RF 100-500 pros and cons.

[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.

https://flic.kr/p/2hdKgRN

 

[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.

https://flic.kr/p/2hdKgRN

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.

 

[Mantis55]

I never liked the 100-400 mk1 and swapped it for a 400mm f/5.6 which I had for many years even though it had no IS. Pretty good handheld for BIF, where IS is pretty irrelevant anyway. A bit slow focusing but many of my best wildlife shots were taken with it.

Only a few months ago I swapped it for the 100-400 Mk 2 which is a great lens but this was before I considered going mirrorless, which might have affected my decision. I would never use it with a TC as I already have the Sigma 150-600 S since 3 years ago. I never use it without a monopod though, it’s a beast.

If I could be convinced about better IQ and focusing I would probably get the 100-500 to replace both of them. Might consider hiring one at some point. For me IQ is probably more important than reach. I’m never going on any safaris and here in Scotland I can usually get close enough even if it takes a bit of patience.

Btw I ordered a Sigma 1.4 TC which arrived only last week, and tried it with the Sigma lens. I wasn’t happy with the sharpness and sent it back.

 

[Lookyloo69]

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.

I have used my 100-500 in low lioght I'm astounded that a supposed SLOW lens works well shooting a stage show from the back of the room ... I posted on FB page but can't seem to post a photo here lol I took photos of the drummers and that usually the hardest shot to accomplish

 

[Lookyloo69]

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.

woo hoo i can upload images ok took two shots in low light and i cropped when i took photo not in photoshop ... this lens rocks it ...

 

[Avatarshots]

This was my first test shot with my 100-500 RF zoomed out to 472mm, F7.1, 1/3200 sec, ISO 640. Shot at the beach. I apologize for the framing, but the shot showed me how capable this lens is.

 

[Trev4]

I've been on the point of ordering a 100-500 to replace my 100-400 Mkii plus my 1.4 Mkiii extender to use with my R5. Having read your comments above I'm now unsure if its such a good idea. The extra 100mm and lighter weight would be an advantage, but if its worth the £'s which are considerable, I don't think it is, especially with the extra length added when the 1.4 is attached and the lens cant be collapsed back to 100mm. Food for thought here, thanks for all your comments on this thread.

 

[LaurieAndersonPhotography]

My 100-500 finally ships out to me tomorrow. I decided to get that and sell my 100-400 II...later I will get a 1.4x. Looking forward to a lighter weight zoom lens and I’ve heard good things about the 100-500!

 

[Copterdoc]

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.

It is my understanding the RF 100-500mm lens is 7.1 at 500mm (Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM). That would be better than the 100-400 with the extender would it not/ and it is lighter and has great fast focus through the full lens zoom range. On the issue of IS being less than other lenses, I think this is true for all Super Zooms.

 

[Copterdoc]

Horses for courses as they say!

Well for the difference in price over the RF 600mm F4, I'll learn to overcome the difficulties and save the $9,000.00. If you don't have the reach, the faster 70-200mm F2.8 lens is not an option for long-range situations. A good challenge makes you stretch your skills. JMHO

 

[Genessi]

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.

I am waiting on the 600 but really want the versatility of RF 100-500 I will be coming from a M/4thirds camera

 

[Copterdoc]

I've been on the point of ordering a 100-500 to replace my 100-400 Mkii plus my 1.4 Mkiii extender to use with my R5. Having read your comments above I'm now unsure if its such a good idea. The extra 100mm and lighter weight would be an advantage, but if its worth the £'s which are considerable, I don't think it is, especially with the extra length added when the 1.4 is attached and the lens cant be collapsed back to 100mm. Food for thought here, thanks for all your comments on this thread.

I'm surely not in a position to spend your money as I'm not married and have no one to say no to me. That being said, there are two considerations. Most instances where I need to add the extender are very specific and not how I normally use the lens (partly due to its additional 100mm reach). The issue of collapsing the lens back past 300mm is, for me, an acceptable tradeoff for the lens and its spectacular performance. It is also a native RF mount and I find that it is both lighter and sharper with less chromatic aberration than the EF lenses I have. Understand that I have limited experience with the EF 100-400. I only rented that lens a few times. JMHO