Here are the Canon RF 1.4x and Canon RF 2.0x teleconverter specifications

Mar 18, 2018
5
6
I'm not convinced that they won't be compatible. It's possible the statement above is just to associate the new TCs with the new glass.

We need the formal release document that flags what is / is not compatible. No ability to TC a 70-200 would be a hell of a takeaway for the EF faithful, wouldn't it?

- A
That would be a major disappointment! A big part of the attractiveness of a 2.8 telezoom is to be extendable. Anyway that was a fixed consideration / the planned next investment step for my 70-200.
 

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
91
121
I'm intrigued by the 800mm lens. I've never had success with the 2.0x TC, so with a 1.4x, we're at f/16, right? Paint me skeptical, but I've gotten very few acceptable shots at f/22, but f/16 has worked for me. The other, perhaps bigger concern, is locking on to an image at 1120mm. When I put my 2x onto my 100-400 (or my 1.4x onto my 200-600mm), I often struggle to find my target in the vf an this is at 800-840mm. BIF is even harder. Now pushing out to 1120mm (I'm not thinking about 1600mm), it strikes me that BIF photography will take skill why beyond my abilities even if the IQ is good.

If the reviews are positive, I will probably hold off on TCs until I've mastered 800mm and then think about whether increasing my reach will provide enough of a gain to justify the purchase of a TC.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,377
259
I love the 2x option on my EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. It effectively killed off the need to get a 100-400 L II (given how infrequently I shoot longer than 200mm).

- A
I swung the opposite way. The 100-400 II made using the 70-200 with TCs obsolete. The 100-400 II is lighter and handles easier than the 70-200 + TCs, and prevented a lot of TC swaps.
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
Aug 16, 2012
6,821
5,825
On average for a 50 Mpx sensor, decreasing the aperture from f/11 to f/22 decreases MTF50 and higher values by ~40%. So doubling the focal lengths of the f/11 lens by adding a 2xTC will double the resolution due to length and then halve it by diffraction and image degradation by the TC. In other words, more pixels on target but no increase in resolution.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,377
259
There are some disadvantages beyond simple cost. For instance, I personally take photos of wildlife and, to a lesser extent, landscapes. I often go on long hikes with lots of climbing, which sometimes means making a tough choice regarding which of my lenses to bring with me for the day if I can't bring them all. Back in the olden days (pre-COVID), when travel was allowed, I also brought my equipment on small planes with (ridiculously) small size and weight luggage allowances (thank goodness for travel photo vests with large pockets ;)).
When having to make choices regarding which equipment to bring, a 70-200 with TCs is a very strong contender against a 100-400 or 100-500, as the ability to not use the TCs opens up the benefits for low light and shallow DOF, and the ability to use them helps with reach when needed (which is often). Not having that TC option makes the applications of the two lenses completely different, meaning you are more likely to "need" both. Totally fine when size and weight (and money) are not an issue, but arguably a major drawback for those of us who are carrying gear around for hours on end and who are sick of arguing with airport check in staff about why we refuse to put items made of glass in our checked luggage.
Lucky for you, you still have that choice. RF adapter + EF TCs + EF 70-200. I never traveled with both the 70-200 and the 100-400. I chose one or the other. For indoor events or portraits 70-200, but when I traveled or shot outdoor sports, the 100-400 won out every time.

The 70-200 III is about 8 in and 3.5 lb. The 2x TC brings adds 0.8 lb and about 2 in and the 1.4x TC adds 0.5 and about 1 in. So you'd be carrying 4.8 lb instead of the new RF 100-500, which is 3 lb and gives you an additional 100mm at the long end. I'd much prefer lugging the RF 100-500 on hikes rather than a 70-200 with TCs. When only the original 100-400 was available, I stuck with the 70-200 and the TCs and skipped the 100-400, but the 100-400 II had much better IQ, weighed less, required less swapping and handled a lot better than the 70-200 + TCs ever did. If weight was a primary driver and I wanted to get to 400mm or more, then the 100-400/100-500 would win every time. So yes, I think the primary differentiator is cost for most travel scenarios. 15-35 or 16-35, a midrange zoom or a 50mm prime, and a telephoto (100-400/100-500) is about as a light as you get while covering a huge focal length range.

Personally, my experience with the 70-200 with TCs was that 1.4x was OK, but I avoided the 2x. It was comparable to the original 100-400 but couldn't match the 100-400 II. From time to time, I'd use the 1.4x with the 100-400 II, but again, I avoided the 2x. The 2x seems to perform "better" on the great whites which are even sharper than the 70-200/100-400 zooms. If Canon were to retain compatibility with the TCs for the 70-200, then I think the RF version would have been similar in size and weight to the EF 70-200 III or the Sony 70-200 GM. The distinguishing features of the RF 100-500 are its extended range and its weight relative to the its EF counterpart. The distinguishing features of the RF 70-200 are its reduced size and weight. For event/sport photographers using multiple lenses and bodies at the same time, the compact nature of and reduced weight of the RF 70-200 outweighs its incompatibility with TCs. If one travels with both 70-200 and 100-400, then again the RF solution wins in size and weight. The scenario where RF doesn't win outright is the one you picked, but that option still remains to you on the R system if you use adapted EF glass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,377
259
I just tested it. It moves.
Technically, the TCs could be used on the 70-300L but only at the longer focal lengths. I tried it for the novelty of it, but it's not a good solution worrying about marking/damaging the rear element of the lens.
 

