@@KGsPhotographyWhat’s wrong with saying ‘what’s up?’ I suppose you object to people who are ‘buzzing’ & ‘stoked’ and things that are ‘sick’ and ‘banging’ and what’s wrong with music? 😂
Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. I have found when using the 1.4x the bit of extra speed helps me get a sharp image. Also sometimes I have the speed set higher whilst waiting for action and will drop it if time allows and the subject sticks around enough. Cheers Keith
What a great guy! I subscribed just because you are straightforward and just making good content. You also convinced me to buy the 1.4 extender before my big bird outing for a migration in East Tawas, Michigan in a few weeks.
Partly as a result of watching this video, I bought the 1.4x on the day I bought my 100-500. And after three months or so, I agree with everything Keith says, even about how tempting it is to just leave the 1.4 on!
Thanks for your test and sharing it. I have the RF 100-500 and the 2X converter, but I find it hard too use. Your demo has convinced me to try the 1,4X. / Per - Denmark
having had and used both the EF 1.4x and EF 2.0x, I must say I was happier with the 1.4x version. Just little extension of the telephoto while preserving the sharpness and not taking a big hit on the aperture. Since I have converted over to the R series cameras, I am building my RF collection. Probably will trade my EF 100-400 for the RF 100-500 and later pick up the RF 1.4x.
Thanks for the feedback I think you have it spot on re the difference between the converters. Your route to the 100-500 and 1.4x is exactly the same as mine and I have no regrets. Thanks Keith
Hi Keith good video, when I had the 100-400 MK2 I used the 1.4 MK3 extender all the time and mine was pin sharp you couldn't tell it was on there, when I was using my DSLR it was calibrated by Canon all my lenses, extenders and cameras were focused matched by Canon. Now I shoot mirrorless as you know, this system does not need calibration, my EF 1.4 MK3 and 100-400 MK2 was as sharp as it was on my calibrated cameras, I now have the RF 1.4 and like you I sometimes use it on my RF100-500 but I don't like the F10. I still have my EF 1.4MKIII it lives on my 600mm F4 MKII I notice no difference in sharpness.
Another wonderful honest down to earth personal review of the 1.4 converter. Since I saw your videos using the RF 100-500mm lens I became a convert and traded in my 300mm prime for the 100-500 and was well impressed by the quality and superb sharpness they produce. Saving up for a 1.4 converter now. 😉👍
Thanks Kim. Great to hear you are pleased with the 100-500 and I am sure you will enjoy the 1.4x in the right conditions. Watch out for tomorrow's video with Dragonflies taken with the 100-500 and 1.4x. Cheers Keith
Thanks; this is just what I was looking for, with lovely images, too. I may have missed it, but I assume this was a full frame sensor? I'm interested in performance on my Canon R7, a crop sensor that I use with the RF 100-500 zoom. Basically, I'm trying to decide between the 1.4x teleconverter and the 800 mm F11 prime. Since their effective reach and aperture are comparable, it really comes down to how much image and AF degradation is associated with the TC on an L series lens. I appreciate your insights, thanks.
Thanks. Interesting decision you are trying to make. My trial was using the Canon R5 so yes it is a full frame. I don’t have experience of the 800 but a few of my friends have it on the R7 and they are extremely impressed. My guess is the 800 will give a slightly sharper image but the 100-500 with the 1.4 will give more flexibility and unless you are pixel peeking it will be difficult to see the lack of sharpness. Sorry I can’t be more definitive but I think whichever way you go you will probably end up happy. Cheers Keith
@@KGsPhotography I have those lenses and you are spot on. The R7 with the 800 is my favorite combo. The 100-500 is awesome by itself but once you add the tele I don't like the images as much as the rf800 but you do still get the zoom capability. So if you were carrying everything in and were trying to minimize weight the tele lets you bring one lens and handle a lot of situations but it does come with its compromises. I also have a R6 mark ii and tried the RF800 with the tele on it to try to match what the R7 with RF800 does. Not impressed. I like the R6m2 for people and some wildlife if the light is low but my R7 just ticks the most boxes for me.
Worth noting that lens can only be used in the 300-500 distance with the converter fitted. Most will be fitting this for the 500 end anyway. Getting great results with mine so far.
Hi Keith - appreciate your shared experiences which are educational - thank you. If I may express one negative but constructive criticism, which is surprisingly common in lens / extender reviews - many people never mention the camera body they are using. Is this full frame or APSC. This has surely got to make a difference in performance depending on the pairing of extender / lens / camera. I would go as far as to say there would even be differences in performance amongst various full frame models as there would be amongst various APSC models. So I think providing full detail including camera body is important. Interesting that most people exclude the camera body in their Exif data, where you will often be given lens, focal length, shutter speed, aperture, iso but no camera model. Food for thought?
