Thanks so much, Stu_bert. I've haven't done this kind of thing before, and would really like to thank AlanF for his ideas and previous work and for helping to make it a more readable & (hopefully) enjoyable form.John and Alan,
amazing work, meticulous focus on comparing the lenses in a fair way.
Thanks for the hard work, intellectual work and sharing it in an easily digestible format.
For me, this is the sort of comparative reviews which are really informative about making purchases. I wish review sites would do more like this but I guess there is a lot more effort doing what you’ve done.
Many thanks again.
Thanks, Zim. If you ever have the chance to get a R5 and the RF 100-500L pair, that's a really sweet combination all by itself.Indeed great stuff, that's a lot of commitment, work and time.
I don't have RF kit but still picked up a couple of interesting processing points that I'll be having a little play with!
Thank you
Thanks, Zim. If you ever have the chance to get a R5 and the RF 100-500L pair, that's a really sweet combination all by itself.
You can see some more tests here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/Hello! I own a Canon R5 and 800mm f11. I am really close to my savings goal to pick up the 100-500 L. I WAS planning to sell off the 800mm to help afford the 1.4x teleconverter, as i was under the impression an L lens would be heads above this 'cheap' 800 f11 lens, even with a teleconverter.
Your test has now showed me otherwise. It appears per your test, The 100-500L is as sharp as the 800mm both without the TC, but when the TC is involved, the 800 with and without the TC appear sharper. DId I interpret these results correctly?
If i want more detail at a subject that is far away, would i be better using the bare 100-500mm or the 800mm (if i have it with me at the time) and forgetting the TC all together? Many suggest there is absolutely no quality loss and their 1.4x TC lives on their 100-500mm, but your test proves thats just not true.
Have you used the ef100-400 II on the R5 and if so how would you say it compares to the RF 100-500?You can see some more tests here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/
The 800mm does perform very well, but so does the 100-500mm at 700mm and 1000mm. The 100-500mm + RF 2xTC outresolves the bare 800mm. There are other criteria that are more important. If you want to take close objects, then the 100-500mm is far more suitable. If you do birds in flight, then the 800mm has a more narrow field of view and slower AF than the bare 100-500mm or it with the RF 1.4x. I keep the 800mm f/11 for more specialist use and use the 100-500mm as my go to lens.
Have you used the ef100-400 II on the R5 and if so how would you say it compares to the RF 100-500?
Thank you that is helpful.@JohnC - FWIW, I had the 100-400ii, and a really good one that produced excellent results on the R5 with an adapter. But, I've since sold it and now use the RF 100-500 with no regrets. A little more reach with no need for the adapter and excellent IQ but each is a raelly great lens.
Many thanks to Alan and John for this fascinating evaluation.
If there ever is an RF 400DO that will work with the TCs, I might be going that way. I am lucky enough to have an EF 300 f/2.8ii (what an amazing lens even with a 2x TC) but it is not seeing much use these days and I am thinking of selling it. Who knows?
You can see some more tests here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/
The 800mm does perform very well, but so does the 100-500mm at 700mm and 1000mm. The 100-500mm + RF 2xTC outresolves the bare 800mm. There are other criteria that are more important. If you want to take close objects, then the 100-500mm is far more suitable. If you do birds in flight, then the 800mm has a more narrow field of view and slower AF than the bare 100-500mm or it with the RF 1.4x. I keep the 800mm f/11 for more specialist use and use the 100-500mm as my go to lens.
Since I bought the 800 f11 and also bought the RF 1.4x TC, I have chosen to leave the 1.4x on the 800 as if it was a single lens. If I want a really long focal range and don't care about closer focusing, then the 800 & 1.4x is super lightweight and is a joy to use for that purpose and is sharp enough for my purposes.Hello! I own a Canon R5 and 800mm f11. I am really close to my savings goal to pick up the 100-500 L. I WAS planning to sell off the 800mm to help afford the 1.4x teleconverter, as i was under the impression an L lens would be heads above this 'cheap' 800 f11 lens, even with a teleconverter.
Your test has now showed me otherwise. It appears per your test, The 100-500L is as sharp as the 800mm both without the TC, but when the TC is involved, the 800 with and without the TC appear sharper. DId I interpret these results correctly?
If i want more detail at a subject that is far away, would i be better using the bare 100-500mm or the 800mm (if i have it with me at the time) and forgetting the TC all together? Many suggest there is absolutely no quality loss and their 1.4x TC lives on their 100-500mm, but your test proves thats just not true.
