@@DustinAbbottTWI Hi Dustin, I agree, that for traveling this may be a nicer form factor. But there is also an advantage to the internal zooming nature of the 200-600 G. In practice, I find that a lot more ergonomic and balanced than something like the Tamron 150-500, which is in spirit more similar to this Canon lens. The Canon is still lighter, but at such a cost, I’m not convinced it is worth it.
Oh yes, that Sony 200-600 is awesome. I deeply hope, Nikon soon releases a Z 200-600 5.6 VR S with linear Motors like the Sony competitor and I hope it will have a constant 1:5.6 aperture, analogue to the awesome AF-S 200-500 1:5.6E ED VR.
I’ve been using this lens on my R5 for a few months now and it is such a killer quality lens. The 100-400 v2 was amazing but this new lens beats it in every respect. So many nay-sayers about the f/stop screaming “unusable”…..I have found it quite useable in every situation I put it in! Sure, a larger aperture range would have been nice, even a constant one, but the already high price would certainly been higher, as well as its weight. Everyone seems to want a $12k lens for a bargain basement price and then shocked that they can’t. I now get to put it to work on my freshly delivered R7
So true. You give them a larger aperture, and then they'll start complaining about the weight, size, and the price of the lens. Can't have it all. f7.1 is still better than f8 on 100-400+1.4x.
Glad to see this excellent review. I previously had the 100-400 II and now have the RF 100-500 which I use with my R5 for birds. That extra 100 mm often makes the difference when it comes to birds at around 20 feet, which is my typical shooting distance. I would not want to go back to the 100-400 II, although it was also an excellent lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWIi had RF 100-400, now i have sigma 150-600c, thinking about buying rf 100-500 with converter. I also have Canon rf 70-200 f4 and its incredible sharp. Im wondering if 100-500 got same sharpness?
Thanks for the test, very good as usual! I have both the EF 100-400 L MKII and since December the RF 100-500. I was going back and forth if I should buy the RF or not. In the end it was not a mistake. I use it mainly for birds in flight and animals. In this direction I find much more sharp pictures from the RF than the EF combined with the x1.4 converter (personal feeling not a scientific test). Especially it grabs the focus much faster even the lens wasn't focused at the right distance when starting the AF on a bird in flight. Not saying that the EF does a bad job but I come home with more keepers on the RF. The other point was changing the converter in the field. With the RF not needed and I have the full range, always. If this is enough to go for the RF is very much depending on your money you can afford, sadly. I also tried again the cheaper alternative the Tamron 100-600 G2 but it didn't perform nearly as good as the EF 100-400 with the 1.4x converter. The EF 100-400 is now used in my permanent astro photography set up together with a astro modified EOS 70D.
It stands to reason that your findings are accurate. An adapted lens (even one that works very well like the 100-400L II) is going to face a few additional challenges that a native lens will not.
@@DustinAbbottTWI This guy said he tried the tamron 150-600 G2 I will point out I tested that lens vs the sigma 150-600 c and on eos R R6 found the tamron lens very slow to focus. I have videos on my channel regarding that. no amount of firmware updates solved the problem. I also found side by side the sigma was sharper and had less CA.
Outstanding detailed review. I already owned a EF100-400ii and the EF 1.4xiii before I purchased an R5. I’m thrilled with the results thus far. If I were to sell that combo for funds towards a 100-500, I’m probably still 1200-1500 dollars short. I am less in a hurry to do this upgrade after watching this review. That’s a lot of money for a marginal improvement. Even with the TC the 100-400ii seemed to hold its own.
Thanks for the great review. It conforms my own experience with this wonderful lens. I traded from the 100-400 when it came out. Horribly expensive in New Zealand but that's the only drawback and I have recovered. Being a bird photographer it covers all the bases and its light weight suits me. Am just trying teleconverters and it performs well. As the 7D MK2 and the 100-400 was a great match so is the R5 and the 100-500.
Very nice review, thank you. The almost $3000 USD cost combined with a narrow f7.1 max aperture is a deal breaker for me. For the price, I think Canon should have made the lens a max f5.6 aperture, thereby creating value, which would have been more consistent with competitors (Sony and Nikon). The fact that it doesn't fully fit the 1.4x extender makes me think they rushed the design out the door.
There's been some productive conversation here already, but I will say that I think this is less about rushing and more about trying to keep the lens at a certain size. The reason why it stays in the 100-400 form factor is because of the things you've mentioned. It would have been significantly larger if it held to F5.6 at 500mm.
I'm really trying to love this lens but really have problems embracing it. Two major issues, I really wish it was a little faster than 7.1, 6.3 would be better and 5.6 perfect. Nikon was able to bring out a really light 500mm F5.6. Canon pioneered DO optics and now Nikon is running with it.. My biggest issue is the extending zoom and the terriblely long zoom ring throw. It's nearly impossible to easily zoom through the full zoom range in one movement. Trying to do so inevitably causes you to loose your subject especially when working with fast moving subjects. Internal zooms which have short zoom throw are far superior for fast action. Canon also designed both RF70-200 lenses as external zooms.. Bad decision in my opinion. In fact I'm going back to the EF 70-200mm. The best design for external zoom was the push pull design of the original EF100-400mm. No lens was more intuitive for fast moving subjects coming towards or moving away from you.. The 100-500mm is a great lens in many ways but I'm really hoping something comes along that works better for me.
As coming in new to RF platform and didnt own a tele zoom, RF 100-500 was a no brainer... Love it and use it alot with my R5. I do have other wide to mid zooms on EF platform and still use them with the adapter... Works perfectly. Oh yeah, I have a few EF primes too that I used frequently, eg 35 1.4 85 1.4
Thank you for the review. I learned a lot about the lens but also Bokeh, which is a term I have never heard before, and lens breathing that I had not heard before. In a time long ago and a land far away; i.e. 1990s silver halide, I was a forensic photographer. Most of my work was micro, macro and copy photography, primarily with 4” by 5” view cameras. So, other than knowing the principles of light and a few other basic photographic skills, this is a brand new world to me and your video was a real help in my understanding this lens, which I bought after doing nothing but reading a few reviews, and on some things that will be a huge help to me in my endeavors as a recreational wildlife photographer. Again, a very sincere thank you for taking the time to do this review.
Very well done as usual Dustin. I sold my 100-400 mk1 last year in anticipation of pairing this lens with my R6. The price is indeed hard to swallow and has only increased since release. I may be patient and wait for a good used copy to become available.
Very good video Dustin. I own both and my love goes to the RF 100-500. I need to notch image quality and weather sealing and the 100-500 does it for me.
I just bought this lens today and figured I’d refresh myself with your in depth review. The price was a bit high of course but all of the L series glass I’ve purchased has been on the expensive side. Still it is a big pill to swallow but it truly is a very good lens. The salesman asked me what I planned on shooting first…i told him myself lol. Seriously though it’s hard to beat the performance to weight ratio of this lens. Great video,it really helped with my justification buying this lens.
Great review. I am looking to pick up the RF lens as soon as they are available again. The sharpness and I'm image details are amazing. Thanks for showing and explaining every aspect of this lens (and the EF lens as well). The real world images are great comparisons to show off the pros & cons of each lens. The only thing that drove me crazy was how close you would put the tripod leg to the edge of the table haha. Was waiting for a blooper real at the end haha. Thanks again for another great video and definitive review.
I just bought this lens myself a week ago. So far I am quite impressed and my initial results conform your findings (well done comprehensive review btw). The price was a bit hard to swallow of course but it helped a bit that I traded in my 100-400 mkII in the process. The f-7.1 doesn't bother me any, I would have had to be at f/8 on the 100-400 anyway to get a comparable focal length. That and I tend to shoot at f/8 for the most part. I did have some apprehension in regards to build quality as the 100-400 was a metal beast and the new RF lenses are not. I own the RF 24-105 which doesn't seem to have the same "feel" as the EF version of that lens so I was a bit concerned that the RF 100-500 would feel "cheap" compared to the EF 100-400. As soon as I held the new lens all my worries went away. I shoot aviation and that extra 100mm of reach in a format that is hand-holdable all day long is exactly what I needed so I am quite happy this far. I have not had a good experience (ok maybe just not satisfactory for me) with 3rd party lenses and big heavy primes are just not going to happen.
The RF 100-500 is indeed great. You didn't mention it, but this lens is one of a number for which Canon jumped the price a few months ago. I got mine for $2699 last summer. Money well spent; but at the current $2899, I might have held off. Naaaah, I'd still buy it.
It does seem like one really pays a heavy premium for shooting Canon these days - I recently switched to Sony and while the canon 100-500 is around 2500€ here, Sony's 200-600 is merely 1500. Enough left over for another body or lens.
it's double the price of the sony 200-600 that has internal focusing , extra reach plus faster at the long end which is why i sold the R6 and bought the A7iv , Love canon but they're going wrong with their price madness
@@MrPetebuster1 I've shot Canon for many years and have no regrets following them into mirrorless with the R6 and R5. The 100-500 is faster at the short end, and obviously wider. There are advantages to both focal length ranges. The Sony is 2/3 the price in the US (not half) but the Canon is only 2/3 the weight. Both are great lenses and I agree the Canon is overpriced. OTOH I can use the same filters that fit most of my other lenses, and the Canon's minimum focus distance is less than half the Sony's. That makes it great for butterflies (yes, I do shoot them). The external zoom doesn't bug me (pun not intended) and I can fit it into my bag without issues. My point is, each lens has its own strengths and weaknesses. Same for the bodies. Enjoy your Sony kit; I'm sure it suits you fine like my Canons suit me.
@@acouragefann Yes did exactly that, had the R6 but when sony brought the mkiv out that and the 200-600 was only £600 more than the canon lens on its own
@@JohnDrummondPhoto I like how Canon loyal users relation to their brand and others is like Americans to the rest of the world... Like, yeah the world consist of US and some other countries! John let's be real, I agree about only one real advantage of this Canon lens which is its weight that I like, but the rest you mentioned specially being brother at the wide end really doesn't matter at all when you compare the real use of these kind of lenses 600 6.3 shine over 500 7.1 indeed. I understand your reasons and many others to be a happy Canon user but please admit they are charging the customers for lenses way more than other brands. Just compare the recent sony 16-35 f4 whith Canon rf 14-35 f4. Not an apple to apple comparison but you give 2mm wide end and IS to gain a very unique power zoom ability and it's damn compact and light, 200g lighter! And price? Silly 1200$ vs 1700$!
Excellent review. I had one unfortunate problem I had with mine was the tripod ring bent and had to be replaced the first week I used it. That ring is a lot more delicate than those on the old 100-400 and 20-700/2.8. Catherine Dalessio
When I was putting my system together and started with the RF24-70 f2.8L and RF70-200 f2.8L I hedged on whether or not to complete the setup with a RF100-500L. I ended up doing so and am astonished to date that how ironically it is perhaps my most used lens. The longer focal lengths are intoxicating, and this copy of this lens I've gotten is so surgically sharp it's a pleasure to shoot long and end up with such detailed images. Instant to focus and tracks like a cheetah on it's prey.
It seems to me that there are two camps on this lens. One is those who bit the bullet and purchased it (and love using it) and those that have concluded that it is just too expensive and have not purchased it. Both views are valid, probably.
The pricing here in the EU is a big downside for this lens. At 3150 euros it is currently more then twice the price of its sony counterpart (the 200-600mm). I really wish canon would be more competitive in that respect.
thats why im going back to sony. Canon can stick their rf prices in their a**. Their prices for all their lenses are way too expensive here. Look at that 50 1.2. 2700 euro lol. I really wanted to keep my R5 but no, im going back to sony. The RF lenses are very good but the prices are ridiculous.
