p.1 #1 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
Recently I became aware that with certain third-party EF-RF adapters it is possible to use the new RF teleconverters on EF lenses. I'll provide a link to a video below, and I am sure many of you were already aware of this hack as this video has been on YouTube for a couple years now. My question is this: how does the AF and IQ compare between the RF extender + adapter + EF lenses versus the adapter + EF extender + EF lens ? Of course, in my example here we're using a mirrorless body (why else would we need the adapter in the second scenario).
Just curious if any of you have tried it. I have an EF 400/4 DO II and I am curious how the RF 1.4x and RF 2x would fare with it.
p.1 #2 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
The only difference you would see is IQ difference from RF TC vs EF TC, if any. The adapters are just air and electronic passthroughs, so the only glass in the way would be EF vs RF teleconverters. No AF changes at all with either method unless the hacking of the third party ef/rf adapter cuts through some line of communications.
p.1 #3 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
The EF vIII extenders had little to no IQ impact on many lenses. So I'm not sure what the gain would be going to RF TC. Perhaps not having to have separate RF and EF TCs if you have both types of lenses is the biggest reason.
RF TCs are about 2x the going rate on the used market for the EF vIIIs, so there is that to consider as well.
p.1 #4 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
I actually have both EF 1.4x III and RF 1.4x extenders, and a modified EF-RF adapter that can accept RF extenders, but I have never compared the two, because I don't see much IQ impact on either one. They should be neck to neck.
My main usage of the modified EF-RF adapter is for lenses that originally cannot accept extenders. For example, I can use my Zeiss Milvus 135 f2 with the RF 1.4x extender, and it is still razor sharp at an equivalent 200 f2.8. I don't use a 70-200 zoom anymore because of that. Another potential usage would be stacking EF and RF extenders, but again I have never had a need for that.
In the second scenario you still need the adapter because you still need to adapt EF mount to RF mount if you have a RF camera.
p.1 #5 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
The RF 1.4x TC is not good with extension tubes since the rear element is normally very close to the sensor. It is also more sensitive to dirt or condensation on the rear element that shows.
I prefer to use the type of TC that matches the lens, either RF or EF.
p.1 #6 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
The RF 1.4x is ever so slightly better than EF 1.4x III. I have not done that good comparison between the 2x versions even though I have them too. I SUSPECT there is somewhat more difference there. If there are no other factors affecting the choice, I use RF.
The downside of using RF with EF lenses is that it misses the TC from EXIF. It appears that it also messes the lens name from EXIF, but that is not essential. However, the missing TC also means that IBIS likely operates based on wrong focal length resulting in under-compensation.
p.1 #7 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
EB-1 wrote:
The RF 1.4x TC is not good with extension tubes since the rear element is normally very close to the sensor.
I'd rather say that you can't use them between the body and the TC. Between TC and lens is another matter entirely.
It is also more sensitive to dirt or condensation on the rear element that shows.
I'll second that. It is a real pain - especially with microscope objectives.
p.1 #10 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
What are you talking about? (Honest question)
OP mentions adapters and RF Teleconverters, but then adds the term extenders.
I think it's logical that extender means Teleconverter in that post.
Now, you have twice mentioned extension tubes.
This thread needs a Glossary of Terms to make any sense.
EB-1 wrote:
The RF 1.4x TC is not good with extension tubes since the rear element is normally very close to the sensor. It is also more sensitive to dirt or condensation on the rear element that shows.
I prefer to use the type of TC that matches the lens, either RF or EF.
p.1 #11 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
Glad I’m not the only one who got confused reading through the thread 😂
I’m intrigued tho’
As someone who has only recently bought a used RP and a used 1.4xiii to pair with my ef100-400Lii. I’ve not tried the lens on my RP yet It’s still paired to my ancient 5diii and the 1.4xiii won’t arrive until next week sadly.
Would love to know what I can expect?
