1.4 TC use for the R5 and R6

I was shooting my 500F/4 on my 1Dx2 this week. It struggled with BIF's on a grey shy with my version 2 1.4 TC. So I took it off and it started to hit as I would expect. Fast and snappy..... I will probably only use my current TC for perched or slow moving wildlife on my 1Dx2. I was surprised it struggled this much

I am about to order a mirrorless. Probably an R6

Will my 1.4 TC work with the EFs adapter ??

Will I need to get an RF 1.4 TC ??

I have read several posts about TC use with both current R5 & R6 posts and its a little confusing as to how everyone is using them.

Whats the best set up for use with EF L Glass on an R5 or R6 ??

Im tempted to get a 100-400 Version 2 over the RF 100-500 when I order....But what TC to use im very confused about this. I really dont want to buy a 1.4 version 3 TC. If I have to buy a TC I think I would rather buy the RF 1.4.

Can the RF 1.4 be mounted to the body and then the adapter for EF L glass to give you that combination ??

HELP !!!!

I can't speak to any of the "R" questions, but will add that I find it hard to shoot with the 1.4x II on my 500/4, because I have a hard time finding the BIF in my viewfinder at that focal length.

When I use the TC it is for birds already in the water. Similar to your perching use I suppose.

I own the 1.4 TC II and bought a used III that will be delivered today based on the specs on that german site that was posted in another thread on TC's.

HKGuns wrote in post #19165642
I can't speak to any of the "R" questions, but will add that I find it hard to shoot with the 1.4x II on my 500/4, because I have a hard time finding the BIF in my viewfinder at that focal length.

When I use the TC it is for birds already in the water. Similar to your perching use I suppose.

I own the 1.4 TC II and bought a used III that will be delivered today based on the specs on that german site that was posted in another thread on TC's.

PLEASE drop me a PM and let me know how it did for performance

umphotography wrote in post #19165634
I was shooting my 500F/4 on my 1Dx2 this week. It struggled with BIF's on a grey shy with my version 2 1.4 TC. So I took it off and it started to hit as I would expect. Fast and snappy..... I will probably only use my current TC for perched or slow moving wildlife on my 1Dx2. I was surprised it struggled this much

I am about to order a mirrorless. Probably an R6

Will my 1.4 TC work with the EFs adapter ??

Will I need to get an RF 1.4 TC ??

I have read several posts about TC use with both current R5 & R6 posts and its a little confusing as to how everyone is using them.

Whats the best set up for use with EF L Glass on an R5 or R6 ??

Im tempted to get a 100-400 Version 2 over the RF 100-500 when I order....But what TC to use im very confused about this. I really dont want to buy a 1.4 version 3 TC. If I have to buy a TC I think I would rather buy the RF 1.4.

Can the RF 1.4 be mounted to the body and then the adapter for EF L glass to give you that combination ??

HELP !!!!

I have the 100-500 and RF 1.4. I don't think I'll be using it for BIF very much but it's great for stills.

You can't use a Canon RF TC with an EF lens. Won't work with the adapter. Only way to use an EF lens is to get an EF to RF adapter then you can use your EF TC's . I used both my EF 1.4 and 2X and EF lenses on my R with the EF -RF adapter.

Yes thanks

I realized after a re read this that the RF adapter questions were wrong on my part. The RF has to be attached to an RF body.

NP. You weren’t the first to ask.

There is a work around I read about and that was why I said Canon. Technically you would think you could mount the RF TC to the camera, mount the RF to EF adapter to the TC and use an EF lens. You can't because the RF TC front element is too long so it won't fit through the adapter.

Someone on another site used a 3rd party adapter and carved out the innards that where in the way of the TC front element. That was 6 months ago so I had to think about it and my wife and I were in the middle of a show. I can't remember how well it worked and if it would Auto Focus. Also there has to be a reason why that front element sticks out so far and is right up against that back element of the lens. Personally I wouldn't do it. I suppose you could carve out a Canon TC. Not sure why that person used a 3rd party adapter. Cheaper if it didn't work?

People with RF lenses were asking if you could use a Canon RF TC for future proofing. Why spend the money on an EF TC when they were planning to get an RF lens down the road.

To use with EF lenses, you still use the EF Teleconverters.

From what I've done so far, the difference between old school SLR phase detect, and the DPAF system in the mirrorless is in fact, as you like to say, night and day.

(That said, I am surprised to read that the 1DXII took such a hit? I don't recall, but are you using teh Gen II IS 500mm? If not that is part of the issue, sadly)

There is no speed hit at all when I install the 1.4x behind the 100-400mm on the R5.