I agree that in the high end bracket the R5 is probably better value then the A1, but those cameras were both outside of my budget. For me the choice was between a second hand R6 or a second hand A9 mk1. I went with the latter because of the stacked sensor and because I could get it for only 2k. I agree 24MP is too little but the R6 is unfortunately worse in that respect. Outside of that I am quite pleased with it. Blackout-free EVF and the AF is like nothing I have ever used before. If only it had Canon's colors and bird eye AF.
Thanks so much for the comparison. I’ve had the EF 100-400 II a long time and currently using it with an EOS R, but I’ve been wishing for a longer lens for Sprint Canoe/Kayak. Seeing how well the old lens compares to the RF 100-500 I believe I’ve made up my mind to add an R7 before spring racing season because it is essentially the same price in Canada as it would cost to trade/sell the EF for the new lens. Will be my first time having two bodies, but this appears to be the rare case when investing in a camera may be better than new glass as it will net more apparent focal length as well as advanced auto focus and frame rate.
This lens is possibly the most versatile lens you can think about for a nature photographer: It is great in the longer end of landscape, wildlife, birds, plants and flowers, bigger insects, all just great. I personally would have preferred the type of collar from the EF version. Extender? Just forget it, crop your pictures in post if needed! This lens is expensive. But Canon offers "a little brother": RF 100-400 which is really affordable and gets great feedback as well. It costs less than a quarter but has similar talents. Thank you for the review! You might review the non L RF100-400 in the future. I can just add one point: The RF 100-500 is a joy to use! It is my by far most used lens of all in the last 15 months.
My experience with my RF 100-500 is the same, this lens is on my R5 99% of the time. The lens collar doesnt rotate freely enough for me. The eye af works great
Excellent review. To me the RF 100-500mm is hard to justify for my money. I'm happy with the EF purchase, and will use the money towards an R7 type body or RF prime in the future. I was fortunate to get the EF 100-400mm II at KEH for under 1900 USD, and a 1.4x III for 325 through KEH as well, so saved a good amount over a new RF 100-500mm.
Hi Dustin, after your 100-400 review I bought one and love it. Of all my EF lenses, I use it the most. I just bought an R5 and i’m just getting to know it and I'm liking it already. I believe I see the RF 100-500 in the future as I change over to the RF mount. I, using the control ring adapter for my EF lenses and have it set to AF pattern selection which I find convenient over the 7D mk2 selection lever. Thanks for the great review.
Very good review Dustin and very helpful. I have a question for you. When you compare image quality side by side with the already very good 100-400 II I noticed that the image from the RF lens was generally darker. Using the Canon R5 do you think it would help by shooting the RF with a +1/3 stop exposure compensation so we would have a similar lighting scene most of the time ? What is your opinion on that ?
Every reviewer complains that Canon don't incorporate an arca swiss foot. As I have always used Manfrotto tripods/heads (far better than arca swiss in my opinion) I don't see why Canon should pander to those looking to avoid attaching a plate.
But doing so doesn't marginalize Manfrotto users and does a huge service to those of us who use Arca swiss compatible heads. There's a reason why Sigma and Tamron always produced arca compatible feet.
It drives me crazy that the tripod in the video is on the edge of the table. I always think that the expensive piece is about to fall off. Oh yes, good review by the way.
My experience only here but this lens has been a night and day difference for me versus the Sony 200-600. I found the Sony to be excellent but it’s size made using it as a travel lens difficult and I found it very unpleasant to carry and shoot handheld. Again, just my experience.
I have one; it's a great quality lens though I agree that it's let down by the design of the extenders and the stupid price (which recently got even stupider) In the end I bought it because (a) I'm a gear head - what can I say?, and (b) I expect it to last a lifetime and should be the last zoom telephoto that I will buy.
I said at the end of my text review that the best thing you do if you want this lens is to forget about the price as soon as possible and just focus on the performance of the lens, which is excellent.
Lol. I'm sure you'll sell it once version II comes out. I bet you would be able to use an extender on it without losing the wider zoom range, and that will make every 100-500 owner out there switch! Canon is just playing us, because they know phographers are dumb and will pay loads of money to have "the latest best".
@13:13, I understand why for some folks, that might be a problem, but as a birder, I will stay pegged at 700mm (with the 1.4) or 1000mm (with the 2.0 TC's) anyway..... and then, it might be "almost" long enough.... most of the time. Just can't tell you how rarely I get "too close" to the 3" to 5" birds I'm usually after. If money were no object, I'd drop $20K on an RF 1200mm F8 today ! But I'll get to see for myself all this week, as I've ordered this lens + both TC's for rent, due in this eve :)
I don't know. I went to a local park last weekend, had the 100-400+1.4x on, and wish I had more. 10 minutes later a bird was just 6 feet away or so, and I had to zoom out. So it's not true that you never need to zoom out if you're doing birds. Also, zooming out helps to locate a small bird in the tree. 420mm is still quite long for that, especially on a crop body like R7.
@@vitaminb4869 just saying, it’s much easier to take a couple of steps back, than to try taking 10 steps forward, without scaring your bird. Not saying I’ve never been too close, it’s just rare. Not being close enough is a far more common problem.
Dustin, as always a very detailed and hands on user experience review. Just one thing, your audio sounds very hollow and not up to your usual quality. cheers Ian (UK)
There was an onscreen note about that - I had a microphone failure (actually the 3.5mm plug wasn't fully inserted), so it ended up being the camera audio...which isn't great, obviously.
With the 100-400 and a 1.4x you can zoom from 140-560. With the 100-500 and a 1.4x you can only zoom from 420-700, which could be problematic in some situations.
But being a 100-500 lens you don't really need the 1.4x to match it to 100-400 + 1.4x. The difference would be 12% from 500mm to 560mm. I'm sure you could crop that an have as good if not better sharpness, because you don't have the 1.4x degrading image quality.
Even if the R system is very innovative, specially if you look at the R3, I honestly can’t understand the design flaw with that extender thing (at about 13:15). If it dames to sports, action, wildlife and birds as well as bids (birds in flight) on “kinda” budget, the a7m4 (ILCE-7M4) plus the FE 200-600 5.6-6.3 OSS G is definitely the overall performing system delivering awesome results at best bang for the buck.
I relly like the portraits on the beach! I have a question: what you would buy between the 100-500 and the 70-200 f2.8 if you already have the EF100mm macro L and the Milvus 135 along with the RF 50 1.2 and the 15-35 2.8 to pair with the R6? Thanks, I really appreciate your take on this.
That question really depends on what you plan to do with the lens. IF you are thinking about events and portraits, go with the 70-200. If you want to do more wildlife or birding, choose the 100-500.
Hi Dustin, another good review. Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS is really close to perfect in terms of speed and image quality. I live in Latvia and I have Canon R5 and 1 week ago I bought 2nd hand Canon Ef 100-400mm F/5.6 2nd version. (900 euros) This is a really good price, because here, a Canon Rf 100-500mm lens is sold for around 3,000 euros and it is not possible to find it second hand. I think I will continue to use the 100-400mm lens for a few years. Thanks.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yes, the seller was selling it because he bought the rf 100-500mm. The price was absolutely fantastic. (The lens had no issues other than a few spills of paint.)
In Germany, were I am from, this lens is almost twice as expensive as the Sony 200-600. Yes, the lenses have different approaches and I often wish for having a lower focal length of 100 mm instead of the 200 of my Sony lens, but the RF range ist just outrageously priced in my opinion. It may be alright if the lens earns you money, but for enthusiasts that want to take it to the zoo or do some wildlife shots on their own, it is just too much. And no, I don't want that strange 600 F/11 instead.
That's fair. It would be very hard to justify saying that the 100-500L is worth twice that of the 200-600G, which is an excellent lens with a largely similar performance.
Would be curious how it compares to the RF 100-400 f5.6-f8. I heard from a fellow photographer who does detailed comparisons on instagram that it was hard to justify the cost of the 100-500 after trying out the RF 100-400 and being impressed by its sharpness and AF performance. They even suggested the 100-400 might have been planned as an L lens before Canon decided to strip down many premium features to keep the cost ow. I'm a bit held back by the f8 aperture at the long end as some sample shots do see to have contrasty bokeh so you might have to work harder for better backgrounds (that said, it should be comparable the a 250mm f5 lens fit on APS-C)
I own both. The RF 100-400 is very good, especially for the price and the best of both if weight is most important. However, especially at 400 mm it has significantly worse IQ compared to the 100-500 @ 400 mm. The long end on the 100-500 is also worse than the lower focal lengths, but still very good. Corners could be sharper though.
I do plan to review the RF 100-400, but I wouldn't be surprised if Michael's findings are pretty accurate. Often cheaper lenses can do relatively good with sharpness but lack the more nuanced performance that bigger (and more expensive) lenses can produce.
I have a feeling you were probably referring to my comparison. Yeah I had the rf 100-400, rf 100-500, ef 100-400 ii, sigma 150-600c, tamron 150-600 g2, rf 800 f11, ef 200-400 f4 w/1.4x, and 800 f5.6 all at the same time. I own the 200-400 f4, 800 f5.6, and 800 f11 and was evaluating the other lenses. I used both an R5 and R3 with all of the lenses size by side in various scenarios. The benchmark lens was my 200-400 f4. I had 2 weeks with the 100-400 ii before starting my comparisons with the other lenses and was relatively happy with its performance. I found both the sigma and tamron 150-600s to be somewhat unacceptable for my own usage in terms of AF performance and IQ on both my r5 and r3 wide open, however I found them fairly decent at f8. I was very impressed with the 100-500 in terms of AF, IS, and IQ but found some parts of the ergonomics to be completely unacceptable (I couldn"t wear my normal gloves when it was mounted to the r5). I wasn't originally planning on testing the rf100-400 because I completely discounted it, but the friend that loaned be the 100-400 ii also had it. I was very impressed with the long end IQ of the 100-400. I found the IS and AF on the rf 100-400 to be the best in my comparisons especially at shorter ranges that you tend to be at for songbird photography. In terms of the actual image rendering I did find the 100-400 ii to be better then both the rf 100-500 and rf 100-400, but compared to the 200-400 f4 its not even close. I did not really find that any of the cheaper lenses (rf 100-500 included) really could produce "exciting results" in the same way the 200-400 could. With regards specifically to the rf 100-400 vs the ef 100-400 ii vs rf 100-500 I did not think the ef 100-400 ii could really compete. The ef lens had better bokeh, but the focus speed at songbird-range IQ was not as good as the rf lenses and the af speed was lacking in comparison. I did not really find the rf 100-500 to be much better then the rf 100-400. It was better for mammal distances due to the extra focal length, but for songbirds and macro use it was not as reliable with AF and field IQ. I carried all three lenses plus the 200-400 f4 in my bag on various wildlife outings and basically just ended up using the rf 100-400 or the 200-400 f4. Even without the 200-400 f4 in my bag I did not really see much practical advantage for the 100-500, it is very versatile but it was basically never the best lens in the comparison for any given situation. Some of my friends and clients own both the rf 100-500 and big primes, most of them are swapping out the 100-500 for the rf 100-400 to clear bag space for other gear. So from a professional perspective for the usage where the 100-500 makes the most sense the 100-400 tends to be a little bit better since its more space efficient. In the areas where the 100-500 is better then the 100-400 its really the scenarios where both lenses are borderline inadequate. Combine that with the relatively high cost of the 100-500 its hard for me to tell my clients to buy the 100-500 over the 100-400 for specifically wildlife use.
Hi Dustin! Thanks for the great review! I photograph birds mostly with my 600mm f4 L II lens but also use the 100-400L from time to time. The more I use the zoom the more I find that I am not missing shots as often at the beach. It’s difficult to get off the ground for shorebirds and hop up for flight shots for instance with the big lens. I think this lens could be a great balance between the big glass and the more limited 100-400L. The issue right now is price. I think for what you get it’s a tough call to upgrade. If I can sell my 100-400L I will feel much better about it lol. Hopefully the new lens will also come down in price one day.
