The Kenko or APS CF Variable AUTO TELEPLUS 2X-3X.
You can get one for Canon FD mount for 20€ with a 6 month warranty
see:Kenko CF Variable AUTO TELEPLUS 2X-3X (per CANON FD)
www.rcefoto.com
Upvote
0
Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM to get that desired 1.4x built-in teleconverter?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
You can get one for Canon FD mount for 20€ with a 6 month warranty
see:
www.rcefoto.com
I didn't know you were into Japanese martial arts as well as cameras. I think I prefer to exchange words with you rather than blows.
Upvote
0
I’m gonna blame Siri for that one. At least it’s better than what autocorrect does to Tamron if you neglect to capitalize the ‘T’.
Upvote
0
The rumored price (august 2023) was $ 15.999.
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-usm-update-cr2/
Upvote
0
Kendo or Ronco?
Not sure who made my TC/macro tube thingie. I think it was some Goldberg guy…first name “Rube”, maybe…
Upvote
0
Why doesn't a 400mm f/2.8 with a built in 1.4x tc that weighs under 5.5 lbs (2.5 kg) make sense to anyone but me? That would take care of the 400mm f/2.8 and the 600mm f/4 with one tidy lens. Even if it cost a ton.
As for the rumored zoom in Nov, I am just hoping for some sort of 200-500mm f/4 that weighs under 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs). With our without a built in TC. I'm almost willing to accept the ridiculous price they would put on it at this point.
What would most people prefer to see? A 400mm f/2.8 with a built in TC or a 200-500 f/4 without a built in TC? If you had to choose between the two, and assuming price was not a concern.
As for the rumored zoom in Nov, I am just hoping for some sort of 200-500mm f/4 that weighs under 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs). With our without a built in TC. I'm almost willing to accept the ridiculous price they would put on it at this point.
What would most people prefer to see? A 400mm f/2.8 with a built in TC or a 200-500 f/4 without a built in TC? If you had to choose between the two, and assuming price was not a concern.
Upvote
0
The Canon 100-300 mm f2.8 weighs in at 5.7 lbs officially so I doubt the 200-500 mm f4 will weigh less. especially since it will have a larger front lens element (300/2.8 = 107 vs. 500/4 = 125). More realistically, I would expect the 200-500 mm f4 to weigh in around 7 lbs.
Personally I would take a 200-500 f4 zoom instead of a fixed focal length with a built in TC, but that is just me. A 200-500 mm f4 with 1.4x TC becomes a 280-700 mm f5.6 which is perfect for the vast majority of wildlife photography. With that said a 400 mm f2.8 lens is one of my favorites as well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The RF 400 f/2.8L IS USM is 2890g, and you need to add the TC for weight as well. Less than 2.9kg is incredibly light, as the previous EF generations were 3.85kg and 5.37kg (the EF-RF extension weights 50g).
Upvote
0
Nikon has what you are asking for with the Z 400mm f/2.8 TC (not quite the weight you are looking for — that lens weighs 2,950g or 6.5 pounds). And you are right it costs a ton — $2000 more than Canon RF.
I suspect the weight is hard to cut and still have the lens be robust.
Upvote
0
I've been waiting to see ANY final version of the long-awaited 200-500. With or without a TC.
We have a EF 400 2.8 with adapter, plus with the 1.4 III and 2.0 III TC, and the RF 100-500. A fixed focal length is problematic when sitting on the edge of a duck pond where one might find action 30 foot away or 150 foot away. (Has anyone ever found a Buffelhead that wasn't skittish?)
The 100-500 is a great walkabout lens for birding etc. But only during the day. Once you hit dusk it's just too slow. So I'm hoping for basically a faster 100-500. An f/4 200-500 would be much faster of course, with a front element larger than 300 f/2.8 but smaller than the 400 f/2.8. Even if it's ultimately too heavy for walkabout, it'd be awesome with a gimbal and a tripod. It would also be super versatile and could cut down on the total number of lenses to pack/carry.
I think what we would really be getting is an extra 30 minutes of prime light both in the morning and in the evening when compared against the existing 100-500.
We have a EF 400 2.8 with adapter, plus with the 1.4 III and 2.0 III TC, and the RF 100-500. A fixed focal length is problematic when sitting on the edge of a duck pond where one might find action 30 foot away or 150 foot away. (Has anyone ever found a Buffelhead that wasn't skittish?)
The 100-500 is a great walkabout lens for birding etc. But only during the day. Once you hit dusk it's just too slow. So I'm hoping for basically a faster 100-500. An f/4 200-500 would be much faster of course, with a front element larger than 300 f/2.8 but smaller than the 400 f/2.8. Even if it's ultimately too heavy for walkabout, it'd be awesome with a gimbal and a tripod. It would also be super versatile and could cut down on the total number of lenses to pack/carry.
I think what we would really be getting is an extra 30 minutes of prime light both in the morning and in the evening when compared against the existing 100-500.
Upvote
0
Canon have proposed in a patent for a 400-600mm f2.8-f4 zoom lens which will fullfill both niches very well. However...it needs to be rediculously sharp because most users of these lenses need the 1.4x and 2x TC extenders for the extra reach. So when someone buys a 600/f4, what tehy are really buying is a 600/f4, 840/f5.6, 1200/f8. All of which need to be sharp on an R5's 45mp sensor.
I regularly use a 2x TC on my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and it makes a very sharp 800mm f5.6. I want to try a 2x and a 1,4x TC soon, just to see how it fares optically.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 380853
Guest
Stacking TC's requires using the Version II 2x because the Version III models will not mount to each other. I have tested these with a EF 300 2.8 as well as the EF 200-400/4 TC onto a Fuji GFX 100ii and on canon r5ii and nikon z9.
The mk2 EF 2x is not as good as the mk3 and makes this combo less than optimal.
Upvote
0
You can stack a EF extender with an RF extender if you use a modified EF-RF adapter.
I do that with the EF200-400, so I get to 2240mm (400x2x2x1.4) for astro-fun. The trouble is the movement in the wind and vibration in general.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 380853
Guest
yes, i've heard of that solution but assumed we were discussing standard methods. I have yet to modify a canon Ef-R adapter but I would like to try this out sometime, mainly because of potential higher IQ using an R 2x with EF 2x iii instead of having to use the older EF 2x ii.
Upvote
0
No need to modify Canon's EF-RF adapter - for two reasons: (a) cost, and (b) a lot of material needs to be removed.
Instead grab Commlite's adapter like Neuro and I have done: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...ers-on-the-ef-600-4l-is-ii.41215/#post-923641
While I haven't done a proper test, my impression is that combining the internal 1.4x with an external 2x is not worth it. It seems that there is quite a resolution/quality drop from 1600mm (400mm +2x EF + 2x RF) to 2240mm (400mm+1.4x + 2x EF + 2x RF).
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 380853
Guest
I appreciate the info but I would now probably never need to stack any tele ext onto the EF 200-400/4 TC because I have longer better lenses to start from. The Nikkor Z 600mm F4 TC 1.4x works quite well with a double ext. I've used it with the 2x and internal 1.4 with good results when the conditions are right for it.
Upvote
0
No....you don't say....gee where have I been going wrong all these years.....
Thank you for re-gurtitating common knowledge on this forum.
Upvote
0
Absolutely a fair point. The longer/better the starting point, the higher potential for final IQ.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
