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!