… but I just like them so much. I’m particularly pleased both face and claws came out sharp.
Red Kite, Prospect Park, Reading, UK. Canon R5 mk II + RF200-800mm
… but I just like them so much. I’m particularly pleased both face and claws came out sharp.
Red Kite, Prospect Park, Reading, UK. Canon R5 mk II + RF200-800mm
Yeah, both lenses are expensive, so I figure anyone committed to obtaining one is ready for that. (I sure am, even though I don’t want to be. I also notice that due to tariffs, or whatever the fuck else, both lenses jumped in MSRP by about $250 a few weeks ago.)
The teleconverters add quite a few cons for not many pros. Not only do you lose a full ƒ-stop of light with the 2x one that I own due to essentially just taking a bite out of the center of the cone of light that would be your field of view, but there’s something like 7 additional lens elements in the damn thing that add their own layer of optical aberration. In the case of the 2x one the loss in sharpness is extremely distinct, to the extent that I’m sure it’s no better than just cropping 50% out of your image and blowing it up in post. I remain unsold on the notion that their optical drawbacks are “not bad.” It seems there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and building a poor man’s 200-800 by slapping the 2x converter on the cheaper 100-400 lens definitely produces a crap result.
I stand corrected on Teleconverters then - a long while ago I was investigating them, and I gathered a “Not too bad” vibe, without much jumping for joy, which left me unconvinced.
Yeah, it’s really kind of a drag. Maybe the 1.4x one is slightly better but I’m not in a big hurry to find out.
Just for completeness, I did have a lot of pleasure birding with the RF600 F11 lens for a few years - no zoom, fixed aperture, but it served me well (and much lighter and so easier to aim). The RF200-800 is only better as a matter of degree (a bit more reach, a bit more light, and occasionally that zoom is useful), rather than a step change improvement. That “degree” does of course mean some shots noticeably change from OK to nice, because bird shots are often on the limits of what a camera can make look good.