My concern is the feeble RP battery won’t have the grunt to run both camera, AF and IS? It did however come with a aftermarket battery grip which seems to work fine. Does 2 battery’s = twice the grunt?
p.1 #12 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Glad I’m not the only one who got confused reading through the thread 😂
I’m intrigued tho’
As someone who has only recently bought a used RP and a used 1.4xiii to pair with my ef100-400Lii. I’ve not tried the lens on my RP yet It’s still paired to my ancient 5diii and the 1.4xiii won’t arrive until next week sadly.
Would love to know what I can expect?
My concern is the feeble RP battery won’t have the grunt to run both camera, AF and IS? It did however come with a aftermarket battery grip which seems to work fine. Does 2 battery’s = twice the grunt?...Show more →
Unless Canon has made changes, their grips use batteries 1 at a time, so no extra 'grunt'.
I suppose it will depend on what the aftermarket grip makers did.
Easy to test.
1/ Do you get individual battery level displays? If yes, you'll know after a little use.
2/ Charge both batteries, then use the camera for a while. Then check battery level, one battery at a time (in the camera)
I think it will be fine with the little battery. 100D/200D/250D use a little battery.
p.1 #13 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
Seems OK but a few thoughts. I would think most people with EF lenses already have an EF TC. I got the R within a year in of its release. I used my 1.4 and 2X with my 100-400 II and adapter for a few years.
I guess if you have a mix of RF and EF lenses and don't have a TC then it would save you money. Or if you only have EF lenses, no TC and plan to invest in one later.
I don't know about the better optic claims with the RF TC but I believe the 4 extra pins for faster transmission speeds are doing something for me.
If you only have RF lenses you could get a used EF TC for good price these days.
p.1 #14 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
Choderboy wrote:
What are you talking about? (Honest question)
OP mentions adapters and RF Teleconverters, but then adds the term extenders.
I think it's logical that extender means Teleconverter in that post.
Now, you have twice mentioned extension tubes.
This thread needs a Glossary of Terms to make any sense.
extender = teleconverter, yes
extension tubes are something different, and EB-1 is just talking about his preference for how the EF extenders handle extension tubes better than the RF extenders, in his opinion
additionally, you can use extension tubes to stack RF extenders (say R5 + RF 1.4x + RF 2x + lens)
p.1 #15 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
nmerc_photos wrote:
The RF extender is better in every way. Image quality, autofocus acquisition, weight, etc. If only by a slim margin.
It's an easy mod and I've done it since my first EF lens.
also it lets you use the extenders on every lens. 35mm, 16-35mm, 70-200, whatever. even if they weren't designed to take an extender by canon
if you already have EF extenders would I swap to RF for this? no.
but if you have no extenders, I'd suggest just getting the RF off the bat. buy once cry once.
I would agree with this, my RF 400 + 2x RF is sharper than my previous EF 400 II IS + 2x III. Without TC, the RF 400 and EF are barely different IQ wise, so I am assuming the RF TC is making the difference
p.1 #16 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
rafster wrote:
I would agree with this, my RF 400 + 2x RF is sharper than my previous EF 400 II IS + 2x III. Without TC, the RF 400 and EF are barely different IQ wise, so I am assuming the RF TC is making the difference
Precisely
With the new RF 1.4x, pretty much nobody can tell the difference between it and a naked lens, consistently.
Even with the new RF 2x, it is significantly more usable than the previous EF versions.
I keep my 1.4x glued on my RF 600 and have not hesitated to use the 2x when needed.
I've also had good luck stacking the 1.4x and 2x together, which puts an insane amount of glass inbetween the body and lens. Still works great
p.1 #17 · RF extenders vs EF extenders on EF lenses
Wow if the RF extenders are better than the MKIII EF versions, that would be amazing. I have been lucky to get pretty good results with the 100-400 II and 2x III (not even the 400mm prime). Hmmm... have to think about this.