@@DustinAbbottTWI true! I’m actually quite impressed with the 100-400 II and the 1.4 III combo with my R6. I’m sure the 100-500 alone may be better. I heard some say the 100-500 hunts a little. Seems like it was very snappy for you. Maybe due to the updates in firmware too? Thanks again.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I did try my 100-400mm with the 1.4 again and it does struggle with the R6 for flight birds. I think I will upgrade very soon! I’m sure the bare lens of the 100-500 is better for AF as you described. Thanks for the help.
Enjoyed this review, very thorough. I am unsure if this lens is for me though. I shoot sports and was thinking of pairing the lens with the Canon RF 7, but I saw another review saying the 100-500mm doesn't autofocus at all well in low light. I have to bear in mind that the stadiums I would like to shoot in, whilst also taking into consideration weather factors i.e. a heavy, overcast day, have stands and rooves which cast their own shadows and create "low light" of their own. Its my decision ultimately I know, but does your experience of this lens lead you to think that the 100-500mm is good enough to cover major sporting events?
Optically it definitely is, but there's no question that you are 2/3rds of a stop slower on the telephoto end than most similar zooms in the past. Difference being that you are also reaching 500mm rather than 400mm. If you have been able to shoot in those stadiums with an F5.6 lens, then you should be able to do it with this lens.
Hi Dustin, great review as always, i have a question, does the AF improves when you use the lens on Aps-c mode on the R5?? i've been thinking that maybe the crop factor could have an impact on the AF response. Thank you.
Hi Fernando - I don't think that changes anything. The in camera crop is just electronically cropping the image. It's not a different sensor or AF system.
Nice review, as always. I love this lens and I do not regret for one second this purchase. Expensive? Yes. But it delivers great images, even hand held.
Hi Justin Many thanks for this review on this lens.. please if you may offer your professional opinion here with my question. Would this lens work ok on the canon R7 body?
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks Justin .. my concern was would you lose any width on the image if this is a full frame lens used on an APSa sensor ? Appreciate your time and your reviews are always appreciated. Stay well !
I'd say the IQ of the RF 100-500 is on par with the EF 100-400 II & has similar limitations. Image grain is about the same and noticeable depending on what your shooting. The Bokeh is harsher & more present then what I'm used to being spoiled by the 600 f/4 II prime. The fact that you can't use the extenders until your at 300mm makes the lens not as versatile. For me a used EF 400 f / 2.8 & adding extenders might have been a better choice. it has good image quality I still like the lens but not as good as it should be for $3,000. I shoot with the R5 as well, nice review I think you covered it.
Great Review and professional video. You could improve on sound as speech has hall effect. Possibly due to small room or hard walls. btw: I prefer a black hoodie ;-)
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, the older Ef 400 5.6. I just bought the rf 100-500 from Amazon and was hoping for it to be sharper the the older prime at 400mm. It does have more contrast.
It's double the price of the sony 200-600 that has internal focusing , extra reach plus faster at the long end which is why i sold the R6 and bought the A7iv , Love canon but they're going wrong with their price madness
This lens wasn't designed for a teleconverter, otherwise it would fit without zooming out. Just trying to catch up to Sony with their properly designed lens. This will be fixed later with a new model release.
Just upgraded from the 80d to the R7, already own the EF 100-400 ii, 1.4 extender iii, and EF to RF adapter. I shoot airshows only, typically Thunderbirds, Blue Angels, anything fast. Thinking about getting the RF 100-500, the money and weight aren't an issue to me, so eliminate that. I'm looking at autofocus speed with the most sharp and brightest images I can get? Every review I have seen the 100-500 pictures seem to be a bit darker when compared to the EF 100-400 ii through the entire focal range? Given all that I have said and what I mainly shoot, my question is which one would you use?
That’s a good question, and I think you’ll find that while the 100-500 does have a few limitations, the sum total of its parts will make it the better lens for you - particularly when it comes to tracking action
@@DustinAbbottTWI Dustin, thank you for getting back to me and thank you for your opinion. I just bought the 100-500 and had a good day of testing it against my EF 100-400 ii. I'm not a professional photographer, but I do know a decent amount and this is just my opinion on the comparison. It is definitely lighter and I know I said before I didn't care about weight until I put the 100-500 on my R7 and I must say it is definitely nicer with less weight and much better balanced too, even at full zoom. I have bigger hands then most, so the zoom ring from 100mm to 500mm wasn't an issue for me, but someone with medium to small hands might have to take two turns to get to 500mm. Zooming in and out is smoother on the 100-500 and I like the lock ring on it better too. The 100-500 is not a tank like the 100-400, so if you are someone who beats the crap out of your camera and lense gear, you might not want the 100-500. But if your someone like me that takes care of their stuff as best as they can, you shouldn't have any issues. The build quality is solid on the 100-500, don't get me wrong, but in a drop test the 100-400 might fair better. The 100-500 autofocus definitely is better and faster then the 100-400 with the Ef to Rf adapter. The 100-500 is tack sharp. I love my 100-400 ii and I thought it was pretty clear and sharp, that was until I got this 100-500. It is most certainly more sharp and better image quality then my 100-400, even more when you start to zoom in to crop. The 100-500 is crystal clear and sharp through the entire focal range, even maxed out to 500mm. The 7.1 on the long end isn't noticeable at all to me and for what I use this setup for I probably never will notice anything it. To my eye I think the colors are brighter and more vibrant with the 100-500, but that could just be me. The extra 100mm is nice also. One other thing I noticed, with the R7 in electronic shutter mode and the 100-400 on it, if I took say 20 pictures, only 10-12 where keepers and the rest had some type of blur or distortion. Now doing the same with the 100-500, I had 18 or more keepers. Not sure why the 100-400 didn't do better? I was going to mount my EF 1.4x iii extender on the 100-400 and compare it to the 100-500, but to me at this point it's just a waste of time. Both the 100-500 and 100-400 are great lens, but I hate to say it, the 100-500 is just better. I will now be selling my 100-400 ii, adapter and extender. Everyone's situation is different, I get that, but hopefully my review can maybe help someone else out.
@@tomcarney2829 Thanks for your detail and sharing your experience Tom! I'm in the exact same situation as you describe above and will order the RF 100-500 today selling my 100-400 ver ii + 1.4 extender. Thank You!
Thanks for the review! The RF100-500 is too plastic-y for me. They should have at least made the filter threads metal. I'll let someone else buy the 100-500, then get the old 100-400 they trade in on the used market. Losing 100-300 with an extender is unacceptable to me. Seems like all the RF lenses look great a first, but they all have a nasty gotcha just below the surface.
You're actually losing 100-420mm with 1.4x extender, because 300 becomes 420. On the other hand, you don't really need a 1.4x on it if you compare it to 100-400 where you do need a 1.4x to get similar focal length. On a 100-400 you lose 1 stop of light through the entire zoom range. It's F7.1 all the way from 190mm to 430mm, where it becomes F8 all the way to 560mm! Something that you would not get on the 100-500 alone. I don't think many bird photographers use 100-400 alone, without a 1.4x extender. In this context the 100-500 is a clear winner.
@@vitaminb4869 Thanks for replying. You're correct. I tried the 100-500/1.4x tc and found it difficult to quickly locate the subject in the viewfinder. With practice, I could probably get better at it. The wider range of the 100-400/1.4x makes this easy, while giving a wider zoom range for composing as the players come toward or away from the camera. In cases where aperture matters, I reach for the 300 f/4, while thinking about how the cost of a used 300 f/2.8 is comparable to the RF 100-500.
🙌 Once again a great review! 👍🏻☺👍🏻 ... But regarding the RF 100-500mm... What is the max aperture at 400mm ? f/6.3 !🤤? ... As the EF100-400mm maintains f 5.6 !? 🤔... I will gladly use the EF 100-400mm vs the RF one. If required, the EF 1.4X III will get me to 560mm f8 vs 7.1, which is a much less significant aperture difference... Could also use crop mode/sensor instead of the 1.4x TC and retain that 5.6 aperture, and even get more reach (vs Full Frame) 📷🙃
What on earth are you talking about? It is 1/3 stop difference, either from f5.6 to 6.3 or f7.1 to f8. So why is it a deal breaker for you to lose 1/3 stops in one situation, but not the other? You make no sense, dude. And did you realize that if you zoom out the 100-400+1.4x to 400mm (effective), then you are at f7.1??! You are actually at f7.1 starting from 190mm! On the 100-500 @190mm you'll have F5 or a whole full stop more! I'd rather take the 100-500 and have larger aperture throughout the entire zoom range, and better image quality, than what the 100-400+1.4x would give you.
I recently changed from Sony back to Canon after owning 4 Sony bodies from A7III, A7R3, A9 and A9II. I have an R6 as I shoot sports and the R6 compares very well against the A9II at half the price, but the you just don't have the well priced lens selection with Canon RF. That being said, one very big difference in choosing Canon are those 3 valuable words...."Made in Japan", at least with the bodies and L Series lenses. One place Sony cannot compete in is durability and resale. The Canon lens costs more, but it will still be working in many years time and I just don't trust the Sony offerings where even GM lenses are made in Thailand. Also in Australia Canon products are covered by a 5 year manufacturer warranty, Sony only offers 2. Watch Jan Weggener's review of the Canon 100-500 versus Sony 200-600, very interesting as the Canon does have some distinct advantages, particularly in stabilisation and focus.
Sort of agree with you about the “feeling” of being made in Thailand. But Sony isn’t the only one making things in Thailand and there is no definitive proof Sony is less durable, now. The G and GM lenses are top notch. I too switched from Sony to Canon. I didn’t regret it when I had the 400mm f2.8 IS version 1 adapted. But it was just too heavy. I got the 100-500 and totally regret changing to Canon because, imo, the 200-600 was just better in my use. I have the R5 and the locking up issues are almost gone but it does perform better than my A7R3, by a lot so I’m sticking with Canon. Good thing is the 100-500 is sharp… very sharp.
My basic observation is that the last three Canon mirrorless bodies are very competitive (and competitively priced), but the high price of the lenses tends to erode that value.
I'm really struggling to see how this lens qualifies as premier lens with the premier price. There's no denying the amazing build quality but f/7.1 and the teleconverter problems are baffling for the price. I've recently bought the Sigma 150-600 for my Lumix S1 (also availble on E mount) it has a faster aperture, no issue with teleconverters and more reach all for a £1000 less. Sony have the fantastic 200-600 with internal zoom also considerably less and faster. This 100-500 is great but it doesn't seem like an L lens to me.
No one who bought the RF 100-500 regrets it. The only niggle is the teleconverter issue, yes, it is a pita taking the tc off every time I put my R5 camera in my bag, but, that is only once a session, so not really a deal breaker for me. Canon have priced the RF 100-500 right, it is just that good. I shoot birds & dragon flys in flight, and the R5 + RF 100-500 combo just makes this task so relarively easy - it does feel like chearing. The AF is next level, even with the 1.4x tc on. My EF 100-400 Lii just does not eye track af effectively with the 1,4x on. I guarantee you thet the Sigma and Tamron lenses will be hopeless when it comes to trying to af on small fast moving birds in flight. The RF 100-500 + R5 or R3 is an amzing combo, and really does set a new standard for af tracking small fast moving critters. With the RF 100-500, you really do get what you paid for.
@@nordic5490 I can't deny it's an extremely well engineered bit of kit with incredible AF and fantastic picture quality. But I can't also ignore that it cost almost £3k for a f7.1 lens with an ill conceived teleconverter design. If it was less expensive I would judge less harshly.
I would be at 500mm most of the time...then have to deal with f7.1. Early morning or just after sunset I am really going to have to push the ISO. IMO, at this premium price it should be max f5.6. I think it is a poor value and not my first choice.