Full Stop. No speed hit at all.

And that's an f/5.6 zoom, not an f/4 dream machine Prime.

I've also stacked a pair of 2X TCs behind the f/5.6 300-800mm SIGMA.
A 800mm zoom setting, that's 3200mm @ f/22.
It was able to achieve auto focus FAST.
At night.
On a subject 238,900 miles away

If I tried this on the 1DXIII or 5D4 with the phase detect AF it would spit in my face. Unlike the Phase Detect system, the Mirrorless do not appear to care if you brew up the magic potion that is REQUIRED for the best AF with T-Cons on the phase Detect AF systems. You don't need MKIII T-Cons. You don't need Gen II lenses. Any old lens and t-con will do.

I've yet to put the R5 behind my 500mm, but based on what I've experienced so far, DPAF is a true game changer where T-Cons are concerned.

digital paradise wrote in post #19165981
There is a work around I read about and that was why I said Canon. Technically you would think you could mount the RF TC to the camera, mount the RF to EF adapter to the TC and use an EF lens. You can't because the RF TC front element is too long so it won't fit through the adapter.

Someone on another site used a 3rd party adapter and carved out the innards that where in the way of the TC front element. That was 6 months ago so I had to think about it and my wife and I were in the middle of a show. I can't remember how well it worked and if it would Auto Focus. Also there has to be a reason why that front element sticks out so far and is right up against that back element of the lens. Personally I wouldn't do it. I suppose you could carve out a Canon TC. Not sure why that person used a 3rd party adapter. Cheaper if it didn't work?

People with RF lenses were asking if you could use a Canon RF TC for future proofing. Why spend the money on an EF TC when they were planning to get an RF lens down the road.

I think there is more to it than that even. If the RF T-con were to be used behind the EF to RF adapter, (assuming it did just fit, which it doesn't) would that not, by putting the adapter so much further forward, turn the adapter into a very fat extension tube? Instead of being the necceasay distance to put an EF right where it needs to be, it's now pushing the EF lens that much further away than it should be. It just seems the engineering thought that went into making the EF glass work so perfectly, and the depth of those adapters, have to be tied very closely.

Bottom line, the EF adapter was designed to work with EF lenses, and likewise with the RF versions, so other than "just to see" which I understand why even bother messing with it? the results couldn't possibly be better.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19166003
I think there is more to it than that even. If the RF T-con were to be used behind the EF to RF adapter, (assuming it did just fit, which it doesn't) would that not, by putting the adapter so much further forward, turn the adapter into a very fat extension tube? Instead of being the necceasay distance to put an EF right where it needs to be, it's now pushing the EF lens that much further away than it should be. It just seems the engineering thought that went into making the EF glass work so perfectly, and the depth of those adapters, have to be tied very closely.

Bottom line, the EF adapter was designed to work with EF lenses, and likewise with the RF versions, so other than "just to see" which I understand why even bother messing with it? the results couldn't possibly be better.

I agree. I wonder if that homemade fab would change the focal length. When I had the EF 1.4 and 2x I used a 12mm extension tube to keep them together when not in use.

One day I accidentally detached one TC and left the tube on. The lens was off badly and I thought I broke sometime. The RF to EF adapter is black and so is the tube so it took a while to figure out the problem.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19166002
To use with EF lenses, you still use the EF Teleconverters.

From what I've done so far, the difference between old school SLR phase detect, and the DPAF system in the mirrorless is in fact, as you like to say, night and day.

(That said, I am surprised to read that the 1DXII took such a hit? I don't recall, but are you using teh Gen II IS 500mm? If not that is part of the issue, sadly)

There is no speed hit at all when I install the 1.4x behind the 100-400mm on the R5.

Full Stop. No speed hit at all.

And that's an f/5.6 zoom, not an f/4 dream machine Prime.

I've also stacked a pair of 2X TCs behind the f/5.6 300-800mm SIGMA.
A 800mm zoom setting, that's 3200mm @ f/22.
It was able to achieve auto focus FAST.
At night.
On a subject 238,900 miles away

If I tried this on the 1DXIII or 5D4 with the phase detect AF it would spit in my face. Unlike the Phase Detect system, the Mirrorless do not appear to care if you brew up the magic potion that is REQUIRED for the best AF with T-Cons on the phase Detect AF systems. You don't need MKIII T-Cons. You don't need Gen II lenses. Any old lens and t-con will do.

I've yet to put the R5 behind my 500mm, but based on what I've experienced so far, DPAF is a true game changer where T-Cons are concerned.

