Canon RF 100-500 Pros and Cons

[Michał Dudulewicz]

I am considering getting the RF 100-500 for sport and concert photography. I'd like to do some wildlife too. Could you guys share your opinion and hightlight the pros and cons of the lens? Thanks

 

[Dave Williams]

I haven't got the lens but I have toyed with the idea but that's as far as I have gone so far. I have the EF 100-400 Mk2 which seems to work extremely well even with the 1.4TC attached. It will AF with the 2.0X but I haven't had an opportunity to really test it.
The reason to change to the 100-500 would be purely a question of the 20% extra reach and would make a lightweight alternative to my 500mm f4 as a walk about lens although I'm not too sure I would be looking at an RF 2x TC when it's already f10 using the 1.4 when fully extended. That's not the only problem though! Stick a 1.4 TC on the 100-500 and you have to lock in to 420-700mm whereas a 1.4 on the EF gives you a range of 140-560mm at f8 at the long end. Much depends on your subject matter. For some wildlife and most birds, 420 minimum isn't a problem, it would probably be extended at 700mm most of the time anyway but for larger animals that are close by you would need to take the TC off so the reach advantge over the 100-400 plus TC is lost.The 100-400 with the TC attached makes an equally good African safari lens in my opinion.
Then there's the light factor. Depending on where you are shooting and conditions but I can't see f7.1 being the best for indoor use. An RF f2.8 70-200 lens might be a better alternative.
Finally there is the price consideration of course. Depending on your circumstances is it worth changing to RF lenses if you have an EF one that meets the criteria? I think it would cost me in the region of £2000 ($2800) to replace the 100-400 with the 100-500 plus TC. It might be a long time before RF lenses appear on the used market so you have to buy new. Personally I wouldn't buy a new EF lens now but it's worth looking at the used market and maybe getting better value and a wider choice to suit your needs?
The only other advantage of the 100-500 is the extra image stabilisation perhaps.

 

[Michał Dudulewicz]

Most sports would be shot outdoors. For indors I got the ef 70-200 f2.8 II which works nicely with r5. I think I'd use the rf 100-500 mainly outdoors due to the F factor.

 

[Dave Williams]

Most sports would be shot outdoors. For indors I got the ef 70-200 f2.8 II which works nicely with r5. I think I'd use the rf 100-500 mainly outdoors due to the F factor.

If you don't have the 100-400 Mk2 then it would seem a good choice then.

 

[Michał Dudulewicz]

If you don't have the 100-400 Mk2 then it would seem a good choice then.

I know this is not the answer my wife would love to hear, but thank you This is the way.

 

[Tim Mayo]

In good light the 100-500 is a great lens, I've not used it a lot in low light though so can't comment here. I've never owned the EF 100-400 so can't compare, but most reviews I have read say that the sharpness is similar but AF faster. Then of course you get the extra 100mm of reach. I have to admit to being tempted by the RF 800 as well, but at f/11 it really needs good light and we don't see that very often in the UK, but then for the price I don't think it would be so bad if I kept it just for a sunny day lens for that extra reach.

 

[Kathryn Milner]

I love my RF 100 - 500. Paired with my R5 I feel the quality of my images has really improved. It is quick and has excellent focus. Before I got the RF 100 - 500, very recently, I used an EF 100 - 400 version 1 that I have used for years and served me well. The improvements however, are revolutionary to me. My husband shoots with a Canon 5DS and recently upgraded to the EF 100 - 400 Version 2 from his previous Version 1 and he is delighted with the Version 2 as well.

 

[Dave Williams]

I think the key to peoples reviews on anything has to be based on previous experience and to be honest the 100-400Mk1 was not a particularly good lens imo. The Mk2 is superb though!

 

[Kathryn Milner]

I think the key to peoples reviews on anything has to be based on previous experience and to be honest the 100-400Mk1 was not a particularly good lens imo. The Mk2 is superb though!

