EB-1 wrote:
I still have two 100-400 IS II lenses pre-purchased. Good as they are for EF and adapatable to RF, the 100-500 is a good reason to move to RF.
EBH
I skipped the 100-500 for the TC issue. For the price, i would rather go 500mm f4 used any day. I am not parting ways with EF 100-400 II yet maybe one day 100-300 2.8 just maybe...
I don 't have many EF lenses left–regret selling some of them now—but I kept 3 of them out of 20 or so. The EF 70-300 4.0-5.6L IS USM is one of my remaining favs along with the EF 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS USM II.
Volcanic smog from Kilauea with solar orb descending into the Pacific (EOS R and EF 70-300 4-5.6L IS USM):
No clue what this is but it looked nice. EOS R7 and EF-S 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM:
cs3is wrote:
I skipped the 100-500 for the TC issue. For the price, i would rather go 500mm f4 used any day. I am not parting ways with EF 100-400 II yet maybe one day 100-300 2.8 just maybe...
What is the TC issue with the 100-500? In desperation I've used the RF 1.4x a few times with decidedly marginal IQ results on 45MP, but there were no problems. However, 100-400 II with a 1.4x is only 560mm, which is barely any better than 100-500 at 500, so not worth the loss of versatility and better IS/IBIS coordination of the 100-500. As well, I can mostly leave the 1.4x EF III on the 500/4 IS giving the combo of 100-500 and 700/5.6, with the option to use the bare 500/4 IS II as needed. When I had 100-400 and 500 I had to decide more about using a TC or not since there was a large gap or 500 might be too short. 100-400 with the 600/4 IS II was another combination back in the 2010s, but I'm too old for that beast.
If you don't have an EF body anymore, I'd probably just sell the lenses rather than keep them sitting in a cabinet. EF glass still has plenty of value, especially the better L lenses, and adapters on Canon RF bodies are pretty good these days. Unless you have a specific lens you really love, I'd cash them out and put the money toward native glass.
Glenn Poulain wrote:
If you don't have an EF body anymore, I'd probably just sell the lenses rather than keep them sitting in a cabinet. EF glass still has plenty of value, especially the better L lenses, and adapters on Canon RF bodies are pretty good these days. Unless you have a specific lens you really love, I'd cash them out and put the money toward native glass.
Anyone taking Glenn's advice and have EF glass to sell, PM me. I have a "ton" but looking for a few high end zooms.
Dan
The main issue with the 100-500 and converters is that you are stuck with having only access from 300mm to 500mm since the TC internally collides with the insides of the lens at lower focal lengths.
This is a big irritant, but the image quality with the new RF 1.4x is excellent.
Joe Costa wrote:
The main issue with the 100-500 and converters is that you are stuck with having only access from 300mm to 500mm since the TC internally collides with the insides of the lens at lower focal lengths.
This is a big irritant, but the image quality with the new RF 1.4x is excellent.
I thought there was some software or operational issue.
I've used 5-6 of the 100-500, many with 1-2 RF 1.4x TCs. IQ is just adequate with R5/R5 II, not excellent.
Joe Costa wrote:
The main issue with the 100-500 and converters is that you are stuck with having only access from 300mm to 500mm since the TC internally collides with the insides of the lens at lower focal lengths.
This is a big irritant, but the image quality with the new RF 1.4x is excellent.
That was the biggest pet peeve for me. Rf TC's are excellent but implementation on 100-500 is poor. I still have DSLR bodies so that's the other reason i passed the 100-500 since 100-400 does the work just fine.
EB-1 wrote:
I thought there was some software or operational issue.
I've used 5-6 of the 100-500, many with 1-2 RF 1.4x TCs. IQ is just adequate with R5/R5 II, not excellent.
EBH
That has not been my experience at all.
I'd recommend for anyone who owns a 100-500 to at least rent the 1.4x TC and try it out in real world, non pixel-peeping conditions and come to their own conclusion.
The annoying physical conflict I described to me is the only reason to not regularly use the 1.4x
jgoetz4 wrote:
Dan, I think you have more EF glass then allowed by 'Canon' law
Jim
Of course you are correct Jim! No matter WHAT lense I take out with me on a planned, or even unplanned, day..I always find a subject that a lense, I am not carrying with me at the time, would render a composition while I am out.
My memory is getting bad! I even take a pen and pad with me to write it down..but somehow I STILL forget it!
jgoetz4 wrote:
Dan,
I am contemplating getting a 5DS R. Very tempting.
Jim
It is well worth a "rental" if you are serious.
IMHO it is a wonderful body and the 60mpx is excellent. Full frame but I use it and whittle down sizes to AP-S C with no loss in IQ.
They are relatively cheap yet produce a fantastic hi IQ image imho....
Until Canon comes out with a mirrorless high mpx ff body, I can use what I acquire....to the point of "hoarding". I FIRMLY believe in Capitalism!
Dan
Joe Costa wrote:
That has not been my experience at all.
I'd recommend for anyone who owns a 100-500 to at least rent the 1.4x TC and try it out in real world, non pixel-peeping conditions and come to their own conclusion.
The annoying physical conflict I described to me is the only reason to not regularly use the 1.4x
I checked my records and I rented 5x 100-500s plus own one. They have been rather consistent. Maybe one was slightly worse. The same RF 1.4x works great with the 600/4 RF. I supose there are some differences in expectations. (The 500/4 IS II with 1.4x III at f/7.1 is like night and day better.) On the 100-500 f/11 effective is better than f/10 for contrast but not more resolution. I suspect that f/10 has too much diffraction already at 45MP
maybe one day 100-300 2.8 just maybe...