Even with F5.6 you'd have to push ISO in those light conditions. You can zoom out if you really want larger aperture. It's just 1/3 stop difference @400mm compared to 100-400. Personally, I'd just clean it up in post with today's AI tools.
@vitaminb4869 I've found tools like Denoise AI to be somewhat inconsistent. Sometimes, it leaves noise and artifacts in unexpected places, and requires cleanup in Photoshop. I would prefer to get it more right in camera if possible and 2/3 of a stop makes some difference. Because of this, I am not the right customer for this lens.
@@thefourthquarter7429 Yes, Topaz Denoise does leave some artifacts. Try Dxo PureRaw instead. It is better, doesn't leave artifacts, and result looks more natural. It is also quicker to adjust, because there is really nothing to adjust, you just press 1 button pretty much and it does everything for you. With Topaz you could spend a lot of time trying all the different settings to get the best result. I can easily shoot ISO 12000 (Canon R5C) and get excellent results. Before I would try to not go over ISO 2000-3200, or there'd be just too much noise. 2/3 extra stop wouldn't have helped.
@vitaminb4869 You're right about Topaz Denoise. While I can get great results, it frequently involves trying several settings. Further, the settings like motion blur vs too much noise don't really fix what I see. Masking is nearly always required despite keeping the reduce noise and sharpen settings between 10-30. A lot of work! I've heard DXO is easier with similar results. Haven't heard it's just simply better. That's very good to know. I will give it a try as it would be worth it just to save the time fiddling with settings 😀. That still doesn't mean I would get an F7.1 lens. Maybe just stubborn, spoiled or both. I would much more likely get a used F4 lens and deal with the expense.
Can you please remember that UA-cam compresses videos pretty harshly? When you are scrolling around the photos to look at different areas of the sample pictures, you are often moving the photo again before the compression has time to smooth out.
Such a let down that they couldn’t do this in f5.6 like the Nikon. Who’s interested in shooting at 7.1??? Not me. Should they not be able to make this in an f4? With the rf mount?
If the price would fit the F7.1, it would be an awesome lens. I had the chance to test it with and without 2x extender... its GREAT, but just not worth the money at all (as most Canon RF glasses) I really wanted a proper Tele with higher range (and replacement for my 75-300mm), which a 100-500 would fit perfectly with a 1,4x extender for wildlife. But since its price is MUCH TOO HIGH (for the F7.1 and the moving barrel, 2 huge dissapointments) i just took a RF 800 F11. at 800mm i have technically about the same aperture, with a 2x converter on 100-500 the 800 F11 is even better (for about 1/6 of the price of 100-500+2x)
The Nikon is also a kilo heavier, and bigger. I don't see a Nikon 500mm f5.6 zoom lens that is the size of the RF 100-500. Nikon would have to defy physics to release a lens of the same size, but with f5.6 @500mm.
Canon just cant get ther stuff together. The RF 70-200 cant take a Convertor like a Nikon /or Sony etc now the RF 100-500 cant take a convertor unless you REMEMBER to extend the lens to 300MM .. How crazy is that ..Another Gimmick >> So Glad I am invested in the Z System >> Cameras and lensesmade for Photographers >> but I cant fault my Canon Pixma Printer ..the Brands speciality
I guess each brand has their own strengths/weaknesses, but I've certainly been disappointed by some of the design choices by Canon - though I'll probably still end up buying this lens.
Thanks for the video I own the 100-400 II and it does perform well however I find at close distance my sigma 150-600 c gives shaper images in the corners. The price of the rf 100-500 is a big deal here in the uk its around £3k. I was able to buy a used almost new ef 300mm L F2.8 II lens for the same money which means a much better aperture. even with extender its 5.6 at 600mm. I originally bought my 100-400 lens as a grey import for £1400 at the time most retail outlets were selling the 100-400 for £1849 then it went to £2100 then £2379. I really think canon is ripping customers off with these price hikes. Looking at your tests the price of the new lens is simply not worth it, it offers nothing in practical use. I think canon need to stop increasing prices it puts customers off its important to note canon just increased its prices by $100. Know you can get used copys of the 100-400 II for around £1000 so for 3x the cost you can get the rf lens for a variable aperture lens. I dont think I will be buying it any time soon. If canon had kept it at 5.6 maybe with a filter thread of 82mm would have been doable. I also have the rf 600 and 800 even these lenses could have had a better aperture of f11. As it seems the lenses are wide enough to accommodate a better aperture.
I use a Sigma 50-500 and was thinking of upgrading to a EF100-400 or the RF 100-500, so I borrowed an EF lens and did a comparison. [ ua-cam.com/video/PxhrYuQKFpk/v-deo.html ] In the real world the difference was surprisingly minimal, and a friend who has both said there isn't much between them. Most people would probably find it hard to distinguish between the finer technicalities. A Sigma 60-600 is £1,700, I wonder if the RF lens is worth the extra £1,200! Not to mention that the x2 extender is another £700 and I already have one for EF!
It's hard to say what is "worth it" when you are talking about someone else's money. I'm not sure what version of the 100-400 you compared to, but the MK II lens (and thus the 100-500) are much higher performing than the MK 1 lens. I certainly found that the 100-400L II was sharper than the newer Sigma 60-600 Sport...or the 150-600 Sport.
@@DustinAbbottTWI 100-400L mkii. I Haven't seen the new SIgma though people say it is a little sharper than mine. I use a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS, that is in another league [quote from SIgma] and even with a x2 the results are excellent, almost on par with my Canon 400mm f2.8
That lens is definitely the fly in the ointment. It seems like a pretty strong value by comparison...though that doesn't help if you're a Canon shooter!
God canon.......you could easily have made this competitive to the Sony 200-600. But sadly you didn't. The Sony is internal zoom, faster at 6.3, 100mm extra long end, and $1,000 cheaper but just as sharp as the canon, and takes the converters the entire length wich the canon doesn't. Love canon. Still use them...but such a letdown overall
I have the RF 100-500mm. You can always crop in, but you cannot go wider. This is why the Canon 70- 300mm is a great lens for crop bodies. 100mm on a crop body is often too long when you are walking around with just one lens. My RF 100-500mm is a nice sweet compromise for me. 100mm is just wide enough that I dont have to back up too far to shoot people.
STUPIDEST design ever to disallow full range with use of TC. It is a ZOOM lens. Was amped about this lens but no way in hell I will get it now. Thanks for the info.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for taking the time to respond. I was actually never expecting you to, as I was just venting/griping. I have been watching your videos for years Dustin and really appreciate how thorough and well delivered your reviews are. Indeed though, I was strongly considering this lens to shoot video of local surfers/kiters from shore. They come in moderately close and then head back out and zoom is crucial. I have to be able to zoom out fully though as well... lol, if TC is on. thanks again.
Canon has made (in my mind) some very questionable decision on RF. I used to be a 100% Canon guy, but now my R5 sits lonely most of the time because most of the new lenses don't come in an RF mount.
Couldn't do without a bump up to 600mm. Rarely use 500. Very happy with my off-brand choice in lieu of the manufacturer's inability to market a proper Z mount in a timely fashion. Besides, I sidestep products made in communist China, something under the radar with all You Tube influencers for some reason.
I don't shoot Canon but everyone I know who has this lens is very happy with it
That seems to be the consensus.
Makes me appreciate the Sony 200-600 G lens. It is so unique in optical performance and price.
I have owned both and although the IS on the canon is far better, I preferred the 200-600.
I have a lot of affection for the 200-600g, though the Canon's compact nature is obviously enticing for its own reasons.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Hi Dustin, I agree, that for traveling this may be a nicer form factor. But there is also an advantage to the internal zooming nature of the 200-600 G. In practice, I find that a lot more ergonomic and balanced than something like the Tamron 150-500, which is in spirit more similar to this Canon lens. The Canon is still lighter, but at such a cost, I’m not convinced it is worth it.
Oh yes, that Sony 200-600 is awesome. I deeply hope, Nikon soon releases a Z 200-600 5.6 VR S with linear Motors like the Sony competitor and I hope it will have a constant 1:5.6 aperture, analogue to the awesome AF-S 200-500 1:5.6E ED VR.
@@rolandrick A constant 5.6 sounds good, but would likely balloon the size and weight of the lens.
I’ve been using this lens on my R5 for a few months now and it is such a killer quality lens. The 100-400 v2 was amazing but this new lens beats it in every respect. So many nay-sayers about the f/stop screaming “unusable”…..I have found it quite useable in every situation I put it in! Sure, a larger aperture range would have been nice, even a constant one, but the already high price would certainly been higher, as well as its weight. Everyone seems to want a $12k lens for a bargain basement price and then shocked that they can’t.
I now get to put it to work on my freshly delivered R7
That will be a fun pairing, for sure.
So true. You give them a larger aperture, and then they'll start complaining about the weight, size, and the price of the lens. Can't have it all. f7.1 is still better than f8 on 100-400+1.4x.
It's a great lens, no question. It's just the price, $2800.00, when everyone else has faster and longer glass for $1000.00 less.
Glad to see this excellent review. I previously had the 100-400 II and now have the RF 100-500 which I use with my R5 for birds. That extra 100 mm often makes the difference when it comes to birds at around 20 feet, which is my typical shooting distance. I would not want to go back to the 100-400 II, although it was also an excellent lens.
The extra 100mm is a big deal, for sure. The lower focus breathing would also help in the situation you describe.
@@DustinAbbottTWIi had RF 100-400, now i have sigma 150-600c, thinking about buying rf 100-500 with converter. I also have Canon rf 70-200 f4 and its incredible sharp. Im wondering if 100-500 got same sharpness?
Thanks for the test, very good as usual! I have both the EF 100-400 L MKII and since December the RF 100-500. I was going back and forth if I should buy the RF or not. In the end it was not a mistake. I use it mainly for birds in flight and animals. In this direction I find much more sharp pictures from the RF than the EF combined with the x1.4 converter (personal feeling not a scientific test). Especially it grabs the focus much faster even the lens wasn't focused at the right distance when starting the AF on a bird in flight. Not saying that the EF does a bad job but I come home with more keepers on the RF. The other point was changing the converter in the field. With the RF not needed and I have the full range, always. If this is enough to go for the RF is very much depending on your money you can afford, sadly. I also tried again the cheaper alternative the Tamron 100-600 G2 but it didn't perform nearly as good as the EF 100-400 with the 1.4x converter. The EF 100-400 is now used in my permanent astro photography set up together with a astro modified EOS 70D.
It stands to reason that your findings are accurate. An adapted lens (even one that works very well like the 100-400L II) is going to face a few additional challenges that a native lens will not.
@@DustinAbbottTWI This guy said he tried the tamron 150-600 G2 I will point out I tested that lens vs the sigma 150-600 c and on eos R R6 found the tamron lens very slow to focus. I have videos on my channel regarding that. no amount of firmware updates solved the problem. I also found side by side the sigma was sharper and had less CA.
Outstanding detailed review. I already owned a EF100-400ii and the EF 1.4xiii before I purchased an R5. I’m thrilled with the results thus far. If I were to sell that combo for funds towards a 100-500, I’m probably still 1200-1500 dollars short. I am less in a hurry to do this upgrade after watching this review. That’s a lot of money for a marginal improvement. Even with the TC the 100-400ii seemed to hold its own.
Fair enough. I did the same thing.
Thanks for the great review. It conforms my own experience with this wonderful lens. I traded from the 100-400 when it came out. Horribly expensive in New Zealand but that's the only drawback and I have recovered. Being a bird photographer it covers all the bases and its light weight suits me. Am just trying teleconverters and it performs well. As the 7D MK2 and the 100-400 was a great match so is the R5 and the 100-500.
That's how most owners feel. It was expensive...but worth it.
