RF and EF extenders on the EF 600/4L IS II

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
Thanks for the info Neuro. Coincidentally yesterday I ordered Canon Extender EF25 II to put it between EF2XIII and EF1.4XIII to try to increase my 500mm 4L IS II lens focal length for static birds not at infinity of course where the lens will not be able to focus.

EF12 II would probably do the job (EF1.4XIII will be the addon behind the 500/2X/Extender combo) but I could not find it easily (and reasonably cheap) so I took the longer one in case it is being used for macro cases too.

I also have the RX teleconverters but going by the book for now....
EF 2X ?? Do you actually think you'll gain much from this? There is an old thread, perhaps started by AlanF where some combinations were dealt with.

Jack
 
Upvote 0

tron

Canon Rumors Premium
Nov 8, 2011
5,233
1,628
EF 2X ?? Do you actually think you'll gain much from this? There is an old thread, perhaps started by AlanF where some combinations were dealt with.

Jack
My EF500mm f/4L IS II with EF2XIII + EOS-R adapter works admirably with EOS R5 delivering sharp images at 1000mm f/8 or f/9. I have used it many times. It is sharper than my EOS 400mm DO II with EF2XIII and EOS R5.

The only issue is how EF1.4XIII will work on top of that! (It will be a 1400mm f/11 experiment). And how far away it will be its focusing limit. Because it will not focus to infinity. I just hope it will be OK for static small birds...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
My EF500mm f/4L IS II with EF2XIII + EOS-R adapter works admirably with EOS R5 delivering sharp images at 1000mm f/8 or f/9. I have used it many times. It is sharper than my EOS 400mm DO II with EF2XIII and EOS R5.

The only issue is how EF1.4XIII will work on top of that! (It will be a 1400mm f/11 experiment). And how far away it will be its focusing limit. Because it will not focus to infinity. I just hope it will be OK for static small birds...
It's a long time now but some were stacking extenders, I just don't remember how one would find that thread. I think I did a shot with my old 300 2.8 II with 2X and 1.4X with an extension tube and it was fairly good but not up to our usual standard. There is a bit of confusion in your original post - maybe a typo?

Jack
 
Upvote 0

tron

Canon Rumors Premium
Nov 8, 2011
5,233
1,628
It's a long time now but some were stacking extenders, I just don't remember how one would find that thread. I think I did a shot with my old 300 2.8 II with 2X and 1.4X with an extension tube and it was fairly good but not up to our usual standard. There is a bit of confusion in your original post - maybe a typo?

Jack

I will try to stack 2 teleconverters (both Canon EF version III series). Not more.

My current biggest (in size and mm) combo is: EF500mm f/4L IS II + EF2XIII + EOS-R adapter + R5: A 1000mm f/8 combo with still L quality and good focusing thanks to R5 (although I had tried it with 5DsR in the past and I had some success)

My experiment: I will put Canon's macro extender tube after EF2XIII and then connect EF1.4XIII. Then I will put the adapter and the R5.
It will not focus at infinity but neither birds are :)

Of course as with 1000mm at 1400mm it will be tested for still subjects only.

I do not know if I will have some lack but the cost of the experiment is the one of the macro tube extender (I have everything else).

I remember that you had quite the success with 2X first with your 300mm and then with your 400mm and your 1Dx.
Your superb woodpecker photos are a proof of this.

What combo are you currently using ?
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 21, 2010
31,432
13,404
It will not focus at infinity but neither birds are :)
TCs affect magnification but not the min/max focus distance, so all of the effect is due to the 25mm tube. With that on the 500/4 II, your furthest focus distance will be 9.9 m / 32’. At a 1400mm focal length, that means the largest subject you can fit in the frame and still get in focus is 25 x 17 cm / 9.8 x 6.7”.

Unless the birds you shoot are small ones that aren’t all that far away, I predict a lot of bird headshots in your future.

Using the EF 12 tube instead would put your far focus distance at 20.6 m / 67.5’, which is why that is the preferred tube for stacking extenders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
I will try to stack 2 teleconverters (both Canon EF version III series). Not more.

My current biggest (in size and mm) combo is: EF500mm f/4L IS II + EF2XIII + EOS-R adapter + R5: A 1000mm f/8 combo with still L quality and good focusing thanks to R5 (although I had tried it with 5DsR in the past and I had some success)

My experiment: I will put Canon's macro extender tube after EF2XIII and then connect EF1.4XIII. Then I will put the adapter and the R5.
It will not focus at infinity but neither birds are :)

Of course as with 1000mm at 1400mm it will be tested for still subjects only.

I do not know if I will have some lack but the cost of the experiment is the one of the macro tube extender (I have everything else).

I remember that you had quite the success with 2X first with your 300mm and then with your 400mm and your 1Dx.
Your superb woodpecker photos are a proof of this.

