Tom_W wrote:
The only reason I still have the Mk II 2X is for stacking. I'll probably give the 1.4X III and 2X II a try today to see what it gives me. If it isn't fairly good, then maybe I don't need the older 2X any more. Seems to me that I struggled with the 2X + 2X before in terms of IQ on previous bodies, and the higher pixel density of the R5 certainly serves to amplify lens deficiencies.
I can only imagine the mess the 2 + 2 would be on the M6 II.
BTW, nice greenies in your image post. I've a friend that loves them. She was in greenie heaven last weekend when a couple of them entertained her for hours in a local park. Sometimes, within 10 feet of her. They are a unique bird, lots of awkward neck-stretching and twisting postures....Show more →
I had a chance to shoot the 1.4X III stacked with the 2X II on the 500/4 II (lots of II and III there...) - much, much better results. Not as absolutely crisp as the single teleconverter, but its good enough that I would do so for the extra reach if needed. It's helpful having F/11 instead of f/16. The animal eye AF worked fairly well with the stack, but it did divert to multiple points from time to time. Perhaps a bit less sure of itself compared to the lens with only 1 teleconverter.
One quick example, zoomed in to about 75% crop level. Microdetail much better than with the 2 + 2. Note that the Exif doesn't recognize the 1.4X, just the 2X, so it's 1400 mm, and 1 stop slower.
I'll be adding shortly. My local store had one available when I went in today. Wasn't my turn on the list, but I think he had already called 8-10 people, had someone test it overnight and return it and was tired of dealing with it.
Reading the manual and waiting for the battery to charge.
They are still extremely difficult to capture in focus, but I must say that the Canon R5 makes imaging dragonflies in flight much, much easier. The best professional camera I have ever owned.
The RF 85 ( I have the non DS) is freakishly sharp even at f1.2. Makes the 200L f2 IS and ZE 100 MP look tame (despite different mag). Rapid focus transition and I haven't seen any traces of CA yet.
Bastian, how are you finding the DS version ?
Some photos of signs below, which almost look aliased lol (what were they saying about that AA filter again ) At full size, I was able to see the dot pattern in these signs which I have not noticed before!
@another_mikey : thanks. North TX would be flattered to be compared to CO Love to come there every other fall, sad to miss out on fall colors there this year
Just an observation about the 2x TC stacking (2x + 2x). I saw a video a while ago by George Lepp where he stacked two 2x TCs together on his 600mm Canon. I can't remember if in that particular example he used a tube in between or they were two different versions. Anyway, he was shooting an eagle nest in good light. He mentioned touching up the sharpness with Topaz and the sample photo, even zoomed in, had really impressive detail. It does seem if the shooting conditions are just right one can get a very good image with that combo. But they key seems to be stationary subjects, great light and good post-processing.
rx55 wrote:
The RF 85 ( I have the non DS) is freakishly sharp even at f1.2. Makes the 200L f2 IS and ZE 100 MP look tame (despite different mag). Rapid focus transition and I haven't seen any traces of CA yet.
Bastian, how are you finding the DS version ?
From the limited usage I have had with the DS I am in love. I actually bought both versions and returned the regular. I should have a good go with it this weekend in the mountains shooting a wedding so I should have some more samples to share early next week.
) At full size, I was able to see the dot pattern in these signs which I have not noticed before!
Love to come there every other fall, sad to miss out on fall colors there this year 
