So far, I'm impressed with the performance of the RF 1.4x TC on the RF 600. The results are so much better than cropping, there's almost no point in doing a direct comparison. Sharpness and light falloff seem the same as the bare lens, color and contrast loss, if any, are difficult to discern.
A few notes about the images (all handheld, some may have been braced on the top of my backyard fence):
The first image is a shot that shows a mesa (about 8 miles away) and a mountain ridge (about 40 miles away). Keep in mind that although the sky was less hazy than it has been lately, there is still some smoke in the air from wildfires that is reducing clarity.
Second image is a 1:1 crop of the first, and I can see detail in the communication towers on the ridge 40 miles away, which to me is great for a TC setup. The crop is also over to the right side of the frame, where I'm not seeing any loss in sharpness due to use of the TC (the far corners have very, very minimal reduction in sharpness at infinity versus the rest of the frame, and it's only observable at 1:1 crop; but, I haven't compared this with the bare lens, which might show the same behavior). It's worth noting that the bare 600 when cropped doesn't come close to this level of detail (there was no detail in the communications towers). I'm drooling to think what the R5 would resolve here versus my R.
The third shot shows the framing of small birds at this setup's resulting 840mm focal length at approximately the minimum focusing distance of 14.75' / 4.5m. This image is blurred due to the 1/40 sec. shutter speed (didn't change my settings from landscape quickly enough). This is about the same as cropping to APS-C size from the bare 600. So I can choose to either use the bare lens at f/11 and crop or use the 1.4x TC and use the entire frame at f/16. The IQ is better using the TC in my opinion.
The fourth shot is the full frame taken in sunset light. The color and contrast still look good here to me versus what I've seen with the bare lens.
The fifth image (full image) and sixth (1:1 crop) image show the sharpness/detail at close range just beyond MFD – probably about 20' away. Sharpness is really good – no less sharp than the bare lens, in my opinion. I can't stress enough how the slightest misfocus at this distance can result in an unsharp photo – and you wouldn't probably know the difference if you didn't take several in a row and see the perfect one, which jumps out compared to the rest. Also notice the incredible IS performance of these f/11 lenses – that's 1/60 second at 840mm!
Santa Ana Mesas & Jemez Mountain ridge in NM
1:1 crop of previous image. Ridge is 40 miles away.
Small birds (house finch) at MFD fill the frame nicely
Full frame image – color & contrast looks good
Full frame image in fading sunset light
1:1 crop of previous – sharpness on par with bare lens
Just to give you an idea of the level of magnification that 840mm gives you on a landscape, here is about a 50mm FOV of the same landscape (taken years earlier) showing the 840mm FOV outlined in red.
Great info, looks like the 600mm is going to make a lot of us happy who cannot afford the super expensive EF big whites. I am waiting to see how the 100-500 with the 1.4x TC performs on the R5 - I'm guessing it will be spectacular if these shots on the much less expensive lens are any indication. Of course, this is a prime and that is a zoom, so that probably enters into things as well...
Also, that B&W image is no joke - wonderful image there!
Hathaway wrote:
So looking forward to using that combo. Thanks for the details. We’re the cactus shots on tripod or handheld?
Duh, sorry. Reread post. All handheld. Amazing at 1/60th for detail.
Bob
You're welcome. Yeah, I've been surprised how well the IS works on the 600 – might be even more steady than my RF 70-200L – maybe fewer and lighter lens elements to move around.
---------------------------------------------
another_mikey wrote:
Great info, looks like the 600mm is going to make a lot of us happy who cannot afford the super expensive EF big whites. I am waiting to see how the 100-500 with the 1.4x TC performs on the R5 - I'm guessing it will be spectacular if these shots on the much less expensive lens are any indication. Of course, this is a prime and that is a zoom, so that probably enters into things as well...
Also, that B&W image is no joke - wonderful image there!
ML
Thank you for the compliment!