What combo are you currently using ?
I'm shooting almost always with 400 DO II and 2xIII with R5 and my only slight negative is that I think I need somewhat higher shutter speed for good sharpness. I have not stacked the 1.4X in there recently because the need for that magnification is rare but when it warms up I'll make a point again to try it. I have a cheaper extension tube set and I'm a little leery of it breaking.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 16, 2012
12,533
23,255
I'm shooting almost always with 400 DO II and 2xIII with R5 and my only slight negative is that I think I need somewhat higher shutter speed for good sharpness. I have not stacked the 1.4X in there recently because the need for that magnification is rare but when it warms up I'll make a point again to try it. I have a cheaper extension tube set and I'm a little leery of it breaking.

Jack
I wouldn’t bother. What you gain in focal length is lost to a great extent by increased diffraction and lens aberration with the high resolution sensor. You would gain more on the R6.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
I wouldn’t bother. What you gain in focal length is lost to a great extent by increased diffraction and lens aberration with the high resolution sensor. You would gain more on the R6.
You are right, it's going to be marginal at best. I'm quite sure I did it long ago and came to the same conclusion although not so firmly because I had the 6D and the 300.

Jack
 
Upvote 0

tron

Canon Rumors Premium
Nov 8, 2011
5,233
1,628
TCs affect magnification but not the min/max focus distance, so all of the effect is due to the 25mm tube. With that on the 500/4 II, your furthest focus distance will be 9.9 m / 32’. At a 1400mm focal length, that means the largest subject you can fit in the frame and still get in focus is 25 x 17 cm / 9.8 x 6.7”.

Unless the birds you shoot are small ones that aren’t all that far away, I predict a lot of bird headshots in your future.

Using the EF 12 tube instead would put your far focus distance at 20.6 m / 67.5’, which is why that is the preferred tube for stacking extenders.
Thank you very much for telling me. Maybe there is time to cancel my order (or keep it for macro but this happens very rarely if not never) and try to get the smaller one. I thought I had read somewhere that the minimum distance was an order of magnitude bigger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 16, 2012
12,533
23,255
Maybe a dumb question but here goes. Has anyone used the short extension tube to alleviate the restriction regarding the 100-500 with extenders? I suppose there is nothing to gain in that scenario?? I'm still waiting to purchase a 100-500 for my daughter since they are either overpriced or not available.

Jack
Jack, have you considered the RF 100-400mm for her - dirt cheap, very light and really sharp? I now have 2 - one for my wife and one for me when I want to walk out really light. By the way, onthe R5, the 100-500mm gives enough reach most of the time without an extender.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 21, 2010
31,432
13,404
Found one only on Kijiji for all of Alberta - $2200 CAD asking, so over 1200 pounds. Hopefully that will begin to change.
Sounds like there’s a misunderstanding. I think you’re looking for an EF 100-400 L lens, @AlanF is suggesting the new(ish) RF 100-400mm, a ‘consumer’ type lens that has very good IQ. It’s in stock at Henry’s for $879 CAD.

 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
Sounds like there’s a misunderstanding. I think you’re looking for an EF 100-400 L lens, @AlanF is suggesting the new(ish) RF 100-400mm, a ‘consumer’ type lens that has very good IQ. It’s in stock at Henry’s for $879 CAD.

Thanks, I can now at my age claim a senior moment. Yes the RF is available and is an option but it starts to become dicey with TCs and she likes to shoot birds like me. I guess X1.4 wouldn't be too bad.
 
Upvote 0

Jethro

EOS R
Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 14, 2018
1,023
1,089
Thanks, I can now at my age claim a senior moment. Yes the RF is available and is an option but it starts to become dicey with TCs and she likes to shoot birds like me. I guess X1.4 wouldn't be too bad.
Some of us starting having senior moments long before reaching an extended age!

Pretty sure AlanF has done some detailed analysis on another thread about the RF 100-400 with extenders - he's very positive about the combination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 16, 2012
12,533
23,255
Thanks, I can now at my age claim a senior moment. Yes the RF is available and is an option but it starts to become dicey with TCs and she likes to shoot birds like me. I guess X1.4 wouldn't be too bad.
i wouldn‘t bother with TCs on the RF 100-400mm on the R5, but the 1.4 is useful with that lens on the R6. The larger pixels of the R6 are more tolerant of diffraction.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
i wouldn‘t bother with TCs on the RF 100-400mm on the R5, but the 1.4 is useful with that lens on the R6. The larger pixels of the R6 are more tolerant of diffraction.
Thanks Alan. I should have mentioned she presently shoots with the R. She is particular about the quality of her shots, probably from seeing so many of mine, so I'm certain based on my own experience that 400 is not enough. Bare 500 would probably be the minimum and 500 X 1.4 much better so we must wait for the 100-500.

Jack
 
Upvote 0
Feb 28, 2013
1,616
281
70
Jack, have you considered the RF 100-400mm for her - dirt cheap, very light and really sharp? I now have 2 - one for my wife and one for me when I want to walk out really light. By the way, onthe R5, the 100-500mm gives enough reach most of the time without an extender.
I got the RF 100-400mm f5.5-8 IS USM for hiking as it’s so light & compact. Was extremely surprised at the IQ given the price. Obviously not at the same level as the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.5L IS USM II or the RF 100-500mm f5.6-7.1L IS USM but completely acceptable.
Duade Paton an Australian bird blogger on YouTube has done a really comprehensive test and he was completely surprised at the results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0