Very nice review, thank you. The almost $3000 USD cost combined with a narrow f7.1 max aperture is a deal breaker for me. For the price, I think Canon should have made the lens a max f5.6 aperture, thereby creating value, which would have been more consistent with competitors (Sony and Nikon). The fact that it doesn't fully fit the 1.4x extender makes me think they rushed the design out the door.
A 500mm f5.6 would be as big as Sony's 200-600
@@kanaheiusagi this is not that much smaller, that lens zooms internally...
The 200-600 max f6.3 lens is an outstanding Sony G lens, for
There's been some productive conversation here already, but I will say that I think this is less about rushing and more about trying to keep the lens at a certain size. The reason why it stays in the 100-400 form factor is because of the things you've mentioned. It would have been significantly larger if it held to F5.6 at 500mm.
I'm really trying to love this lens but really have problems embracing it. Two major issues, I really wish it was a little faster than 7.1, 6.3 would be better and 5.6 perfect. Nikon was able to bring out a really light 500mm F5.6. Canon pioneered DO optics and now Nikon is running with it.. My biggest issue is the extending zoom and the terriblely long zoom ring throw. It's nearly impossible to easily zoom through the full zoom range in one movement. Trying to do so inevitably causes you to loose your subject especially when working with fast moving subjects. Internal zooms which have short zoom throw are far superior for fast action. Canon also designed both RF70-200 lenses as external zooms.. Bad decision in my opinion. In fact I'm going back to the EF 70-200mm. The best design for external zoom was the push pull design of the original EF100-400mm. No lens was more intuitive for fast moving subjects coming towards or moving away from you.. The 100-500mm is a great lens in many ways but I'm really hoping something comes along that works better for me.
As coming in new to RF platform and didnt own a tele zoom, RF 100-500 was a no brainer... Love it and use it alot with my R5. I do have other wide to mid zooms on EF platform and still use them with the adapter... Works perfectly. Oh yeah, I have a few EF primes too that I used frequently, eg 35 1.4 85 1.4
It's a nice lens.
Thank you for the review. I learned a lot about the lens but also Bokeh, which is a term I have never heard before, and lens breathing that I had not heard before. In a time long ago and a land far away; i.e. 1990s silver halide, I was a forensic photographer. Most of my work was micro, macro and copy photography, primarily with 4” by 5” view cameras. So, other than knowing the principles of light and a few other basic photographic skills, this is a brand new world to me and your video was a real help in my understanding this lens, which I bought after doing nothing but reading a few reviews, and on some things that will be a huge help to me in my endeavors as a recreational wildlife photographer. Again, a very sincere thank you for taking the time to do this review.
I'm glad to hear my review helped.
Very well done as usual Dustin. I sold my 100-400 mk1 last year in anticipation of pairing this lens with my R6. The price is indeed hard to swallow and has only increased since release. I may be patient and wait for a good used copy to become available.
I'm sure that will happen, though it obviously takes some time for the used market to populate with newer systems.
Very good video Dustin. I own both and my love goes to the RF 100-500. I need to notch image quality and weather sealing and the 100-500 does it for me.
It's strong in those areas
Recently I bought the Canon Rf 100-400mm and I can say I don't regret at all. Great review, as usual
I'm hoping to review that one as soon as I can get a loaner.
I just bought this lens today and figured I’d refresh myself with your in depth review. The price was a bit high of course but all of the L series glass I’ve purchased has been on the expensive side. Still it is a big pill to swallow but it truly is a very good lens. The salesman asked me what I planned on shooting first…i told him myself lol. Seriously though it’s hard to beat the performance to weight ratio of this lens. Great video,it really helped with my justification buying this lens.
I'm glad it helped you out. Enjoy your new lens...and just try to forget what you paid for it!
Great review. I am looking to pick up the RF lens as soon as they are available again. The sharpness and I'm image details are amazing. Thanks for showing and explaining every aspect of this lens (and the EF lens as well). The real world images are great comparisons to show off the pros & cons of each lens. The only thing that drove me crazy was how close you would put the tripod leg to the edge of the table haha. Was waiting for a blooper real at the end haha. Thanks again for another great video and definitive review.
My pleasure. Glad it helped
Best mid range telephoto lens without a doubt… so sharp and lightning fast
It is that.
Lightning fast, very sharp. But also slow aperture, bad TC design, no inbuilt arca swiss. There's definitley better out there imo.
Yeah canon overprice because they are the only one on rf lens market.
I just bought this lens myself a week ago. So far I am quite impressed and my initial results conform your findings (well done comprehensive review btw). The price was a bit hard to swallow of course but it helped a bit that I traded in my 100-400 mkII in the process. The f-7.1 doesn't bother me any, I would have had to be at f/8 on the 100-400 anyway to get a comparable focal length. That and I tend to shoot at f/8 for the most part. I did have some apprehension in regards to build quality as the 100-400 was a metal beast and the new RF lenses are not. I own the RF 24-105 which doesn't seem to have the same "feel" as the EF version of that lens so I was a bit concerned that the RF 100-500 would feel "cheap" compared to the EF 100-400. As soon as I held the new lens all my worries went away. I shoot aviation and that extra 100mm of reach in a format that is hand-holdable all day long is exactly what I needed so I am quite happy this far. I have not had a good experience (ok maybe just not satisfactory for me) with 3rd party lenses and big heavy primes are just not going to happen.
That extra 100mm of reach really is the biggest sale point
The RF 100-500 is indeed great. You didn't mention it, but this lens is one of a number for which Canon jumped the price a few months ago. I got mine for $2699 last summer. Money well spent; but at the current $2899, I might have held off.
Naaaah, I'd still buy it.
It does seem like one really pays a heavy premium for shooting Canon these days - I recently switched to Sony and while the canon 100-500 is around 2500€ here, Sony's 200-600 is merely 1500. Enough left over for another body or lens.
it's double the price of the sony 200-600 that has internal focusing , extra reach plus faster at the long end which is why i sold the R6 and bought the A7iv , Love canon but they're going wrong with their price madness
@@MrPetebuster1 I've shot Canon for many years and have no regrets following them into mirrorless with the R6 and R5.
The 100-500 is faster at the short end, and obviously wider. There are advantages to both focal length ranges. The Sony is 2/3 the price in the US (not half) but the Canon is only 2/3 the weight. Both are great lenses and I agree the Canon is overpriced. OTOH I can use the same filters that fit most of my other lenses, and the Canon's minimum focus distance is less than half the Sony's. That makes it great for butterflies (yes, I do shoot them). The external zoom doesn't bug me (pun not intended) and I can fit it into my bag without issues.
My point is, each lens has its own strengths and weaknesses. Same for the bodies. Enjoy your Sony kit; I'm sure it suits you fine like my Canons suit me.
@@acouragefann Yes did exactly that, had the R6 but when sony brought the mkiv out that and the 200-600 was only £600 more than the canon lens on its own
@@JohnDrummondPhoto I like how Canon loyal users relation to their brand and others is like Americans to the rest of the world... Like, yeah the world consist of US and some other countries! John let's be real, I agree about only one real advantage of this Canon lens which is its weight that I like, but the rest you mentioned specially being brother at the wide end really doesn't matter at all when you compare the real use of these kind of lenses 600 6.3 shine over 500 7.1 indeed. I understand your reasons and many others to be a happy Canon user but please admit they are charging the customers for lenses way more than other brands. Just compare the recent sony 16-35 f4 whith Canon rf 14-35 f4. Not an apple to apple comparison but you give 2mm wide end and IS to gain a very unique power zoom ability and it's damn compact and light, 200g lighter! And price? Silly 1200$ vs 1700$!
Excellent review. I had one unfortunate problem I had with mine was the tripod ring bent and had to be replaced the first week I used it. That ring is a lot more delicate than those on the old 100-400 and 20-700/2.8.
Catherine Dalessio
That's really unfortunate. I've hardly ever heard of such a thing.
When I was putting my system together and started with the RF24-70 f2.8L and RF70-200 f2.8L I hedged on whether or not to complete the setup with a RF100-500L. I ended up doing so and am astonished to date that how ironically it is perhaps my most used lens. The longer focal lengths are intoxicating, and this copy of this lens I've gotten is so surgically sharp it's a pleasure to shoot long and end up with such detailed images. Instant to focus and tracks like a cheetah on it's prey.
It seems to me that there are two camps on this lens. One is those who bit the bullet and purchased it (and love using it) and those that have concluded that it is just too expensive and have not purchased it. Both views are valid, probably.
My Sigma 150-600 DG DN is the best option for me.
It's a great value lens, for sure.
The pricing here in the EU is a big downside for this lens. At 3150 euros it is currently more then twice the price of its sony counterpart (the 200-600mm). I really wish canon would be more competitive in that respect.
thats why im going back to sony. Canon can stick their rf prices in their a**. Their prices for all their lenses are way too expensive here. Look at that 50 1.2. 2700 euro lol. I really wanted to keep my R5 but no, im going back to sony. The RF lenses are very good but the prices are ridiculous.
Wow! That's a huge difference.
I agree that in the high end bracket the R5 is probably better value then the A1, but those cameras were both outside of my budget. For me the choice was between a second hand R6 or a second hand A9 mk1. I went with the latter because of the stacked sensor and because I could get it for only 2k. I agree 24MP is too little but the R6 is unfortunately worse in that respect. Outside of that I am quite pleased with it. Blackout-free EVF and the AF is like nothing I have ever used before. If only it had Canon's colors and bird eye AF.
Agreeing that 200-600mm pricing is crazy cheap compared to this Canon. I realized this after switching to RF ...
I wish there was an adapter to mount Sony lenses on RF mount!
Thanks so much for the comparison. I’ve had the EF 100-400 II a long time and currently using it with an EOS R, but I’ve been wishing for a longer lens for Sprint Canoe/Kayak. Seeing how well the old lens compares to the RF 100-500 I believe I’ve made up my mind to add an R7 before spring racing season because it is essentially the same price in Canada as it would cost to trade/sell the EF for the new lens. Will be my first time having two bodies, but this appears to be the rare case when investing in a camera may be better than new glass as it will net more apparent focal length as well as advanced auto focus and frame rate.
always the best detail lens review from Dustin.
Thank you, Henry.
This lens is possibly the most versatile lens you can think about for a nature photographer:
It is great in the longer end of landscape, wildlife, birds, plants and flowers, bigger insects, all just great.
I personally would have preferred the type of collar from the EF version.
Extender? Just forget it, crop your pictures in post if needed!
This lens is expensive.
But Canon offers "a little brother": RF 100-400 which is really affordable and gets great feedback as well. It costs less than a quarter but has similar talents.
Thank you for the review! You might review the non L RF100-400 in the future.
I can just add one point: The RF 100-500 is a joy to use! It is my by far most used lens of all in the last 15 months.
I do hope to review the 100-400 RF lens in the future once a review copy becomes available.
My experience with my RF 100-500 is the same, this lens is on my R5 99% of the time. The lens collar doesnt rotate freely enough for me.
The eye af works great
@@nordic5490 The lens collar is the most prominent downside of this lens.
But handhold there is barely anything to complain about.
Excellent review. To me the RF 100-500mm is hard to justify for my money. I'm happy with the EF purchase, and will use the money towards an R7 type body or RF prime in the future. I was fortunate to get the EF 100-400mm II at KEH for under 1900 USD, and a 1.4x III for 325 through KEH as well, so saved a good amount over a new RF 100-500mm.
Sounds like you got good value.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks again for this review. I think your reviews are some of the most thorough and comprehensive out there.
That third tripod leg at the edge of the table got me nervous 🤣.
It's a round table, so it isn't as close to the edge as it appears.
Hi Dustin, after your 100-400 review I bought one and love it. Of all my EF lenses, I use it the most. I just bought an R5 and i’m just getting to know it and I'm liking it already. I believe I see the RF 100-500 in the future as I change over to the RF mount. I, using the control ring adapter for my EF lenses and have it set to AF pattern selection which I find convenient over the 7D mk2 selection lever. Thanks for the great review.