Good point made and definitely the body will make a difference. In effect the body will make a difference with or without the converter. Not tested it but assume the better the body the better the result with the converter. As you also mentioned the lens will also make the difference. I guess if you are truly comparing the converter performance it has to be with and without it on the same body and lens. Thanks for the comment and watching the video. Cheers Keith
Wonderful review with great photos and videos. I just discovered your review today. Coincidentally, I plan on going out tomorrow for the first time with my R7, 100-500mm and the 1.4x converter. I'm looking forward to the experience!
Really interesting Keith. Learned a lot. I’m going to upgrade to Canon this year and this 1.4 converter was something I was thinking of. So this vid has been great. Can I ask is it only low light where you wouldn’t use it?
Thanks Dave. Yes because you lose I think it is 2 stops of light, then the ISO will go up in poor light so it is definitely better in good light. Any other time you need good reach it will be great.
Nice Keith, I think the advances in lens & glass technology have really come on leaps & bounds towards the latter end of EF production & more so with the launch of RF stuff. If you compare a 100-400EF Mk1 within a 1.4x tc mk1; against a 100-400EF Mk2 & 1.4x tc mk3 for example - the difference is almost night & day. Like you, I had the older 1.4x tc & hardly used it as it softened my images. I now have a mk3, & that is way better. A question for you… Have you tried the R5 in crop mode with the 100-500 & 1.4x tc fitted? If so, you’ll have some serious reach available to you then, & I’m assuming still at F10? You’ll surely be somewhere near the 1000mm reach mark then? Great vlog, gives those of us considering the EF/RF swap/upgrade some useful info & advice. Cheers Keith. Keep on keeping on! Best, Nick
Hi Nick. You make some great point re the advancement in glass. Yes I have tried the R5 in crop mode but I just found in effect it was the same as taking in full frame and post cropping. I seemed to find that if you shot one full frame and one in cropped mode, when you put them into Lightroom and magnify both to 100% you end up with the same image. May be wrong but that’s just how it seemed to me. Thanks for your support mate Cheers … Keith
@@KGsPhotography I suspect it is the same. However, the lower megapixel image uses less space on the memory card and transfers are faster. Loading in lightroom is probably faster. So you are probably just saving time in the process versus getting the full image and throwing out/cropping in software.
So I have the exact set up. I noticed when I am at 700 mm and doing a spot focus to get on the focal plan it keeps jumping in and out of focus rapidly. I am not sure why it does this at full extension. Did you have this problem? I am only getting this while fully extended. Any help would be appreciated.
I don't have an issue to that extent. The auto-focus is not as quick with the extender but once locked on, it seems to do a decent job. I am using Animal Eye focus tracking rather than just spot so maybe that is the reason I don't get the issue.
Well we must all be feeling a need for reach I am shooting at 1200mm this week. Which I don't recommend as a rule . A 1.4 converter is as far as I would go with a long zoom lens ! Looks great quality at 700mm in good light, awesome as we all feel a bit short in wildlife photography 😃
I have an R7 (APSC 1.6x) and the 100-500mm RF, which gives me a total of 800 equivalent mm. It does have some noise when you start going up in ISO, but pictures are perfectly usable until 4000 ISO or so (I don't even use Topaz Denoise or DSX raw). I wonder if by using the 1.4x teleconverter the quality will be affected. The total combination would be 1120mm, which is absurd.
How refreshing to watch a video review that isn't drowned out with music, or starts with. "What's up guys". Thanks
Thanks Oliver appreciate the comment. You make me feel normal 😂
@@KGsPhotographyWhat’s wrong with saying ‘what’s up?’ I suppose you object to people who are ‘buzzing’ & ‘stoked’ and things that are ‘sick’ and ‘banging’ and what’s wrong with music? 😂
@@robertbrown6060 nothing at all Robert. Everyone has their favourite things. Thanks for the comment.
Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. I have found when using the 1.4x the bit of extra speed helps me get a sharp image. Also sometimes I have the speed set higher whilst waiting for action and will drop it if time allows and the subject sticks around enough. Cheers Keith
Totally agree !
Unfortunately it's an ongoing theme with videos from across the pond !😂😂😂
What a great guy! I subscribed just because you are straightforward and just making good content. You also convinced me to buy the 1.4 extender before my big bird outing for a migration in East Tawas, Michigan in a few weeks.
Thanks mate. Sure you will be happy with the 1.4x. Had some good light in the UK today so put mine to use. Enjoy the trip.
Partly as a result of watching this video, I bought the 1.4x on the day I bought my 100-500. And after three months or so, I agree with everything Keith says, even about how tempting it is to just leave the 1.4 on!
That's great news, Tony, really pleased it worked out for you. Appreciate your support on the channel.
Cheers Keith. Cracking film. All the best. 👍📷😎
Thanks mate.
Nice one Keith, amazing vid...