I guess that is not what I was saying. I was saying that the 100 to 500 was revolutionary compared to our 100 - 400s. That aside, when version 1 of the 100 -400 came out we were excited about the photos we were able to take with it. Of course version 2 wasn’t available for a decade or more later and we didn’t upgrade our lenses until now. While I am not recommending the version 1 we have had the good fortune of taking amazing pictures with them.

 

[Dave Williams]

Well, after much consideration I have hit the buy button and ordered the 100-500. The extra 20% reach over my 100-400 was just too tempting. I haven't ordered a TC yet as the price was too high , not desperate at the moment as use will be limited. I am curious to see how the image quality compares with the 500mmf4. My back will no doubt give the 100-500 a thumbs up on a longish walk anyway!

 

[Woodawg]

I'm on a waiting list for one. Here in the US, it seems the RF 800 and the RF 100-500 are hot items. I waited 3 weeks for the RF 800 and am now starting my third week for the RF 100-500.

 

[guydunnuk]

I have just received the RF 100-500 and the lens is great from a build quality point of view, only managed to have a quick play with it and the thing I did notice is the speed and how ultra silent it is compared to the EF lenses.

 

[Dave Williams]

I had a little play hanging out of an upstairs window snapping shots of birds landing on and around my bird feeders. The object of the exercise was to compare the EF100-400Mk2 with the RF100-500 which I have just bought. I can honestly say I didn't notice any difference in AF speed or in the noise the lens made on the naked lens. What I did notice is the stabilisation seemed better with the 100-500 but there again so did the weight. I haven't received my ordered RF1.4TC yet so it was a case of the naked 100-500 but I tried the 100-400 with both Mk3 EF 1.4 and 2.0x TC's. I was incredibly impressed with the AF with the 2.0x, it seemed to lock on to my subject quickly ( bearing in mind I couldn't AF at all other than in live view on the !DX2) and the focus points cover almost all of the screen too.
The proof of the pudding has to be in the final image and as you'd expect the naked lens will always be a sharper image than that with a 2x TC on but in fairness the shot of a Blue Tit at 100% crop looks reasonably good to me and maybe a smaller crop would compare well with the 1.4 TC's IQ at a similar size but then there is no advantage of having the 2.0x.
The problem with f11 is the shutter speed and ISO have to be compromised and to keep it down to ISO1600 my shutter speed was just 1/100th of a second. I was also shooting in the shade which doesn't help. Bigger the crop the more the noise shows but Topaz does a decent cover up.
At the end of the day though I purchased the 100-500 for the not insignificant 20%extra reach and a weight saving. On both counts I'm happy with my decision. How I'll get on with the 1.4TC attached remains to be seen but I'm optimistic about IQ. Fully extended it's the same reach I'm used to having with my EF500mm f4 which nearly always has the TC bolted on but then that's only f5.6. At F11 you need good light or make some tough choices on compromise.
Will I buy the hugely expensive RF 2.0x TC? We'll see. F14 really does push for good light and here in the UK we don't get that much !!

 

[TMac99]

I have the RF 100 - 500 on my "To Get" list, so will be following along in this forum closely. So far I have to made do with the Rf 24-240, which I find surprisingly good image quality since it is a 10x zoom - very happy with that purchase so far.

 

[KWilles]

The RF 100-500 really was a game changer for me! Compared to other compatible lenses, it is light and fast! The Animal Eye Focus setting along with the built-in image stabilization also add to its effectiveness.

