p.3 #1 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
I have bought the 70 200 2.8 z and the 2x extender. I haven't had enough time to play with them but at the first view, the lens is such comfortable to use and I looks that it's the first one usable with the 2x extender.
Thank you so much for yours advices and I wish all of you the best for 2026 !
p.3 #2 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
I just wanted to add some more recent observations here. As I have repeated stated, I am a huge fan of the 70-200Z, with and without extender, for its image quality. I am equally a fan of the 100-500, one of my most used & beloved lenses. They both have a separate purpose in my life.
I recently shot some eagles from a zodiac with the R5m2, Z, with 2x TC, in what I would consider good light. The thing that I noticed was that the camera had an incredibly hard time to lock on, and oftentimes to keep up, with a subject that wasn't really all that challenging (remember normally I shoot owls, this was a cakewalk in comparison.)
So, image quality is great with the TC, AF tracking & lock not so much. Thus far I used the Z with the TC only on more or less static subjects, so this was news to me.
p.3 #3 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
stanj wrote:
I just wanted to add some more recent observations here. As I have repeated stated, I am a huge fan of the 70-200Z, with and without extender, for its image quality. I am equally a fan of the 100-500, one of my most used & beloved lenses. They both have a separate purpose in my life.
I recently shot some eagles from a zodiac with the R5m2, Z, with 2x TC, in what I would consider good light. The thing that I noticed was that the camera had an incredibly hard time to lock on, and oftentimes to keep up, with a subject that wasn't really all that challenging (remember normally I shoot owls, this was a cakewalk in comparison.)
So, image quality is great with the TC, AF tracking & lock not so much. Thus far I used the Z with the TC only on more or less static subjects, so this was news to me....Show more →
That's interesting. I have only used the Z with the 1.4x TC, including coverage of a youth hockey tournament. In that application combined with the R5II, I think it did very well, but not quite as well as a bare 100-300. In such situations there are a lot of variables at play, one of which is ambient light brightness where the additional one stop of light at f/2.8 can be beneficial for faster AF acquisition and consistency.
During these hockey tournaments I have also noticed something a little strange. There are times when the camera/lens combo does not want to initiate AF immediately. Sometimes the delay is a half-second but rarely it can be a little longer. I have noticed it whenever I have used native RF mount lenses, such as the 100-300 and now also the Z with 1.4x TC, both with the R6II and now also with the R5II. I think it's due to low subject contrast and the nature of mirrorless AF sensitivity. It's possible that the hockey players sometimes present poor contrast in the orientation needed for mirrorless AF to function, depending on the details and colors of jerseys, helmets, etc. The odd thing is that it doesn't seem to happen when I use the EF 200-400 adapted to either camera.
I have also had rare situations with the R5II in which all camera functions suggest AF should function properly, including blue AF point illumination during AI Servo, yet AF is constantly oscillating from in front of to behind the subject, but not actually locking onto the subject. When this happens, no photos are correctly focused. So far the only solution seems to be to turn the camera off/on. Sometimes I just pull the battery. After the reset, the camera has no trouble focusing on what it moments previously could not focus on.
p.3 #4 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
A little off topic here. Did a quick test between my RF 100-300 2.8+1.4X @420mm and RF 100-500 @500mm. Both lenses shot wide open. The 100-300 was noticeably sharper than the 100-500 even magnified to match. Pretty impressive!
p.3 #5 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Josef Isayo wrote:
A little off topic here. Did a quick test between my RF 100-300 2.8+1.4X @420mm and RF 100-500 @500mm. Both lenses shot wide open. The 100-300 was noticeably sharper than the 100-500 even magnified to match. Pretty impressive!
$11,000 vs $2,600. One would hope for some improvement.
p.3 #6 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
stanj wrote:
I just wanted to add some more recent observations here. As I have repeated stated, I am a huge fan of the 70-200Z, with and without extender, for its image quality. I am equally a fan of the 100-500, one of my most used & beloved lenses. They both have a separate purpose in my life.
I recently shot some eagles from a zodiac with the R5m2, Z, with 2x TC, in what I would consider good light. The thing that I noticed was that the camera had an incredibly hard time to lock on, and oftentimes to keep up, with a subject that wasn't really all that challenging (remember normally I shoot owls, this was a cakewalk in comparison.)
So, image quality is great with the TC, AF tracking & lock not so much. Thus far I used the Z with the TC only on more or less static subjects, so this was news to me....Show more →
Good to know about this ! Thanks.
So, you would say that the 100-500 would be better with moving subjects ?
p.3 #7 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
stanj wrote:
I just wanted to add some more recent observations here. As I have repeated stated, I am a huge fan of the 70-200Z, with and without extender, for its image quality. I am equally a fan of the 100-500, one of my most used & beloved lenses. They both have a separate purpose in my life.
I recently shot some eagles from a zodiac with the R5m2, Z, with 2x TC, in what I would consider good light. The thing that I noticed was that the camera had an incredibly hard time to lock on, and oftentimes to keep up, with a subject that wasn't really all that challenging (remember normally I shoot owls, this was a cakewalk in comparison.)
So, image quality is great with the TC, AF tracking & lock not so much. Thus far I used the Z with the TC only on more or less static subjects, so this was news to me....Show more →
Very interesting, I do not find this at all with the R1. I know you have the R1 also, maybe try it on that. I no longer have the R5 II to check. I mainly have done smaller shore birds and kestrels with it.
p.3 #8 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Yes, you are right, I shoot the R1 for moving subjects, and even so mostly with the RF400. I actually don't think I ever used the R1 with anything other than the RF400...
I know the R5m2 is inferior to the R1 when it comes to locking on to birds, but I'm confident that while I was unable to see a difference in IQ between the two combos, I did see a difference in tracking and especially acquisition.
p.3 #9 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
I haven't tried the new 70-200 z, but I did exactly the same equation back when I shot Sony and went to Galapagos a few years back. I figured a stellar 70-200/2/8 is a great lens to have in the arsenal, and with a 2x tele-converter you essentially get two lenses to chose from. It served me very well. (Although there were plenty of time I wished I had something much longer than a 400mm on that specific trip, but that is another story...)