Thanks Ralph.
Seems to be doing a great job Keith, cracking selection of shots. The lens also excels at macro I see! good one mate👍
Thanks mate, yes working well.
Thanks for your test and sharing it. I have the RF 100-500 and the 2X converter, but I find it hard too use. Your demo has convinced me to try the 1,4X. / Per - Denmark
Thanks. Yes I am very happy with the 1.4x but have to say not sure I would go for the 2x unless it was on something like a 400 f2.8
having had and used both the EF 1.4x and EF 2.0x, I must say I was happier with the 1.4x version. Just little extension of the telephoto while preserving the sharpness and not taking a big hit on the aperture. Since I have converted over to the R series cameras, I am building my RF collection. Probably will trade my EF 100-400 for the RF 100-500 and later pick up the RF 1.4x.
Thanks for the feedback I think you have it spot on re the difference between the converters. Your route to the 100-500 and 1.4x is exactly the same as mine and I have no regrets. Thanks Keith
Beautiful work. Thank you.
Thanks for watching much appreciated.
Hi Keith good video, when I had the 100-400 MK2 I used the 1.4 MK3 extender all the time and mine was pin sharp you couldn't tell it was on there, when I was using my DSLR it was calibrated by Canon all my lenses, extenders and cameras were focused matched by Canon.
Now I shoot mirrorless as you know, this system does not need calibration, my EF 1.4 MK3 and 100-400 MK2 was as sharp as it was on my calibrated cameras, I now have the RF 1.4 and like you I sometimes use it on my RF100-500 but I don't like the F10.
I still have my EF 1.4MKIII it lives on my 600mm F4 MKII I notice no difference in sharpness.
Interesting to hear your experience Tony. I used to calibrate my 100-400 myself but thinking about it never calibrated with the 1.4 on.
Another wonderful honest down to earth personal review of the 1.4 converter. Since I saw your videos using the RF 100-500mm lens I became a convert and traded in my 300mm prime for the 100-500 and was well impressed by the quality and superb sharpness they produce. Saving up for a 1.4 converter now. 😉👍
Thanks Kim. Great to hear you are pleased with the 100-500 and I am sure you will enjoy the 1.4x in the right conditions. Watch out for tomorrow's video with Dragonflies taken with the 100-500 and 1.4x. Cheers Keith
Cool relaxing and informative video, thanx! oh and cool website. Im working on mine as well
Thanks for watching and commenting. Good luck with the website.
Thanks; this is just what I was looking for, with lovely images, too. I may have missed it, but I assume this was a full frame sensor? I'm interested in performance on my Canon R7, a crop sensor that I use with the RF 100-500 zoom. Basically, I'm trying to decide between the 1.4x teleconverter and the 800 mm F11 prime. Since their effective reach and aperture are comparable, it really comes down to how much image and AF degradation is associated with the TC on an L series lens. I appreciate your insights, thanks.
Thanks. Interesting decision you are trying to make. My trial was using the Canon R5 so yes it is a full frame. I don’t have experience of the 800 but a few of my friends have it on the R7 and they are extremely impressed. My guess is the 800 will give a slightly sharper image but the 100-500 with the 1.4 will give more flexibility and unless you are pixel peeking it will be difficult to see the lack of sharpness. Sorry I can’t be more definitive but I think whichever way you go you will probably end up happy. Cheers Keith
@@KGsPhotography Thanks, that's helpful.
@@KGsPhotography I have those lenses and you are spot on. The R7 with the 800 is my favorite combo. The 100-500 is awesome by itself but once you add the tele I don't like the images as much as the rf800 but you do still get the zoom capability. So if you were carrying everything in and were trying to minimize weight the tele lets you bring one lens and handle a lot of situations but it does come with its compromises. I also have a R6 mark ii and tried the RF800 with the tele on it to try to match what the R7 with RF800 does. Not impressed. I like the R6m2 for people and some wildlife if the light is low but my R7 just ticks the most boxes for me.
Lovely pictures and video Keith, I have the 1.4 converter but not tried it with video will be having ago and see what its like on my 100-400mm.👍
Thanks Martin, yes give it a go should be fine with video.
Worth noting that lens can only be used in the 300-500 distance with the converter fitted. Most will be fitting this for the 500 end anyway. Getting great results with mine so far.
Thanks Oliver good point made and as you say normally you are trying to get more reach anyway. Glad you are getting good results also. Cheers Keith
Hi Keith - appreciate your shared experiences which are educational - thank you. If I may express one negative but constructive criticism, which is surprisingly common in lens / extender reviews - many people never mention the camera body they are using. Is this full frame or APSC. This has surely got to make a difference in performance depending on the pairing of extender / lens / camera. I would go as far as to say there would even be differences in performance amongst various full frame models as there would be amongst various APSC models. So I think providing full detail including camera body is important. Interesting that most people exclude the camera body in their Exif data, where you will often be given lens, focal length, shutter speed, aperture, iso but no camera model. Food for thought?