My pleasure. Glad ot help out.
Very good review Dustin and very helpful. I have a question for you. When you compare image quality side by side with the already very good 100-400 II I noticed that the image from the RF lens was generally darker. Using the Canon R5 do you think it would help by shooting the RF with a +1/3 stop exposure compensation so we would have a similar lighting scene most of the time ? What is your opinion on that ?
Sony 200-600 is best in zoom at present
It’s hard to argue against its value and performance
Totally agree that Canon should make the tripod ring foot Arca Swiss. Which Arca Swiss mounting plate is shown in the video?
That's just one from my tripod (ua-cam.com/video/X05JEAQgWkg/v-deo.html)
Not everyone uses Arca Swiss.
An interesting lens from Canon. The usual, high standard, review. Have never shot at this focal length, however no doubt a plus for those that do.
I find that I don't reach for my long lenses often, but I typically enjoy them when I do.
Every reviewer complains that Canon don't incorporate an arca swiss foot. As I have always used Manfrotto tripods/heads (far better than arca swiss in my opinion) I don't see why Canon should pander to those looking to avoid attaching a plate.
But doing so doesn't marginalize Manfrotto users and does a huge service to those of us who use Arca swiss compatible heads. There's a reason why Sigma and Tamron always produced arca compatible feet.
Thanks for this, Dustin. Perfect timing. I have a chance at two used lenses - the EF for $1300, the RF for $2100. Which would you viewers choose?
If you have switched entirely to RF, I'd probably go with the 100-500. It's where the future of your photography lies.
@@DustinAbbottTWI good point
EF all the way unless you are earning $ as a photographer
Have any users compared the RF100-500 image quality at 472mm f6.3 to 500mm f7.1?
I didn't see anything significantly different.
It drives me crazy that the tripod in the video is on the edge of the table. I always think that the expensive piece is about to fall off.
Oh yes, good review by the way.
It's a round table, so it isn't actually as close to the edge as it might seem. I'm never lost a piece of gear yet!
I was going to say the same.. that’s all I was looking at. Lol
My experience only here but this lens has been a night and day difference for me versus the Sony 200-600. I found the Sony to be excellent but it’s size made using it as a travel lens difficult and I found it very unpleasant to carry and shoot handheld. Again, just my experience.
Definitely two completely different approaches. Both come with compromises, so you have to determine what works best for you.
my question is do you plan on upgrading to the RF lens personally as I do trust your judgment . I do understand it you do like the 100-400 II.
Right now I'm waiting. The 100-500 is so expensive, and I already own the excellent Sony 200-600mm that I can grab for those type of shots.
I have one; it's a great quality lens though I agree that it's let down by the design of the extenders and the stupid price (which recently got even stupider)
In the end I bought it because (a) I'm a gear head - what can I say?, and (b) I expect it to last a lifetime and should be the last zoom telephoto that I will buy.
I said at the end of my text review that the best thing you do if you want this lens is to forget about the price as soon as possible and just focus on the performance of the lens, which is excellent.
Lol. I'm sure you'll sell it once version II comes out. I bet you would be able to use an extender on it without losing the wider zoom range, and that will make every 100-500 owner out there switch! Canon is just playing us, because they know phographers are dumb and will pay loads of money to have "the latest best".
Thorough review! It took me a while to pull the trigger on this lens because of the price. No regrets though.
Yours is a pretty common story from what I see. People that have taken the plunge love the lens and consider it worth it.
@13:13, I understand why for some folks, that might be a problem, but as a birder, I will stay pegged at 700mm (with the 1.4) or 1000mm (with the 2.0 TC's) anyway..... and then, it might be "almost" long enough.... most of the time. Just can't tell you how rarely I get "too close" to the 3" to 5" birds I'm usually after. If money were no object, I'd drop $20K on an RF 1200mm F8 today ! But I'll get to see for myself all this week, as I've ordered this lens + both TC's for rent, due in this eve :)
I hope you love it!
I don't know. I went to a local park last weekend, had the 100-400+1.4x on, and wish I had more. 10 minutes later a bird was just 6 feet away or so, and I had to zoom out. So it's not true that you never need to zoom out if you're doing birds. Also, zooming out helps to locate a small bird in the tree. 420mm is still quite long for that, especially on a crop body like R7.
@@vitaminb4869 just saying, it’s much easier to take a couple of steps back, than to try taking 10 steps forward, without scaring your bird. Not saying I’ve never been too close, it’s just rare. Not being close enough is a far more common problem.
Dustin, as always a very detailed and hands on user experience review. Just one thing, your audio sounds very hollow and not up to your usual quality. cheers Ian (UK)
There was an onscreen note about that - I had a microphone failure (actually the 3.5mm plug wasn't fully inserted), so it ended up being the camera audio...which isn't great, obviously.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sorry Dustin I missed that, I need to do better next time :)
Me too!
With the 100-400 and a 1.4x you can zoom from 140-560. With the 100-500 and a 1.4x you can only zoom from 420-700, which could be problematic in some situations.
Completely agree. You are further artificially limiting your focal range.
But being a 100-500 lens you don't really need the 1.4x to match it to 100-400 + 1.4x. The difference would be 12% from 500mm to 560mm. I'm sure you could crop that an have as good if not better sharpness, because you don't have the 1.4x degrading image quality.
The audio is quite bad. Thank you for the review.
You're welcome.
Even if the R system is very innovative, specially if you look at the R3, I honestly can’t understand the design flaw with that extender thing (at about 13:15). If it dames to sports, action, wildlife and birds as well as bids (birds in flight) on “kinda” budget, the a7m4 (ILCE-7M4) plus the FE 200-600 5.6-6.3 OSS G is definitely the overall performing system delivering awesome results at best bang for the buck.
Hard to argue with that.
I relly like the portraits on the beach!
I have a question: what you would buy between the 100-500 and the 70-200 f2.8 if you already have the EF100mm macro L and the Milvus 135 along with the RF 50 1.2 and the 15-35 2.8 to pair with the R6? Thanks, I really appreciate your take on this.
That question really depends on what you plan to do with the lens. IF you are thinking about events and portraits, go with the 70-200. If you want to do more wildlife or birding, choose the 100-500.
Dustin - great videos! Question: what is the table tripod you feature in the video? Thank you!
Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
Hi Dustin, another good review. Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS is really close to perfect in terms of speed and image quality. I live in Latvia and I have Canon R5 and 1 week ago I bought 2nd hand Canon Ef 100-400mm F/5.6 2nd version. (900 euros) This is a really good price, because here, a Canon Rf 100-500mm lens is sold for around 3,000 euros and it is not possible to find it second hand. I think I will continue to use the 100-400mm lens for a few years. Thanks.
That is an amazing price for the lens! I don't blame you for sticking with that lens for a while!
@@DustinAbbottTWI yes, the seller was selling it because he bought the rf 100-500mm. The price was absolutely fantastic. (The lens had no issues other than a few spills of paint.)
Excellent.
In Germany, were I am from, this lens is almost twice as expensive as the Sony 200-600. Yes, the lenses have different approaches and I often wish for having a lower focal length of 100 mm instead of the 200 of my Sony lens, but the RF range ist just outrageously priced in my opinion. It may be alright if the lens earns you money, but for enthusiasts that want to take it to the zoo or do some wildlife shots on their own, it is just too much. And no, I don't want that strange 600 F/11 instead.
That's fair. It would be very hard to justify saying that the 100-500L is worth twice that of the 200-600G, which is an excellent lens with a largely similar performance.
I hope this is good, I just bought it!!
Then you've already dealt with the worst part of the lens...the price.
It's 5k in australia........................
Ouch! Nearly 4K here in Canada.
Would be curious how it compares to the RF 100-400 f5.6-f8. I heard from a fellow photographer who does detailed comparisons on instagram that it was hard to justify the cost of the 100-500 after trying out the RF 100-400 and being impressed by its sharpness and AF performance. They even suggested the 100-400 might have been planned as an L lens before Canon decided to strip down many premium features to keep the cost ow. I'm a bit held back by the f8 aperture at the long end as some sample shots do see to have contrasty bokeh so you might have to work harder for better backgrounds (that said, it should be comparable the a 250mm f5 lens fit on APS-C)
That is what I am thinking, RF 100-400 is cheaper than the EF 100-400 ii
I own both. The RF 100-400 is very good, especially for the price and the best of both if weight is most important. However, especially at 400 mm it has significantly worse IQ compared to the 100-500 @ 400 mm. The long end on the 100-500 is also worse than the lower focal lengths, but still very good. Corners could be sharper though.
I do plan to review the RF 100-400, but I wouldn't be surprised if Michael's findings are pretty accurate. Often cheaper lenses can do relatively good with sharpness but lack the more nuanced performance that bigger (and more expensive) lenses can produce.
I have a feeling you were probably referring to my comparison. Yeah I had the rf 100-400, rf 100-500, ef 100-400 ii, sigma 150-600c, tamron 150-600 g2, rf 800 f11, ef 200-400 f4 w/1.4x, and 800 f5.6 all at the same time. I own the 200-400 f4, 800 f5.6, and 800 f11 and was evaluating the other lenses. I used both an R5 and R3 with all of the lenses size by side in various scenarios. The benchmark lens was my 200-400 f4. I had 2 weeks with the 100-400 ii before starting my comparisons with the other lenses and was relatively happy with its performance. I found both the sigma and tamron 150-600s to be somewhat unacceptable for my own usage in terms of AF performance and IQ on both my r5 and r3 wide open, however I found them fairly decent at f8. I was very impressed with the 100-500 in terms of AF, IS, and IQ but found some parts of the ergonomics to be completely unacceptable (I couldn"t wear my normal gloves when it was mounted to the r5). I wasn't originally planning on testing the rf100-400 because I completely discounted it, but the friend that loaned be the 100-400 ii also had it. I was very impressed with the long end IQ of the 100-400. I found the IS and AF on the rf 100-400 to be the best in my comparisons especially at shorter ranges that you tend to be at for songbird photography. In terms of the actual image rendering I did find the 100-400 ii to be better then both the rf 100-500 and rf 100-400, but compared to the 200-400 f4 its not even close. I did not really find that any of the cheaper lenses (rf 100-500 included) really could produce "exciting results" in the same way the 200-400 could.
With regards specifically to the rf 100-400 vs the ef 100-400 ii vs rf 100-500 I did not think the ef 100-400 ii could really compete. The ef lens had better bokeh, but the focus speed at songbird-range IQ was not as good as the rf lenses and the af speed was lacking in comparison. I did not really find the rf 100-500 to be much better then the rf 100-400. It was better for mammal distances due to the extra focal length, but for songbirds and macro use it was not as reliable with AF and field IQ. I carried all three lenses plus the 200-400 f4 in my bag on various wildlife outings and basically just ended up using the rf 100-400 or the 200-400 f4. Even without the 200-400 f4 in my bag I did not really see much practical advantage for the 100-500, it is very versatile but it was basically never the best lens in the comparison for any given situation.
Some of my friends and clients own both the rf 100-500 and big primes, most of them are swapping out the 100-500 for the rf 100-400 to clear bag space for other gear. So from a professional perspective for the usage where the 100-500 makes the most sense the 100-400 tends to be a little bit better since its more space efficient. In the areas where the 100-500 is better then the 100-400 its really the scenarios where both lenses are borderline inadequate. Combine that with the relatively high cost of the 100-500 its hard for me to tell my clients to buy the 100-500 over the 100-400 for specifically wildlife use.
Hi Dustin! Thanks for the great review! I photograph birds mostly with my 600mm f4 L II lens but also use the 100-400L from time to time. The more I use the zoom the more I find that I am not missing shots as often at the beach. It’s difficult to get off the ground for shorebirds and hop up for flight shots for instance with the big lens. I think this lens could be a great balance between the big glass and the more limited 100-400L. The issue right now is price. I think for what you get it’s a tough call to upgrade. If I can sell my 100-400L I will feel much better about it lol. Hopefully the new lens will also come down in price one day.