I have a version 1 500F4.....It is fine on a blue sky. It was just a flat cloudy foggy morning so I think that had a lot to do with it....when TC was off it hit well....I need to spend more time with it...BIFs' were the big issue in these conditions...specifica​lly eagles a little further out.....closer birds and AF was a little slow but it would hit....perched and no problem. Im going to Yellowstone in the spring with same set ups. Will experiment this winter....This version 1 is very sharp and the AF was as snappy as my 300 F/2.8 which was also a version 1......Im told the version 1's get a new lease on life with the R5 & R6.....so anxious to give it a go

R6 in the works so I am looking at all options...these are straight off files...so pretty sharp

Nice.

The only reason I ask about the version one, is tht even with the 1DXII, Canon is going to apply the "t-con brakes" on you when you use one. The only way to avoid it on the 1DXII, is to invest in the mkIII T-con AND the Gen II lens.

But yes, from what I am experiencing, the new R bodies are not at all bothered by which t-con or which gen lens. I get the feeling they'd focus through the bottom of an old green glass Coca Cola bottle if you asked them to.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19166003
I think there is more to it than that even. If the RF T-con were to be used behind the EF to RF adapter, (assuming it did just fit, which it doesn't) would that not, by putting the adapter so much further forward, turn the adapter into a very fat extension tube? Instead of being the necceasay distance to put an EF right where it needs to be, it's now pushing the EF lens that much further away than it should be. It just seems the engineering thought that went into making the EF glass work so perfectly, and the depth of those adapters, have to be tied very closely.

Bottom line, the EF adapter was designed to work with EF lenses, and likewise with the RF versions, so other than "just to see" which I understand why even bother messing with it? the results couldn't possibly be better.

It works!

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …News-Post.aspx?News=35054
Hacked: Making All Canon EF and EF-S Lenses Compatible with Canon RF Extenders

So now, some EF lenses that are not compatible with Canon TCs due to the rear element of the lens being too far rearward are now compatible (after a little hacking)
eg 70-300 L.

Bryan never mentioned another hack so probably is not aware of it: with Sony TCs the rubber around the protruding front element of the TC can easily be removed which allows it to fit inside the Sigma MC-11 adapter (Canon EF lens to Sony mount). This rubber is just a protector for forgetful / ignorant / drunk users trying to mount things to the TC which should not be. So good chance the similar rubber on the RF TC could be removed allowing it to fit inside an unmodified EF-RF adapter.

digital paradise wrote in post #19165981
There is a work around I read about and that was why I said Canon. Technically you would think you could mount the RF TC to the camera, mount the RF to EF adapter to the TC and use an EF lens. You can't because the RF TC front element is too long so it won't fit through the adapter.

Someone on another site used a 3rd party adapter and carved out the innards that where in the way of the TC front element. That was 6 months ago so I had to think about it and my wife and I were in the middle of a show. I can't remember how well it worked and if it would Auto Focus. Also there has to be a reason why that front element sticks out so far and is right up against that back element of the lens. Personally I wouldn't do it. I suppose you could carve out a Canon TC. Not sure why that person used a 3rd party adapter. Cheaper if it didn't work?

People with RF lenses were asking if you could use a Canon RF TC for future proofing. Why spend the money on an EF TC when they were planning to get an RF lens down the road.

I don't recall whether such hacks allowed AF or any communication, myself, but my gut feeling is that the body might see the RF TC, talk in RF protocol, and not see the EF lens, like using a manual lens, unless the TC just has 8 pass-through wires to the EF-relevant pins, with no electronics on them, in which case AF and aperture control might work, but reporting may be absent, if the EF lens can't talk to the RF TC through the 3 extra EF-lens reporting-TC contacts. Canon might not have any motive for providing such communication or cooperation.

Do RF lenses and TCs have extra contacts for TC communication like EF does, or does the TC intercept lens/body communication. It would be interesting if the reporting was in-line, and still worked with an EF lens.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19166002
I've yet to put the R5 behind my 500mm, but based on what I've experienced so far, DPAF is a true game changer where T-Cons are concerned.

Optically, yes, but you can't just randomly stack TCs of any type and expect the system to deal with it correctly, electronically. I find that many combinations just bang the IS (even if both IS and AF are disabled on the lens), or report communication errors. I am considering gutting some TCs and removing anything but pass-through, for stacking purposes. Also for AF speed purposes, as AF can work somewhat reliably without any AF speed governance caused by reporting TCs in good light and contrast. I find the more you cheat on AF speed governance with non-reporting TCs, the more likely focus is to jump quickly off-subject, after initially locking on in medium light, or overshooting in low light and/or contrast.