 

[Dave Williams]

Took my newly acquired 100-500 for a bit of testing to a local site where some Snow Buntings have been over wintering. Carrying the combination is a wonderful lightweight relief from my 500mm f4Mk2 with a DSLR, especially my now departed 1DX2. I have attached a Wimberley QR plate to create a better hand grip/carry handle at twice the length of the lens foot ( 4 inches in total) as I don't us the carry straps that either camera or lens come with.
Unfortunately my ordered RF 1.4TC didn't arrive in time for the shoot but it has now so I'll test the combination later. No doubt you will by now realise that if you attach the TC to the lens you have to first extend the barrel to 300mm otherwise the TC won't fit. You now have an effective 420-700mm lens so as long as you are happy with that all is fine, however one thing I hadn't considered is if you want to leave the TC attached and stow it away in your bag, or even have it hanging from your carry strap, with the lens hood attached it is considerably longer than it was before..an extra four inches long in fact. You might like to factor that in to your decision about a camera bag amongst other things.
One of the known problems of zoom lenses with extending external barrels is their weakness to taking in dust. The L class lens does it's best to prevent this I'm sure but my 100-400 shows slight evidence it inside the lens and no doubt in due course so will the 100-500. It doesn't show in the shots you take but it is there. Having the barrel permanently extended when you have the 1.4TC attached will increase the likelyhood of it collecting dirt and worse still, salt in the wrong environment. So beware, maybe taking a cloth to wipe it down before taking it apart might be a good idea, especially in maritime locations.
Anyway, here's my Snow Bunting on a rather dull day. ISO 800, 1/800th f7.1 at 500mm. An approximate 70% crop.
I have run the final image through Topaz but at ISO 800 there is no discernible difference to the final image.

 

[Lookyloo69]

I am considering getting the RF 100-500 for sport and concert photography. I'd like to do some wildlife too. Could you guys share your opinion and hightlight the pros and cons of the lens? Thanks

i just acquired mine ... i tend to shoot live bands in dark venues ... the lens is a bit slower but according to Canon rep the gyro axis in camera will help... it clains 5 stops ... we will find out ... over all the lens is nicely built ... seems faster than my 100-400mm vs one ... i'll bring extra batteries to the show

 

[Michał Dudulewicz]

I jumped on the RF 100-500.

 

[Andrea]

Still waiting for my 100-500 to arrive and am pining a lot on this lens being as good as has been reported by many users.

 

[Lookyloo69]

I haven't got the lens but I have toyed with the idea but that's as far as I have gone so far. I have the EF 100-400 Mk2 which seems to work extremely well even with the 1.4TC attached. It will AF with the 2.0X but I haven't had an opportunity to really test it.
The reason to change to the 100-500 would be purely a question of the 20% extra reach and would make a lightweight alternative to my 500mm f4 as a walk about lens although I'm not too sure I would be looking at an RF 2x TC when it's already f10 using the 1.4 when fully extended. That's not the only problem though! Stick a 1.4 TC on the 100-500 and you have to lock in to 420-700mm whereas a 1.4 on the EF gives you a range of 140-560mm at f8 at the long end. Much depends on your subject matter. For some wildlife and most birds, 420 minimum isn't a problem, it would probably be extended at 700mm most of the time anyway but for larger animals that are close by you would need to take the TC off so the reach advantge over the 100-400 plus TC is lost.The 100-400 with the TC attached makes an equally good African safari lens in my opinion.
Then there's the light factor. Depending on where you are shooting and conditions but I can't see f7.1 being the best for indoor use. An RF f2.8 70-200 lens might be a better alternative.
Finally there is the price consideration of course. Depending on your circumstances is it worth changing to RF lenses if you have an EF one that meets the criteria? I think it would cost me in the region of £2000 ($2800) to replace the 100-400 with the 100-500 plus TC. It might be a long time before RF lenses appear on the used market so you have to buy new. Personally I wouldn't buy a new EF lens now but it's worth looking at the used market and maybe getting better value and a wider choice to suit your needs?
The only other advantage of the 100-500 is the extra image stabilisation perhaps.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...s-of-stabilization-on-the-canon-eos-r5-and-r6 maybe this article will help

 

[Dave Williams]

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...s-of-stabilization-on-the-canon-eos-r5-and-r6 maybe this article will help

Interesting to read that the 100-500 isn't one of the top lenses when it comes to IS. I have since bought the lens and my appraisal here and elsewhere has suggested no discernible difference in AF speed,IQ or IS compared to the EF100-400 Mk2. The article suggests I was correct on IS .