Good point made and definitely the body will make a difference. In effect the body will make a difference with or without the converter. Not tested it but assume the better the body the better the result with the converter. As you also mentioned the lens will also make the difference. I guess if you are truly comparing the converter performance it has to be with and without it on the same body and lens. Thanks for the comment and watching the video. Cheers Keith
Wonderful review with great photos and videos. I just discovered your review today. Coincidentally, I plan on going out tomorrow for the first time with my R7, 100-500mm and the 1.4x converter. I'm looking forward to the experience!
Thanks Ray. Really hope you manage to capture some great images. Sounds like an excellent setup. Cheers Keith
Really interesting Keith. Learned a lot.
I’m going to upgrade to Canon this year and this 1.4 converter was something I was thinking of. So this vid has been great.
Can I ask is it only low light where you wouldn’t use it?
Thanks Dave. Yes because you lose I think it is 2 stops of light, then the ISO will go up in poor light so it is definitely better in good light. Any other time you need good reach it will be great.
@@KGsPhotography thanks mate.
Nice Keith, I think the advances in lens & glass technology have really come on leaps & bounds towards the latter end of EF production & more so with the launch of RF stuff. If you compare a 100-400EF Mk1 within a 1.4x tc mk1; against a 100-400EF Mk2 & 1.4x tc mk3 for example - the difference is almost night & day. Like you, I had the older 1.4x tc & hardly used it as it softened my images. I now have a mk3, & that is way better. A question for you…
Have you tried the R5 in crop mode with the 100-500 & 1.4x tc fitted? If so, you’ll have some serious reach available to you then, & I’m assuming still at F10?
You’ll surely be somewhere near the 1000mm reach mark then?
Great vlog, gives those of us considering the EF/RF swap/upgrade some useful info & advice.
Cheers Keith.
Keep on keeping on!
Best,
Nick
Hi Nick. You make some great point re the advancement in glass. Yes I have tried the R5 in crop mode but I just found in effect it was the same as taking in full frame and post cropping. I seemed to find that if you shot one full frame and one in cropped mode, when you put them into Lightroom and magnify both to 100% you end up with the same image. May be wrong but that’s just how it seemed to me.
Thanks for your support mate
Cheers … Keith
@@KGsPhotography I suspect it is the same. However, the lower megapixel image uses less space on the memory card and transfers are faster. Loading in lightroom is probably faster. So you are probably just saving time in the process versus getting the full image and throwing out/cropping in software.
@@spyder000069 great point mate.
Hi Keith, great video just wondering what canon body are you using with the 1.4 and rf100-500 cheers Bill
Thanks Bill. I am using the R5 which is an amazing body. Cheers Keith
Have you tried this combo handheld? I struggle with the added weight and maintaining sharp shots.
Yes it works ok hand held but to up the shutter speed a little
So I have the exact set up. I noticed when I am at 700 mm and doing a spot focus to get on the focal plan it keeps jumping in and out of focus rapidly. I am not sure why it does this at full extension. Did you have this problem? I am only getting this while fully extended. Any help would be appreciated.
I don't have an issue to that extent. The auto-focus is not as quick with the extender but once locked on, it seems to do a decent job. I am using Animal Eye focus tracking rather than just spot so maybe that is the reason I don't get the issue.
@@KGsPhotography /thank you
Well we must all be feeling a need for reach I am shooting at 1200mm this week. Which I don't recommend as a rule . A 1.4 converter is as far as I would go with a long zoom lens ! Looks great quality at 700mm in good light, awesome as we all feel a bit short in wildlife photography 😃
Thanks Mark, in most situations, we never have enough reach and the 1.4 was working well.
My 1.4 lives on the lens all of the time
Good to know 🙂
Hi Keith, yep in certain circumstances a 1.4 converter is a good shout. Nice video, all the best, Steve.
Thanks Steve, yes really pleased with it so far. Cheers Keith
I have an R7 (APSC 1.6x) and the 100-500mm RF, which gives me a total of 800 equivalent mm. It does have some noise when you start going up in ISO, but pictures are perfectly usable until 4000 ISO or so (I don't even use Topaz Denoise or DSX raw). I wonder if by using the 1.4x teleconverter the quality will be affected.
The total combination would be 1120mm, which is absurd.
That would be some reach!! Would be interesting to see what results you can get from it.
sounds like your ef 1.4 was a bad copy i have had 3 of them and the mk1 mk2 mk3 were all good its only the 2x which were a bit disapointing
You could very well be right.
Pictures don't look that sharp to me!
Never quite as sharp with the extender.
@@KGsPhotography Pity! I would of bought one but it's not worth it if they degrade your pictures to that extent!