You can use an RF TC with your EF 500 but you will have to file down a 3rd party adapter to make it fit. If you search on the forum you will find plenty of discussions about it. I've have the setup myself and I can't tell a difference between the two TC's, whereas others have said it's better, and others have said it's worse.
Scroll down and you'll see all of these were taken with the RF 2x and EF 300II. This was back before the R5II was released and there were no profiles for it, so the images I posted were posted with minimal editing:
I have tried this with both the EF 300 f/2.8L IS II and the EF 500mm f/4L IS. I modified a ProMaster EF to RF adapter to take the RF extenders. I even shot a test chart with the EF 300 and the RF 1.4x, RF 2x, EF 1.4x III and EF 2x III. I compaired the two 1.4x's and the two 2x's, I could not discern a difference in sharpness between the EF III's and the RF's. The RF's may have an edge in contrast, but it is very, very minor. I have used the RF extenders exclusively for a series of baseball games and photographed some dogs running on the beach. I have gone back to using the EF extenders. It is not worth the trouble. Anecdotally, I believe using the EF extenders gives the setup an advantage in follow focus and some other oddities using the RF's. Maybe it's just EF extenders work better with EF lenses. My Setup
justashooter wrote:
I have tried this with both the EF 300 f/2.8L IS II and the EF 500mm f/4L IS. I modified a ProMaster EF to RF adapter to take the RF extenders. I even shot a test chart with the EF 300 and the RF 1.4x, RF 2x, EF 1.4x III and EF 2x III. I compaired the two 1.4x's and the two 2x's, I could not discern a difference in sharpness between the EF III's and the RF's. The RF's may have an edge in contrast, but it is very, very minor. I have used the RF extenders exclusively for a series of baseball games and photographed some dogs running on the beach. I have gone back to using the EF extenders. It is not worth the trouble. Anecdotally, I believe using the EF extenders gives the setup an advantage in follow focus and some other oddities using the RF's. Maybe it's just EF extenders work better with EF lenses. My Setup...Show more →
artsupreme wrote:
You can use an RF TC with your EF 500 but you will have to file down a 3rd party adapter to make it fit. If you search on the forum you will find plenty of discussions about it. I've have the setup myself and I can't tell a difference between the two TC's, whereas others have said it's better, and others have said it's worse.
Scroll down and you'll see all of these were taken with the RF 2x and EF 300II. This was back before the R5II was released and there were no profiles for it, so the images I posted were posted with minimal editing:
The 1.4x III is the best TC for the 500/4 IS. I don't use the 500/4 IS anymore, but did quite a lot back in the day. The 1.4x II is not as good, so make sure to get the III.
EB-1 wrote:
The 1.4x III is the best TC for the 500/4 IS. I don't use the 500/4 IS anymore, but did quite a lot back in the day. The 1.4x II is not as good, so make sure to get the III.
EBH
Do you think the 1.4x iii makes much difference in practice? I'm asking because I have the original 500mm f/4 with the 1.4x version 1 and it's sharp wide open on an R5. The Digital Picture has the comparison between the version ii and version iii extenders for this lens. It seems like the version iii is slightly better in the periphery, an area that is usually out of focus in my shots anyway. I know the version iii has some autofocus performance improvements, but I think this only applies to the gen 2 superteles. I also have the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ii, so maybe the performance improvements work with that lens, and that would be worthwhile to me, but I haven't seen any confirmation on that.
I've used all three of the EF 1.4x TCs on the original 500/4 IS, including several copies each of the 1.4x II and III. The first two versions are basically the same with the 1.4x II having the newer lens coating and the rubber weather resistant ring compared to the original. The 1.4x III was surprisingly better, especially the reduced CA and better IQ. I was surprised as it was breathing new life into the 500/4 IS such that I did not feel the need to upgrade to the IS II until the 50MP 5DsR revealed more the limitations.
The 1.4x III is practically necessary for the 100-400 II to reach full performance.
I'm not a photographer, so maybe I'm too technically inclined for the IQ you need in a long tele. Poor tangential MTF really bugs me. Much of that is CA and despite software correction for color, it's not the same as having a good lens with minimal sagittal/tangential difference (astigmatism also).
I had the EF 1.4× II and III for use with my EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6 II and the Mk III teleconverter was noticeably better.
I also have the RF 1.4× and RF 100–500mm f/4.5–7.1, and on my 24Mpx R3 I don’t see much difference from the EF MK III teleconverter and EF zoom. (For the moment I still own both of those, so could compare side-by-side.) Likewise, the bare zooms also perform similarly, so I conclude the EF Mk III and RF teleconverters perform similarly.
In the absence of anyone claiming a difference at 45Mpx that I don’t see at 24Mpx, I recommend the OP get the EF 1.4× III teleconverter and call it a day.
I saw enough improvement between the EF 1.4x II and III that I upgraded. At the time I had a EF 300/2.8 IS (later upgraded to the II) and the 500/4 IS. The version III 2x of course was a huge improvement. I was using 20 megapixel 1DX's at that time, I now use 24 megapixel mirrorless.
justashooter wrote:
I saw enough improvement between the EF 1.4x II and III that I upgraded. At the time I had a EF 300/2.8 IS (later upgraded to the II) and the 500/4 IS. The version III 2x of course was a huge improvement. I was using 20 megapixel 1DX's at that time, I now use 24 megapixel mirrorless.
I was using the 1Ds II and 5D III and then the 1DX. The 5DsR really showed the difference even more and that I should have upgraded to the 500/4 IS II sooner.