It is tough. If the lens was even $300 cheaper, it would make it more of a no-brainer.
@@DustinAbbottTWI true! I’m actually quite impressed with the 100-400 II and the 1.4 III combo with my R6. I’m sure the 100-500 alone may be better. I heard some say the 100-500 hunts a little. Seems like it was very snappy for you. Maybe due to the updates in firmware too? Thanks again.
Could be. I don't feel like I had any hunting issues.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I did try my 100-400mm with the 1.4 again and it does struggle with the R6 for flight birds. I think I will upgrade very soon! I’m sure the bare lens of the 100-500 is better for AF as you described. Thanks for the help.
Will you be reviewing in the future the Canon RF 100-400 f 5.6-8 ? The RF 100-500 is beyond my price range so the 100-400 9s tempting.
That's my plan. I'm just waiting for a review copy to come available.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks. Looking forward to it.
the lens mounted on the tripod that lays just on the very edge of the round table makes me nervous!
The camera perspective makes it seem closer to the edge than what it actually is.
Can you plz tell me which arca swiss plate you are using? I been looking for one but can't find a decent one. Thank you
Enjoyed this review, very thorough. I am unsure if this lens is for me though. I shoot sports and was thinking of pairing the lens with the Canon RF 7, but I saw another review saying the 100-500mm doesn't autofocus at all well in low light. I have to bear in mind that the stadiums I would like to shoot in, whilst also taking into consideration weather factors i.e. a heavy, overcast day, have stands and rooves which cast their own shadows and create "low light" of their own. Its my decision ultimately I know, but does your experience of this lens lead you to think that the 100-500mm is good enough to cover major sporting events?
Optically it definitely is, but there's no question that you are 2/3rds of a stop slower on the telephoto end than most similar zooms in the past. Difference being that you are also reaching 500mm rather than 400mm. If you have been able to shoot in those stadiums with an F5.6 lens, then you should be able to do it with this lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Many thanks for your thoughts.
Hi Dustin, great review as always, i have a question, does the AF improves when you use the lens on Aps-c mode on the R5?? i've been thinking that maybe the crop factor could have an impact on the AF response. Thank you.
Hi Fernando - I don't think that changes anything. The in camera crop is just electronically cropping the image. It's not a different sensor or AF system.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks!! :)
Nice review, as always. I love this lens and I do not regret for one second this purchase. Expensive? Yes. But it delivers great images, even hand held.
And that's what you need to focus on. Just enjoy the lens.
Hi Justin
Many thanks for this review on this lens.. please if you may offer your professional opinion here with my question.
Would this lens work ok on the canon R7 body?
I haven't tested the combination, but I don't see why not.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks Justin .. my concern was would you lose any width on the image if this is a full frame lens used on an APSa sensor ?
Appreciate your time and your reviews are always appreciated. Stay well !
I'd say the IQ of the RF 100-500 is on par with the EF 100-400 II & has similar limitations. Image grain is about the same and noticeable depending on what your shooting. The Bokeh is harsher & more present then what I'm used to being spoiled by the 600 f/4 II prime. The fact that you can't use the extenders until your at 300mm makes the lens not as versatile. For me a used EF 400 f / 2.8 & adding extenders might have been a better choice. it has good image quality I still like the lens but not as good as it should be for $3,000. I shoot with the R5 as well, nice review I think you covered it.
That's a fair assessment.
Great Review and professional video. You could improve on sound as speech has hall effect. Possibly due to small room or hard walls. btw: I prefer a black hoodie ;-)
There was actually a microphone error which forced me to use camera audio.
Wow...the EF lens with the TC performs really well....as good as the RF lens. I'm surprised with this result.
me too, i was thinking that the RF lens was going to crush the EF version with the adapter
The EF 100-400L II always held up well with the TC. Definitely one of its strengths.
How would you compare its sharpness at 400 compared to the Canon 400 5.6?
Are you referring to the older EF 400mm F5.6? I would say that the new lens is sharper, but not by a big margin
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, the older Ef 400 5.6. I just bought the rf 100-500 from Amazon and was hoping for it to be sharper the the older prime at 400mm. It does have more contrast.
It's double the price of the sony 200-600 that has internal focusing , extra reach plus faster at the long end which is why i sold the R6 and bought the A7iv , Love canon but they're going wrong with their price madness
It's hard to argue against the value that the 200-600G offers.
@@DustinAbbottTWI £1300 here in the UK brand new is difficult to turn down. The canon is £3000
This lens wasn't designed for a teleconverter, otherwise it would fit without zooming out. Just trying to catch up to Sony with their properly designed lens. This will be fixed later with a new model release.
Perhaps, though that is a VERY expensive stopgap lens, then.
Good review. That tripod leg makes me nervous
I've heard that a few times!
Just upgraded from the 80d to the R7, already own the EF 100-400 ii, 1.4 extender iii, and EF to RF adapter. I shoot airshows only, typically Thunderbirds, Blue Angels, anything fast. Thinking about getting the RF 100-500, the money and weight aren't an issue to me, so eliminate that. I'm looking at autofocus speed with the most sharp and brightest images I can get? Every review I have seen the 100-500 pictures seem to be a bit darker when compared to the EF 100-400 ii through the entire focal range? Given all that I have said and what I mainly shoot, my question is which one would you use?
That’s a good question, and I think you’ll find that while the 100-500 does have a few limitations, the sum total of its parts will make it the better lens for you - particularly when it comes to tracking action
@@DustinAbbottTWI Dustin, thank you for getting back to me and thank you for your opinion. I just bought the 100-500 and had a good day of testing it against my EF 100-400 ii. I'm not a professional photographer, but I do know a decent amount and this is just my opinion on the comparison. It is definitely lighter and I know I said before I didn't care about weight until I put the 100-500 on my R7 and I must say it is definitely nicer with less weight and much better balanced too, even at full zoom. I have bigger hands then most, so the zoom ring from 100mm to 500mm wasn't an issue for me, but someone with medium to small hands might have to take two turns to get to 500mm. Zooming in and out is smoother on the 100-500 and I like the lock ring on it better too. The 100-500 is not a tank like the 100-400, so if you are someone who beats the crap out of your camera and lense gear, you might not want the 100-500. But if your someone like me that takes care of their stuff as best as they can, you shouldn't have any issues. The build quality is solid on the 100-500, don't get me wrong, but in a drop test the 100-400 might fair better. The 100-500 autofocus definitely is better and faster then the 100-400 with the Ef to Rf adapter. The 100-500 is tack sharp. I love my 100-400 ii and I thought it was pretty clear and sharp, that was until I got this 100-500. It is most certainly more sharp and better image quality then my 100-400, even more when you start to zoom in to crop. The 100-500 is crystal clear and sharp through the entire focal range, even maxed out to 500mm. The 7.1 on the long end isn't noticeable at all to me and for what I use this setup for I probably never will notice anything it. To my eye I think the colors are brighter and more vibrant with the 100-500, but that could just be me. The extra 100mm is nice also. One other thing I noticed, with the R7 in electronic shutter mode and the 100-400 on it, if I took say 20 pictures, only 10-12 where keepers and the rest had some type of blur or distortion. Now doing the same with the 100-500, I had 18 or more keepers. Not sure why the 100-400 didn't do better? I was going to mount my EF 1.4x iii extender on the 100-400 and compare it to the 100-500, but to me at this point it's just a waste of time. Both the 100-500 and 100-400 are great lens, but I hate to say it, the 100-500 is just better. I will now be selling my 100-400 ii, adapter and extender. Everyone's situation is different, I get that, but hopefully my review can maybe help someone else out.
@@tomcarney2829 Thanks for your detail and sharing your experience Tom! I'm in the exact same situation as you describe above and will order the RF 100-500 today selling my 100-400 ver ii + 1.4 extender. Thank You!
Thanks for the review! The RF100-500 is too plastic-y for me. They should have at least made the filter threads metal. I'll let someone else buy the 100-500, then get the old 100-400 they trade in on the used market. Losing 100-300 with an extender is unacceptable to me. Seems like all the RF lenses look great a first, but they all have a nasty gotcha just below the surface.
There's definitely some unfortunate truth to that.
You're actually losing 100-420mm with 1.4x extender, because 300 becomes 420. On the other hand, you don't really need a 1.4x on it if you compare it to 100-400 where you do need a 1.4x to get similar focal length. On a 100-400 you lose 1 stop of light through the entire zoom range. It's F7.1 all the way from 190mm to 430mm, where it becomes F8 all the way to 560mm! Something that you would not get on the 100-500 alone. I don't think many bird photographers use 100-400 alone, without a 1.4x extender. In this context the 100-500 is a clear winner.
@@vitaminb4869 Thanks for replying. You're correct. I tried the 100-500/1.4x tc and found it difficult to quickly locate the subject in the viewfinder. With practice, I could probably get better at it. The wider range of the 100-400/1.4x makes this easy, while giving a wider zoom range for composing as the players come toward or away from the camera. In cases where aperture matters, I reach for the 300 f/4, while thinking about how the cost of a used 300 f/2.8 is comparable to the RF 100-500.
🙌 Once again a great review! 👍🏻☺👍🏻 ... But regarding the RF 100-500mm... What is the max aperture at 400mm ? f/6.3 !🤤? ... As the EF100-400mm maintains f 5.6 !? 🤔... I will gladly use the EF 100-400mm vs the RF one. If required, the EF 1.4X III will get me to 560mm f8 vs 7.1, which is a much less significant aperture difference... Could also use crop mode/sensor instead of the 1.4x TC and retain that 5.6 aperture, and even get more reach (vs Full Frame) 📷🙃
Yes - it is F5.6 vs F6.3 at that point.
What on earth are you talking about? It is 1/3 stop difference, either from f5.6 to 6.3 or f7.1 to f8. So why is it a deal breaker for you to lose 1/3 stops in one situation, but not the other? You make no sense, dude. And did you realize that if you zoom out the 100-400+1.4x to 400mm (effective), then you are at f7.1??! You are actually at f7.1 starting from 190mm! On the 100-500 @190mm you'll have F5 or a whole full stop more! I'd rather take the 100-500 and have larger aperture throughout the entire zoom range, and better image quality, than what the 100-400+1.4x would give you.
I recently changed from Sony back to Canon after owning 4 Sony bodies from A7III, A7R3, A9 and A9II. I have an R6 as I shoot sports and the R6 compares very well against the A9II at half the price, but the you just don't have the well priced lens selection with Canon RF. That being said, one very big difference in choosing Canon are those 3 valuable words...."Made in Japan", at least with the bodies and L Series lenses. One place Sony cannot compete in is durability and resale. The Canon lens costs more, but it will still be working in many years time and I just don't trust the Sony offerings where even GM lenses are made in Thailand. Also in Australia Canon products are covered by a 5 year manufacturer warranty, Sony only offers 2. Watch Jan Weggener's review of the Canon 100-500 versus Sony 200-600, very interesting as the Canon does have some distinct advantages, particularly in stabilisation and focus.
Sort of agree with you about the “feeling” of being made in Thailand. But Sony isn’t the only one making things in Thailand and there is no definitive proof Sony is less durable, now. The G and GM lenses are top notch.
I too switched from Sony to Canon. I didn’t regret it when I had the 400mm f2.8 IS version 1 adapted. But it was just too heavy. I got the 100-500 and totally regret changing to Canon because, imo, the 200-600 was just better in my use. I have the R5 and the locking up issues are almost gone but it does perform better than my A7R3, by a lot so I’m sticking with Canon. Good thing is the 100-500 is sharp… very sharp.