BakaBokeh

EOS 90D
May 16, 2020
129
209
Technically, the TCs could be used on the 70-300L but only at the longer focal lengths. I tried it for the novelty of it, but it's not a good solution worrying about marking/damaging the rear element of the lens.
Yeah, it leaves the door open for the RF 70-200 to work with the TC's, but I'm done speculating. Just wait til Thursday when all will be set in stone. I kinda went on a rollercoaster hoping to use TC's with the RF 70-200, then seeing the initial leaked images which ruled out that configuration. That got me lusting for the 100-500. Then we get a rumor saying they will work with all lenses which got my hopes up again. Now I'm back to mentally preparing myself to save up for the 100-500.
 

BakaBokeh

EOS 90D
May 16, 2020
129
209
Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.
I think it goes without saying it wouldn't be as good. It's for those who don't have the budget or want to spend another ~$3K, but would like to have extra reach.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,377
259
Anyone else notice that the installed lengths of the RF TCs are shorter than the EF TCs? RF 2x TC saves about 1 cm, and RF 1.4x saves about 0.5 cm.... Not huge, but welcome. Too bad the weight didn't decrease...

I am curious as to why the 2x is being released now. Does Canon really expect people to use it with the 100-500 or the f/11 lenses? Wouldn't it have made more sense to release the TCs with the supertelephoto primes?
 
Apr 12, 2020
8
6
Are we sure these photos are accurate? They're the same photos as we got with the original rumor some months ago. They may be an artist rendering based on assumptions about the RF mount. Shallower protrusions would enable use with RF 70-200mm.
Look at the EF 1.4X. That protrusion looks shallow enough. A similar form factor in the RF model should work with most RF lenses.
Canon-RF-70-200mm-F2.8-L-IS-Lens-Mount.jpg
Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-IIIt.png

Canon would be crazy to introduce teleconverters that only work with some lenses.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

tiggy@mac.com

Pentax K-1000
Jan 20, 2014
603
409
Thetford, VT
www.ForestMetrix.com
Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.
I'm not complaining about the lack of TC compatibility with the new RF 70-200, but I will say that you could get some decent shots with the EF 70-200 II while magnified. Here's a couple, one with the 2x, and one with the 1.4x. In the case of the nuthatch at 2x, I needed to use my 100-400 II on something else, and this was handy to be able to install the 70-200 + 2x III as a remote unit on an intervalometer. In the case of the squirrel, it was shot by hand with the 1.4x TC III (and therefor I got to choose the focus point).

I always preferred my 100-400 II in these cases, but there were reasons why having the option were useful occasionally.

https://adobe.ly/3fhMnb7
 

tiggy@mac.com

Pentax K-1000
Jan 20, 2014
603
409
Thetford, VT
www.ForestMetrix.com
Anyone else notice that the installed lengths of the RF TCs are shorter than the EF TCs? RF 2x TC saves about 1 cm, and RF 1.4x saves about 0.5 cm.... Not huge, but welcome. Too bad the weight didn't decrease...

I am curious as to why the 2x is being released now. Does Canon really expect people to use it with the 100-500 or the f/11 lenses? Wouldn't it have made more sense to release the TCs with the supertelephoto primes?
Yeah, but then it would have made sense to release the 5-series-level body with the pro lenses last year too, no? :)

I think often the release timing has more to do when things are ready with Canon of late. I doubt there is a business school professor somewhere using Canon's release schedule as a case study in exemplary system roll-out.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,377
259
Yeah, but then it would have made sense to release the 5-series-level body with the pro lenses last year too, no? :)

I think often the release timing has more to do when things are ready with Canon of late. I doubt there is a business school professor somewhere using Canon's release schedule as a case study in exemplary system roll-out.
Agreed. I just wonder how many question Canon is going to field for people complaining about performance when attaching the new TCs to the f/11 lenses. I would have just liked to see another RF lens or two rather than the TCs.
 

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
317
203
Anybody complaining about this not fitting the 70 to 200, please post a few great shots you took with the EF version of the combo.
Great is always subjective :) .. as others indicated, sometimes when you travel and space is an issue 70-200 + TC is a better option than two large lenses. Correct the quality isn't same, but getting a shot is better than not at all because you left you other lens at home. This was a decent example with 70-200 2.8 v1 and 1.4x tc v1. Had to downsample to upload here. This is 280mm on a Canon 80D (so also 1.6x)
 

Attachments