p.1 #1 · RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z Lens z with the 2x
I used this lens as a 140-400mm almost exclusively on a recent non birding trip. My wife and I went to a resort in the Dominican Republic. Normally there is not much around at the resorts so I usually only take some short lenses. This time I decided to take the 70-200mm Z with the 2x and I was glad I did. There was a bit of birds on the resort and along the beach. I used the lens with the R1 and it did not miss a beat with the 2x extender. This made for a nice small incase I see anything setup.
p.1 #2 · RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z Lens z with the 2x
Great shots but I am still not sold on the combo because you could probably have taken an 80-400mm lens made in 1973 and have gotten stellar results. At some point we must give credit to the photographer 😁
Great results and when the time comes to upgrade my EF 70-200/2.8 II I will have to choose between the portability of the RF 70-200/2.8 that cannot be used with extenders and the Z which can.
p.1 #3 · RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z Lens z with the 2x
Another great combo Rob with some great opportunistic images.
The 140-400mm obviously worked really well for you and a great walk around set judging by your results.
p.1 #5 · RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z Lens z with the 2x
The most notable difference between RF 70-200mm f/2.8 Z + 2x extender and the RF 100-500 is the inconvenience of the extender. Optically the Z lens with or without the 2x is an amazing lens and at 400mm I feel its images will be very croppable making up for not reaching 500mm.
At comparable focal lengths the two lenses compare very favorably to each other. See the TDP comparison between the two lenses:
p.1 #8 · RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z Lens z with the 2x
Alan Kefauver wrote:
Hmmmm...
Isn't the RF 100-500 about f/6.3 at 400mm, same as the above combo?
Wonder how that would compare IQ wise.
Image quality wise they are both very good. That said I personally do not like extending barrels so I sold my 100-500mm and my RF 70-200mm for the Z version due to this. I did not buy the 70-200mm for a 500mm replacement at all. I own the 100-300mm for that. I bought the 70-200mm as a 70-200 with a nice bonus of the use of extenders. If you do not need the 70mm or f2.8 get the 100-500mm.
p.1 #9 · RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z Lens z with the 2x
Dave_E wrote:
Impressive results Rob for a small package. How do you think it compares to the RF 100-300 c/w TC 1.4
Dave
The quality is actually very nice compared but I still prefer the look of the 100-300mm at f4 vs f5.6 at 400mm range, Also missing 200mm on the long end is another major advantage point. I was really wishing I had my 100-300 at times during this trip. Both lenses are top quality and work awesome with extenders. I am becoming a f2.8 snob and love the performance of them paired with extenders when needed. That f2.8 looks so nice when used. If they ever made a 600mm f2.8 that would be a lens I would get overnight.