My basic observation is that the last three Canon mirrorless bodies are very competitive (and competitively priced), but the high price of the lenses tends to erode that value.
@@Jessehermansonphotography How about comparing C100-500 with S200-600 ? Which one is sharper in your opinion ?
I'm really struggling to see how this lens qualifies as premier lens with the premier price. There's no denying the amazing build quality but f/7.1 and the teleconverter problems are baffling for the price. I've recently bought the Sigma 150-600 for my Lumix S1 (also availble on E mount) it has a faster aperture, no issue with teleconverters and more reach all for a £1000 less. Sony have the fantastic 200-600 with internal zoom also considerably less and faster. This 100-500 is great but it doesn't seem like an L lens to me.
No one who bought the RF 100-500 regrets it.
The only niggle is the teleconverter issue, yes, it is a pita taking the tc off every time I put my R5 camera in my bag, but, that is only once a session, so not really a deal breaker for me.
Canon have priced the RF 100-500 right, it is just that good. I shoot birds & dragon flys in flight, and the R5 + RF 100-500 combo just makes this task so relarively easy - it does feel like chearing. The AF is next level, even with the 1.4x tc on.
My EF 100-400 Lii just does not eye track af effectively with the 1,4x on. I guarantee you thet the Sigma and Tamron lenses will be hopeless when it comes to trying to af on small fast moving birds in flight.
The RF 100-500 + R5 or R3 is an amzing combo, and really does set a new standard for af tracking small fast moving critters.
With the RF 100-500, you really do get what you paid for.
@@nordic5490 I can't deny it's an extremely well engineered bit of kit with incredible AF and fantastic picture quality. But I can't also ignore that it cost almost £3k for a f7.1 lens with an ill conceived teleconverter design. If it was less expensive I would judge less harshly.
I agree, it's overpriced. But F7.1 @500mm is not bad at all! You get F8 with 100-400+1.4x. So it's better and you don't need a tele.
Finally!!! Thank you!
You're welcome!
What is the sweet point on RF 100-500?
It's really very consistent. One place doesn't really stand out over another because it is so consistently good.
I would be at 500mm most of the time...then have to deal with f7.1. Early morning or just after sunset I am really going to have to push the ISO. IMO, at this premium price it should be max f5.6. I think it is a poor value and not my first choice.
That's definitely the challenge with lenses that have a slower maximum aperture.
Even with F5.6 you'd have to push ISO in those light conditions. You can zoom out if you really want larger aperture. It's just 1/3 stop difference @400mm compared to 100-400. Personally, I'd just clean it up in post with today's AI tools.
@vitaminb4869 I've found tools like Denoise AI to be somewhat inconsistent. Sometimes, it leaves noise and artifacts in unexpected places, and requires cleanup in Photoshop.
I would prefer to get it more right in camera if possible and 2/3 of a stop makes some difference. Because of this, I am not the right customer for this lens.
@@thefourthquarter7429 Yes, Topaz Denoise does leave some artifacts. Try Dxo PureRaw instead. It is better, doesn't leave artifacts, and result looks more natural. It is also quicker to adjust, because there is really nothing to adjust, you just press 1 button pretty much and it does everything for you. With Topaz you could spend a lot of time trying all the different settings to get the best result. I can easily shoot ISO 12000 (Canon R5C) and get excellent results. Before I would try to not go over ISO 2000-3200, or there'd be just too much noise. 2/3 extra stop wouldn't have helped.
@vitaminb4869 You're right about Topaz Denoise. While I can get great results, it frequently involves trying several settings. Further, the settings like motion blur vs too much noise don't really fix what I see. Masking is nearly always required despite keeping the reduce noise and sharpen settings between 10-30. A lot of work!
I've heard DXO is easier with similar results. Haven't heard it's just simply better. That's very good to know. I will give it a try as it would be worth it just to save the time fiddling with settings 😀.
That still doesn't mean I would get an F7.1 lens. Maybe just stubborn, spoiled or both. I would much more likely get a used F4 lens and deal with the expense.
For some reason this lens limits a 2X TC at 300mm so max. possible is 600mm. The EF 100-400mm wil max. out at 800mm and much cheaper
That’s actually backwards - you can’t retract the lens but you can use it out to 500mm.
@@DustinAbbottTWI ..I guess another channel explained it wrong but it does have a limitation.
This one or the RF 70-200 2.8 - for a general photographer?
For general photography I find the F2.8 lens more useful. It's also more portable.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Is Canon still the better mirrorless system?
Thanks .Good review.Certainly costly &slow lens .More con & compromise than 200-600
The 200-600G is one of my favorite lenses of its kind. I love the handling and performance.
You give me rf 100 -500 lens please
I don't even have one myself.
I owned one. While the weight is nice it is slow and too short for bif and doesn't play nice with the 1.4x on the R5 or 6
It's good, but not perfect for sure.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think a 100-400 5.6 would have been better. Lower iso enables more cropping with the same results
Can you please remember that UA-cam compresses videos pretty harshly? When you are scrolling around the photos to look at different areas of the sample pictures, you are often moving the photo again before the compression has time to smooth out.
Unfortunately the playback experience does vary from device to device, but I'll do my best.
Watch it in 4K. I didn't notice those issues.
Such a let down that they couldn’t do this in f5.6 like the Nikon. Who’s interested in shooting at 7.1??? Not me. Should they not be able to make this in an f4? With the rf mount?
I agree on that point.
If the price would fit the F7.1, it would be an awesome lens. I had the chance to test it with and without 2x extender... its GREAT, but just not worth the money at all (as most Canon RF glasses)
I really wanted a proper Tele with higher range (and replacement for my 75-300mm), which a 100-500 would fit perfectly with a 1,4x extender for wildlife.
But since its price is MUCH TOO HIGH (for the F7.1 and the moving barrel, 2 huge dissapointments) i just took a RF 800 F11. at 800mm i have technically about the same aperture, with a 2x converter on 100-500 the 800 F11 is even better (for about 1/6 of the price of 100-500+2x)
The Nikon is also a kilo heavier, and bigger. I don't see a Nikon 500mm f5.6 zoom lens that is the size of the RF 100-500. Nikon would have to defy physics to release a lens of the same size, but with f5.6 @500mm.
Can this shoot night sports under stadium lights?
I think so, though it really is going to depend on how bright those lights are...and what your ISO tolerance is.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I appreciate your reply.
I love my 100-500, it’s a beautiful lens that never disappoints me and I also have the 100-400ii.
People that own the lens tend to love it.
I don’t like the position of the focus ring. Too far back
U can’t miss focus much at f7 or whatever
You might be surprised. Depth of field at close to medium distances is still quite small at 500mm and F7.1
One micro second of moon? Please provide moon shots, thanks
You can look at the image gallery if you'd like to see a few moon shots.
Does the fact it's a RF lenses mean it can't be used on a Canon 90d? Only on a mirrorless Canon body?
That's correct. It is only for cameras that support the RF mount.
Canon just cant get ther stuff together. The RF 70-200 cant take a Convertor like a Nikon /or Sony etc now the RF 100-500 cant take a convertor unless you REMEMBER to extend the lens to 300MM .. How crazy is that ..Another Gimmick >> So Glad I am invested in the Z System >> Cameras and lensesmade for Photographers >> but I cant fault my Canon Pixma Printer ..the Brands speciality
I guess each brand has their own strengths/weaknesses, but I've certainly been disappointed by some of the design choices by Canon - though I'll probably still end up buying this lens.
Thanks for the video I own the 100-400 II and it does perform well however I find at close distance my sigma 150-600 c gives shaper images in the corners. The price of the rf 100-500 is a big deal here in the uk its around £3k. I was able to buy a used almost new ef 300mm L F2.8 II lens for the same money which means a much better aperture. even with extender its 5.6 at 600mm. I originally bought my 100-400 lens as a grey import for £1400 at the time most retail outlets were selling the 100-400 for £1849 then it went to £2100 then £2379. I really think canon is ripping customers off with these price hikes. Looking at your tests the price of the new lens is simply not worth it, it offers nothing in practical use. I think canon need to stop increasing prices it puts customers off its important to note canon just increased its prices by $100. Know you can get used copys of the 100-400 II for around £1000 so for 3x the cost you can get the rf lens for a variable aperture lens. I dont think I will be buying it any time soon. If canon had kept it at 5.6 maybe with a filter thread of 82mm would have been doable. I also have the rf 600 and 800 even these lenses could have had a better aperture of f11. As it seems the lenses are wide enough to accommodate a better aperture.
No argument from me on the pricing. I think it is pretty crazy.
That tripod leg is soooo close to the edge of the table I could barely hear what you were saying…
LOL - I get a few of these comments on most every video.
🙏🏾
:)
I use a Sigma 50-500 and was thinking of upgrading to a EF100-400 or the RF 100-500, so I borrowed an EF lens and did a comparison. [ ua-cam.com/video/PxhrYuQKFpk/v-deo.html ] In the real world the difference was surprisingly minimal, and a friend who has both said there isn't much between them. Most people would probably find it hard to distinguish between the finer technicalities. A Sigma 60-600 is £1,700, I wonder if the RF lens is worth the extra £1,200! Not to mention that the x2 extender is another £700 and I already have one for EF!
It's hard to say what is "worth it" when you are talking about someone else's money. I'm not sure what version of the 100-400 you compared to, but the MK II lens (and thus the 100-500) are much higher performing than the MK 1 lens. I certainly found that the 100-400L II was sharper than the newer Sigma 60-600 Sport...or the 150-600 Sport.
@@DustinAbbottTWI 100-400L mkii. I Haven't seen the new SIgma though people say it is a little sharper than mine. I use a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS, that is in another league [quote from SIgma] and even with a x2 the results are excellent, almost on par with my Canon 400mm f2.8
*laughs in Sony 200-600*
That lens is definitely the fly in the ointment. It seems like a pretty strong value by comparison...though that doesn't help if you're a Canon shooter!
God canon.......you could easily have made this competitive to the Sony 200-600. But sadly you didn't. The Sony is internal zoom, faster at 6.3, 100mm extra long end, and $1,000 cheaper but just as sharp as the canon, and takes the converters the entire length wich the canon doesn't. Love canon. Still use them...but such a letdown overall
The 200-600G is really such a unique lens in this category. It's the one I own.
I have the RF 100-500mm. You can always crop in, but you cannot go wider. This is why the Canon 70- 300mm is a great lens for crop bodies.
100mm on a crop body is often too long when you are walking around with just one lens.
My RF 100-500mm is a nice sweet compromise for me. 100mm is just wide enough that I dont have to back up too far to shoot people.
STUPIDEST design ever to disallow full range with use of TC. It is a ZOOM lens. Was amped about this lens but no way in hell I will get it now. Thanks for the info.
It really is unfortunate, as it is otherwise a very good lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for taking the time to respond. I was actually never expecting you to, as I was just venting/griping. I have been watching your videos for years Dustin and really appreciate how thorough and well delivered your reviews are. Indeed though, I was strongly considering this lens to shoot video of local surfers/kiters from shore. They come in moderately close and then head back out and zoom is crucial. I have to be able to zoom out fully though as well... lol, if TC is on. thanks again.
Canon has made (in my mind) some very questionable decision on RF. I used to be a 100% Canon guy, but now my R5 sits lonely most of the time because most of the new lenses don't come in an RF mount.
You are *freaking me out* with the lens/camera perched on the edge of the table and your arms waving around like that!! Great review otherwise Dustin!
You're not the first to be freaked out :)
First yes lol
I guess you were!
Couldn't do without a bump up to 600mm. Rarely use 500. Very happy with my off-brand choice in lieu of the manufacturer's inability to market a proper Z mount in a timely fashion. Besides, I sidestep products made in communist China, something under the radar with all You Tube influencers for some reason.
Hmmm, I think this lens is made in Japan, actually.