 

[Shotbycurtin]

I jumped on the RF 100-500.

You’ll be pleased with it, great piece of kit. Like others here I’ve the 100-400iiL as well so the decision to jump to the RF lens was hard. In the end the extra reach and lighter weight did it for me. When I do sell on the 100-400 lens it will leave a sentimental hole in my kit bag.

 

[Dave Williams]

You’ll be pleased with it, great piece of kit. Like others here I’ve the 100-400iiL as well so the decision to jump to the RF lens was hard. In the end the extra reach and lighter weight did it for me. When I do sell on the 100-400 lens it will leave a sentimental hole in my kit bag.

Likewise! I'm wondering if I should keep it or sell. It does have some advantages over the 100-500, for a start it can regain the reach with a 1.4TC to become a 140-560 f8 lens. You can of course regain the reach by adding the RF 1.4 but lose it at the short end. I'm thinking that as a twosome side by side, both with TC's they give the ideal range of 140-700mm for a safari trip where you have sizes ranging from tiny to gigantic to fit in the frame. In the tight confines of a car they are easier to manhandle than a big telephoto lens like the 4/5/600mm or 200-400f4 big whites.

 

[Stoo]

The 100-500 when coupled with my R5 is just amazing. I have a Sigma 150-600 C as well but my go to long lens is the 100-500. I don't think it would be a great lens for a concert but I don't think I've seen many better photos from any of the long lenses I've had. These were taken from the same spot, the first at 100mm and the second at 700mm, both taken with the 100-500 and the second with the 1.4x converter fitted. Until I got these onto my computer I never knew the sails were numbered.

 

[Stoo]

These were taken yesterday (Saturday 27th, March) at a local park. These have come straight out the camera apart from a crop. Both were shot at 500mm.

 

[dmiller68]

I bought the Sigma 150-600 (the non-sport model) for my wildlife with the adapter. At the time this lens wasn't out yet. However, I have been shooting the Sigma for a long time had the Sigma 120-500 before this one. Since it is my only EF Lens I just leave the adapter attached so it is easy to swap. It is a great lens and you can get it for less then 50% of what Canons version cost. However, the negative is it is a heavy lens.

 

[Shotbycurtin]

Gave the 100-500 a first go at a rugby training session under floodlights tonight. I was going to use my 70-200L 2.8 EF lens but wanted to try the rf in poor light conditions. ISO was maxed out most of the time, shutter speed was 1/500 to 1/1000. Images were generally passable as thumb nails.

The 70-200 f2:8 will no doubt be better under the same conditions albeit with poor reach.

 

[Dave Williams]

Gave the 100-500 a first go at a rugby training session under floodlights tonight. I was going to use my 70-200L 2.8 EF lens but wanted to try the rf in poor light conditions. ISO was maxed out most of the time, shutter speed was 1/500 to 1/1000. Images were generally passable as thumb nails.

The 70-200 f2:8 will no doubt be better under the same conditions albeit with poor reach.

View attachment 1031

View attachment 1032

Horses for courses as they say!

 

[Lookyloo69]

saw a cardinal and couldnt keep the branches from being focused on ... I'm gonna have to try this again

 

[Stoo]

I bought the Sigma 150-600 (the non-sport model) for my wildlife with the adapter. At the time this lens wasn't out yet. However, I have been shooting the Sigma for a long time had the Sigma 120-500 before this one. Since it is my only EF Lens I just leave the adapter attached so it is easy to swap. It is a great lens and you can get it for less then 50% of what Canons version cost. However, the negative is it is a heavy lens.

I've got a Sigma 150-600 Contempory (non sport model) lens and got some fantastic shots with it. That lens now lives in a bag with my 1Dx MkII and the Sigma 1.4x converter is in the bag too. Since getting the R5 and the Rf 100-500 L the Sigma hasn't seen much use, but then neither has the 1Dx MkII lol.