It does bode well for the 1.4x TC on the 100-500 – I pre-ordered the zoom immediately and can't wait for it to get here. I have a feeling I'll be using the 100-500 bare and leaving the 1.4x on the 600. I'm not super excited about the 100-500 not being able to fully retract with the TCs on it, so this would be a nice solution for my purposes. I think if I do put a TC on the 100-500, I may opt for the 2x, which would give me 1000mm @ f/14-ish.
highdesertmesa wrote:
You're welcome. Yeah, I've been surprised how well the IS works on the 600 – might be even more steady than my RF 70-200L – maybe fewer and lighter lens elements to move around.
---------------------------------------------
Thank you for the compliment!
It does bode well for the 1.4x TC on the 100-500 – I pre-ordered the zoom immediately and can't wait for it to get here. I have a feeling I'll be using the 100-500 bare and leaving the 1.4x on the 600. I'm not super excited about the 100-500 not being able to fully retract with the TCs on it, so this would be a nice solution for my purposes. I think if I do put a TC on the 100-500, I may opt for the 2x, which would give me 1000mm @ f/14-ish....Show more →
So far I have held off on pre-ordering the 100-500, but that may be a gesture of futility going forward. Especially if you start posting amazing pics from that one!
As a scenic shooter, I am also now interested to see just how small and light the RF 7-200 f/4 L IS could turn out to be. I could see a situation where I might have that in the bag when out hiking and expecting mostly scenic stuff, and the 100-500 along if wildlife is the primary target. Yikes, I think I just spent even MORE money!
another_mikey wrote:
So far I have held off on pre-ordering the 100-500, but that may be a gesture of futility going forward. Especially if you start posting amazing pics from that one!
As a scenic shooter, I am also now interested to see just how small and light the RF 7-200 f/4 L IS could turn out to be. I could see a situation where I might have that in the bag when out hiking and expecting mostly scenic stuff, and the 100-500 along if wildlife is the primary target. Yikes, I think I just spent even MORE money!
ML
I actually bought the RF 70-200 2.8 to be my small, light travel telephoto. It’s sooo compact already. There are so many times where its 2.8 aperture has kept me at ISO 100 in fading light, I’m not sure I could give it up now But if they can keep the IQ the same and make the f4 version even lighter, then that will be amazing.
Wow, very impressive. I know I had written off ever purchasing one of the new narrow aperture telephotos but the photos folks have been posting are pretty impressive.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I actually bought the RF 70-200 2.8 to be my small, light travel telephoto. It’s sooo compact already. There are so many times where its 2.8 aperture has kept me at ISO 100 in fading light, I’m not sure I could give it up now But if they can keep the IQ the same and make the f4 version even lighter, then that will be amazing.
100-200 ISO is almost meaningless these days. I use 2.8 zooms and they're more likely to let me use 6400 vs 12,800 or 12,800 instead of 25,600. That's huge, especially on my 5D3.
Mike_5D wrote:
100-200 ISO is almost meaningless these days. I use 2.8 zooms and they're more likely to let me use 6400 vs 12,800 or 12,800 instead of 25,600. That's huge, especially on my 5D3.
“Almost” being the key word there. For landscape, staying at 640 or lower makes a meaningful difference on the R.
My impression so far from looking at various images are:
Both the 600 and 800 have excellent resolution and well controlled aberrations.
The color and contrast is not at the same level a an L lens, with or without TC.
The 600 takes a 1.4x TC exceptionally well.
Not so sure about the 800 with 1.4 yet. The MTF charts suggest it will have more CA or astigmatism than the 600.
By the way, TDP have added the 600 to their image quality tool.
The biggest struggle with the f/11 lens is that small AF area in the center, and combine that with my R, which has no animal eye-AF, getting perfect focus on a bird’s eye is challenging. Even though I like the IQ with the 1.4x on the 600, in the end I will probably use it without the TC in crop mode, which fills the frame in a square with AF points (only the sides are missing AF coverage).
Last night I preordered the R6, since I think the animal eye-AF and the improved AF system in general is what I need with this lens. Also the high ISO of the R6 won’t hurt, either.
