Canon RF 2x Extender - anyone used one?

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,834
8,825
The RF 1.4xTC works well on my 100-500mm and R5 with excellent AF and after some sharpening at 700mm it's pretty close to the RF 800mm in resolution and IQ. I am intrigued as to how well the RF 2x performs in terms of AF and IQ on the 100-500mm in particular. It's so expensive, that it would cost not much more to buy an 800mm RF. But, if the IQ etc are good, it would be tempting to have one in my kit for the occasional 1000mm f/14 shot. I'd be grateful for any first hand experience or for pointers to any reviews (TDP has image quality with it only on the 800mm).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jprusa

bhf3737

---
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
626
1,277
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
I will have RF 2.0xTC this coming weekend on loan and will try it with RF 100-500mm and will post some results here if weather allows. Based on my own experience so far, RF 800 has better IQ that 100-500 + 1.x TC but is less flexible. So I don't expect 100-500 + 2.0xTC to pull a rabbit out of hat, but let's see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,834
8,825
I will have RF 2.0xTC this coming weekend on loan and will try it with RF 100-500mm and will post some results here if weather allows. Based on my own experience so far, RF 800 has better IQ that 100-500 + 1.x TC but is less flexible. So I don't expect 100-500 + 2.0xTC to pull a rabbit out of hat, but let's see.
Thanks and looking forward to your findings. I have done testing of the 800mm vs 100-500mm + 1.4xTC and usern4cr more so. The RF 800 does have the edge but as you say the zoom has the flexibility. I am very tempted by the 800 but having the 100-500 and my style of nature photography being opportunistic I am suppressing the GAS. Judging by my results of the EF 2xTC with the 100-400mm II, I am not hopeful. But as you write, let's see.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
322
242
@AlanF Is there something you want to see or have me check in particular?

I have the 100-500, 1.4x, & 2x. I can't directly check against the 600 or 800 because I went with the combo I did for flexibility. Also, I recently used the 100-500+2x (600-1000 effective) while I was at a Blue Angel's practice... which I was fairly happy w/ the results.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,834
8,825
@AlanF Is there something you want to see or have me check in particular?

I have the 100-500, 1.4x, & 2x. I can't directly check against the 600 or 800 because I went with the combo I did for flexibility. Also, I recently used the 100-500+2x (600-1000 effective) while I was at a Blue Angel's practice... which I was fairly happy w/ the results.
I am interested in seeing the quality at 1000mm - I'm with you for flexibility, and want to see if it's worthwhile getting the 2x.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
322
242
Long - at 700mm and below, the 1.4xTC will be better.

Yes, but's it's nice to know how much IQ you would lose if you dip in the 600-700 range.

Here's the situation I was in... I wanted the variable range, but knew I was mostly going to need the long end, but every once and a while was also going to need the 600.

I semi-decided to do a few at both ends of the range with each configuration to get an overlap. I'll shoot for getting something tomorrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,834
8,825
Yes, but's it's nice to know how much IQ you would lose if you dip in the 600-700 range.

Here's the situation I was in... I wanted the variable range, but knew I was mostly going to need the long end, but every once and a while was also going to need the 600.

I semi-decided to do a few at both ends of the range with each configuration to get an overlap. I'll shoot for getting something tomorrow.
Thanks, much appreciate.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
322
242
TLDR: The TC's are better than cropping.

So did a quick little test w/ no TC, 1.4, & 2.0. I really want to do a better one (not in a semi dark hallway) and with a better test subject (what I thought was a nice piece of paper with black text) ended up being gray-scale text with pixel shading (which I didn't realize until I reviewed the pictures as it was not noticeable looking at it with first glance).

However, I can give a quick summary of what I noticed.

The TC was always better than a crop w/o the TC or a crop on a smaller TC. The detail gained was pretty dramatic.

I would have no issues grabbing the 2.0x over the 1.4x even if I was going to be in the 600-700 range (the overlap of the 1.4 & 2.0) if the 1 stop loss wasn't a factor... the IQ loss at equivalent focal lengths between the 1.4 & 2.0 were negligible.

I'm not happy with this shot, but it was a quick succession of 'something quick' so I could make a reasonable comparison. The ISO was higher than I would have liked (can notice the noise when at 1:1), but it didn't really hinder confirming what I suspected.

What you are seeing is a very small portion of a screen capture of the RAW image w/o any retouching at 100% and 25% scale (I did it this way to show the details and keep the file size super small). It was shot at 1000mm (500+2x), 1/250th, ISO 6400, F14, handheld (and not steady at that). The subject was a cheap paper ruler to measure IPD (text was backwards due to it is meant to be read in a mirror). The large vertical black lines are 1cm apart (so the 100% scale is approx a real life 1cm square). This was shot at a distance of approximately 9 feet. The fact that I could clearly see each printed dot of the grayscale was pretty impressive.
 

Attachments

  • 2021-05-04_18-59-41.jpg
    2021-05-04_18-59-41.jpg
    369.4 KB · Views: 22
  • 2021-05-04_19-28-07.jpg
    2021-05-04_19-28-07.jpg
    83.8 KB · Views: 22
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF and jprusa

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,834
8,825
TLDR: The TC's are better than cropping.

So did a quick little test w/ no TC, 1.4, & 2.0. I really want to do a better one (not in a semi dark hallway) and with a better test subject (what I thought was a nice piece of paper with black text) ended up being gray-scale text with pixel shading (which I didn't realize until I reviewed the pictures as it was not noticeable looking at it with first glance).

However, I can give a quick summary of what I noticed.

The TC was always better than a crop w/o the TC or a crop on a smaller TC. The detail gained was pretty dramatic.

I would have no issues grabbing the 2.0x over the 1.4x even if I was going to be in the 600-700 range (the overlap of the 1.4 & 2.0) if the 1 stop loss wasn't a factor... the IQ loss at equivalent focal lengths between the 1.4 & 2.0 were negligible.

I'm not happy with this shot, but it was a quick succession of 'something quick' so I could make a reasonable comparison. The ISO was higher than I would have liked (can notice the noise when at 1:1), but it didn't really hinder confirming what I suspected.

What you are seeing is a very small portion of a screen capture of the RAW image w/o any retouching at 100% and 25% scale (I did it this way to show the details and keep the file size super small). It was shot at 1000mm (500+2x), 1/250th, ISO 6400, F14, handheld (and not steady at that). The subject was a cheap paper ruler to measure IPD (text was backwards due to it is meant to be read in a mirror). The large vertical black lines are 1cm apart (so the 100% scale is approx a real life 1cm square). This was shot at a distance of approximately 9 feet. The fact that I could clearly see each printed dot of the grayscale was pretty impressive.
Thanks for this, I have now ordered one. My old EF 2xTC III and one of my 1.4xTC II are being sold.
 
<-- start Taboola -->