A lot and the comments are spread over various threads. If you shoot in the range 100-400mm only, then the 100-400mm II is marginally better than than the 100-500 at 400mm and marginally worse at 100mm, and no real difference in AF etc. The EF at 560mm with the 1.4xTC, is about the same as the the RF at 500mm for resolution or marginally better and not much different in other ways. The 100-500mm leaps ahead with the RF 1.4x and 2x if you want to shoot at 700mm and 1000mm, and better than the EF at 800mm. Based on my experience with one copy of the 100-500mm and 3 of the EF.Have you used the ef100-400 II on the R5 and if so how would you say it compares to the RF 100-500?
We are very much in complete agreement here. I would say that I have a higher regard for the RF 1.4x on the 100-500mm. The default setting for lens sharpness in DxO PL softens the lens at 700mm and needs to be set to global +2. Conversely, it oversharpens the lens with the RF 2x at 1000mm and needs to be set at at -1 or so for well focussed images. You see the benefit of extenders at distances where the fine details are just out of the range of resolution of the bare lens and just within the range with the extender. I think we have both toyed with selling the 800 f/11. But, I have fun with the 800 + TCs. Two nights ago, I played with the 2x on the 800 vs 2x on the 100-500mm taking photos of the moon. The 1000mm actually gave me sharper details. But, I took shots of Jupiter and could just make out at the colours at 1600mm in an 80px80px image.Since I bought the 800 f11 and also bought the RF 1.4x TC, I have chosen to leave the 1.4x on the 800 as if it was a single lens. If I want a really long focal range and don't care about closer focusing, then the 800 & 1.4x is super lightweight and is a joy to use for that purpose and is sharp enough for my purposes.
I have the RF 100-500L and it is absolutely my favorite lens. But I don't have a RF 2x TC (well, yet). And I'm not a fan of putting on a TC on the 100-500 since you end up with a minimum focal length of 300mm * 1.4x (or 2x). But if I wanted to take a single lens and a single TC for long distance flexibility, then I would take the 100-500 and RF 2x where I'd use (or not use) the 2x on it as the situation needs. I wouldn't bother with the 1.4X on the 100-500 as it's not worth losing the wider angles for only a 1.4X longer range (to me), so if I'm going to bother with doing that then I'd only want the 2X put on it, and AlanF has shown how great that combo is!
If you're car camping, then I'd take the 100-500 (with no TC!) and the <800 + 1.4X combo> so that I have an easy lens change between them for 100-500 or 1120 mm. Personally, I find changing the TC in and out to be a PITA, but that's just me and that's why this combination is appealing since it eliminates changing the TC's in & out.
Is that in any way stacked, or just a single image?We are very much in complete agreement here. I would say that I have a higher regard for the RF 1.4x on the 100-500mm. The default setting for lens sharpness in DxO PL softens the lens at 700mm and needs to be set to global +2. Conversely, it oversharpens the lens with the RF 2x at 1000mm and needs to be set at at -1 or so for well focussed images. You see the benefit of extenders at distances where the fine details are just out of the range of resolution of the bare lens and just within the range with the extender. I think we have both toyed with selling the 800 f/11. But, I have fun with the 800 + TCs. Two nights ago, I played with the 2x on the 800 vs 2x on the 100-500mm taking photos of the moon. The 1000mm actually gave me sharper details. But, I took shots of Jupiter and could just make out at the colours at 1600mm in an 80px80px image.
View attachment 200283
Single image. You would be pushed to get anything at 800mm on the 100-400 II, just not enough pixels - 40x40, and the lens isn't sharp enough. I got this at 900mm on the 100-500mm II + RF 2x f/13.Is that in any way stacked, or just a single image?
I was shooting my 100/400 with a 2.0 tc once and could not get anything like that (even scaled down). I should, as a bonus, also have got Saturn (because it was the great conjunction last December) and barely got something recognizable. I actually did almost as well (if that's the word--maybe I should have said "only slightly more poorly") as my camera did with my cell phone handheld in front of my telescope's eyepiece--once out of about 20 tries.
I couldn't see where you mentioned the camera, which for me was an R5. I suppose I could have got more pixels on it with the M6-II but it was hopeless trying to focus it. With the R5 I could crank the ISO, manually focus, then drop back down and take the picture.Single image. You would be pushed to get anything at 800mm on the 100-400 II, just not enough pixels - 40x40, and the lens isn't sharp enough. I got this at 900mm on the 100-500mm II + RF 1.4x, f/13.
View attachment 200288