Opinion wanted: on Canon RF 1.4 vs 2.0 extender: I have a Canon EOS R5. I going use an extender on my RF 100-400mm lens for landscape closeups and occasional wildlife. I hear the 1.4...

Ron Seher

I have a Canon EOS R5. I going use an extender on my RF 100-400mm lens for landscape closeups and occasional wildlife. I hear the 1.4 does a better job in focus than the 2.0 extender. Any experienced users of these extenders who would like to share their thoughts. Ron, Plano, TX

User ID

Ron Seher wrote:

I have a Canon EOS R5. I going use an extender on my RF 100-400mm lens for landscape closeups and occasional wildlife. I hear the 1.4 does a better job in focus than the 2.0 extender. Any experienced users of these extenders who would like to share their thoughts. Ron, Plano, TX

Thaz how its always been, and still is.

But, if you NEED 2X then you need 2X, warts and all. IOW if you need only 1.4X, lucky you.

bkwaters

Ron Seher wrote:

I have a Canon EOS R5. I going use an extender on my RF 100-400mm lens for landscape closeups and occasional wildlife. I hear the 1.4 does a better job in focus than the 2.0 extender. Any experienced users of these extenders who would like to share their thoughts. Ron, Plano, TX

I prefer the 1.4.

CliffMcKenzie Loc: Lake Athens Texas

I have the 1.4 and 2.0 (Nikon). Trust me, go with the 1.4. It is an excellent trade off. Had I bought the 1.4 first, I would not have bought the 2.0. How do you make up the difference - crop.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I have the EF 100-400 ii and wanted to add an extender. I chose the 1.4 iii after trying both it and the 2.0. The latter would cost me 2 stops of light and no where as sharp as the 1.4. And that was that. The R5 45 mb sensor provides enough cropping space that in MHO, you’ll be much happier.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

Dupe

dwermske

I have used both on my 100-400 and have had good luck with both. For tack-sharp images, I would highly recommend that you use a very stable tripod and a remote release because the slightest movement will ruin your image. I'm sure you're aware that your available light is also going to be reduced by either extender. If you shoot at less that 250th/sec your shutter can even create a slight vibration causing the image to be slightly fuzzy. Hand held is out of the question.

KolorFotoBug Loc: Massachusetts

What do you not like about the Nikon 2x teleconverter? Is it the clarity and distortion? I was thinking of getting the 1.4x or the 2x but am looking for reviews by owners.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The single biggest problem with Nikon tele-extenders is they have nothing to do with Canon EOS-R mirrorless technology. Complete junk in a Canon OP.

KolorFotoBug Loc: Massachusetts

Sorry if I hit the wrong reply button. The question was to CliffMcKenzie (Lake Athens Texas) who mentioned in a broad context regarding his experience with a Nikon teleconverter. Thanks.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Go with the 1.4. Everyone I know who has both a 1.4 and a 2x, regardless of brand, prefers the 1.4 for image quality.

KolorFotoBug Loc: Massachusetts

Thanks for the input. Technology has advanced but I was still fearful of being disappointed with a 2x extender.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I use a 2X on that lens because the 2x give me more reach and less overlap (the same 140-400 with a 1.4 and you have 200-400 over lap with the 2X, aside from the longer reach). You do lose an f stop.