter hitting the rear of any EF lens.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bennymiata

Joules

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
619
576
Hamburg, Germany
Just looking at the pictures it seems the new 1.4 sticks far further into the lens than the EF one. Do the EF Tele lenses really have that much space back there? Would the current EF TCS not make use of that if it were the case?

Never used or seen a TC ever, so I'm just asking.
 

Codebunny

EOS RP
Sep 5, 2018
248
188
Does the stalk screw off? It looks like there is a definite line that is flush with the base. Though it is pure speculation on my part, mostly because there is nothing practical to use these with as it stands.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,362
2,096
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Just one more random thought. The picture makes it look like the RF extender sticks out a lot more than the EF extender, but some of that may be an illusion because the RF extender is thinner than the EF extender. The actual amount that the extender protrudes into the lens may not be any greater. (I know this still would mean that it couldn't be used on any RF lenses except the 500 zoom. )
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillB

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,440
701
If you use a RF to Rf teleconverter, could you then put on a Rf to Ef converter and then you would not have to worry about the teleconverter hitting the rear of any EF lens.....
That if works it would assume an EF lens so we would have EF tele - RF-EF- RF-teleconverter and it would be the same with EF tele - EF -teleconverter- RF-EF which by the way works (I have tested it with 400DOII,2XIII, RF-EF, EOS R). But all combinations make a chain of 4 items (camera plus the other 3) which is not practical. I would love a RF-EF teleconverter. That would make the use of big whites more practical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
738
496
That if works it would assume an EF lens so we would have EF tele - RF-EF- RF-teleconverter and it would be the same with EF tele - EF -teleconverter- RF-EF which by the way works (I have tested it with 400DOII,2XIII, RF-EF, EOS R). But all combinations make a chain of 4 items (camera plus the other 3) which is not practical. I would love a RF-EF teleconverter. That would make the use of big whites more practical.
And as someone repeatedly mentioned, it would remove a bunch of bajonet connections as well. I would like Canon to produce more lenses and adapters that can use the 'drop in A' filters from the RF filter adapter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,424
1,577
Alberta, Canada
And as someone repeatedly mentioned, it would remove a bunch of bajonet connections as well. I would like Canon to produce more lenses and adapters that can use the 'drop in A' filters from the RF filter adapter.
It's always the same old story. If only we could get Canon to listen but we probably don't represent the numbers necessary for it to be economically feasible. :cry: On the other hand there are many who own big whites and other expensive EF lenses that might be enticed to R if EF to RF gave more options, so I'm not giving up hope.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,440
701
It's always the same old story. If only we could get Canon to listen but we probably don't represent the numbers necessary for it to be economically feasible. :cry: On the other hand there are many who own big whites and other expensive EF lenses that might be enticed to R if EF to RF gave more options, so I'm not giving up hope.

Jack
Well there are also some of us who may still wishing for a 7DIII but Canon will not satisfy them. I believe many (or ex) 7DII owners are birders since casual shooters would not need a 7DII. And birders usually have one or more big whites. Would it kill Canon to make a D500 killer? (pun half-intended :) )
They could just put a new crop sensor (preferably without an AA filter) into the same body. That's it!
It would sell a lot (of course this is just my opinion).
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,362
2,096
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Well there are also some of us who may still wishing for a 7DIII but Canon will not satisfy them. I believe many (or ex) 7DII owners are birders since casual shooters would not need a 7DII. And birders usually have one or more big whites. Would it kill Canon to make a D500 killer? (pun half-intended :) )
They could just put a new crop sensor (preferably without an AA filter) into the same body. That's it!
It would sell a lot (of course this is just my opinion).
I would love to see the market research that showed a 90D was a better choice than a 7DIII. Nothing wrong with the 90D. I bought my wife one to replace her 80D. But, I know I would have bought two 7DIIIs (one for each of us) if they had gone that route. And you are right, just pop in a new sensor, add more f8 focus points, touch screen and you are good to go.

As for the D500...well Nikon apparently killed that off too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron and jprusa

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,347
4,464
I would love to see the market research that showed a 90D was a better choice than a 7DIII. Nothing wrong with the 90D. I bought my wife one to replace her 80D. But, I know I would have bought two 7DIIIs (one for each of us) if they had gone that route. And you are right, just pop in a new sensor, add more f8 focus points, touch screen and you are good to go.

As for the D500...well Nikon apparently killed that off too.
I shoot both the 90D and the D500. The D500 is in a totally different league for AF, which is far, far better than the 7DII's or the 90D in terms of both consistency and for following BIF. So, why do I use the 90D? Because of the 100-400 mm II - there is no other zoom for me that gets near it. But, the same is true as a portable prime for the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF, which is as good as the 400mm DO II but much lighter. The 90D's sensor is very good at low iso and good at higher. It outresolves the 20 mpx Nikon at low iso but the Nikon takes over at higher isos of about 1000 or more.
 

jdavidse

EOS T7i
Sep 13, 2012
71
60
Can we confirm that the announced RF TCs are RF to RF? RF-RF could only be used on the 100-500mm (if new DO super tele is not released soon) and @1000mm f/14 (2x) would have few use cases. They can't fit the RF70-200 due to how close the rear element is to the mount.

If they are RF to EF TCs then it would make some sense ie to avoid RF-EF adapter + EF 1.4/2x TC and use the existing big whites. This would fit the current RF roadmap rumour but wouldn't help with future RF big whites.
View attachment 188887View attachment 188888View attachment 188889
If they were RF to EF adapter/teleconverters, then they would not be two different lengths. The RF to EF adapter is simply a spacer- 20mm to be exact that moves the lens exactly that much further from the sensor. The 2x extender looks to be about twice the thickness of the 1.4x. So, no, there is no way these double as EF adapters.

What I find most interesting is why are they releasing these now, if they are compatible with just one lens? A 1000mm f14 lens is not quite useful if you buy the 2x. The 1.4 gives you something much more usable. Sure, they will sell more of these down the road, when there are more suitable lenses released. But why now? Unless there is another RF big white being announced this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

David - Sydney

EOS T7i
Dec 7, 2014
89
55
www.flickr.com
If they were RF to EF adapter/teleconverters, then they would not be two different lengths. The RF to EF adapter is simply a spacer- 20mm to be exact that moves the lens exactly that much further from the sensor. The 2x extender looks to be about twice the thickness of the 1.4x. So, no, there is no way these double as EF adapters.

What I find most interesting is why are they releasing these now, if they are compatible with just one lens? A 1000mm f14 lens is not quite useful if you buy the 2x. The 1.4 gives you something much more usable. Sure, they will sell more of these down the road, when there are more suitable lenses released. But why now? Unless there is another RF big white being announced this year.
My 1.4x and 2x are different lengths. The adapter length doesn't have to be clear space - otherwise it would be a mechanical version of an adapter + EF-EF TC welded together. An RF-EF TCs could have the optics using the same space as what an adapter spacer would take up. Makes perfect sense for using EF big whites.
I agree with the timing issue. I would be surprised if an RF-RF 1.4x TC could not be used on the 100-500mm lens but 2x is a different story. Releasing a 400mm DO makes perfect sense with RF-RF TCs.