I’ve owned the RF 100-500 lens for around a year now so I have decided to put together a video that reviews all the things I love about the lens and the things I don’t like as much. There were many compromises made to make this lens what it is and I go over those as well. Don’t buy the RF 100-500 telephoto zoom before you watch this video.
Look for me on Vero @philthach
Heather is on Vero too @heatherbrie
My Gear https://www.amazon.com/shop/philthach
If you would like to make a much-appreciated donation to help keep this channel going, send it to miataphil@gmail.com on Paypal or @phil-Thach on Venmo.
Maven Filters https://maven-color-coded-magnetic.kckb.st/84fbaa39
21 Comments
Another thing I love about this lens is it has a great minimum focus distance. This allows you to get much closer to your subject than many other telephoto lenses. You can even do near-macro work with this lens. Thanks to the viewers who reminded me that I forgot to mention this feature!
I’m definitely targeting this lens, I think it would be a great replacement for my RF 70-200 F4! I’m thinking I wouldn’t need both?
Great, detailed review Phil!
Hi Phil, I rented this lens to try on my R7 and hated it. In fact, it was one of the reasons I sold my R7.
I’m currently shooting the Nikon 200-500 on Z6 II and D780 and I’m getting much better results.
If you think it's expensive over there, try buying one in Australia.
Lens hoods are specifically engineered for each lens to block extraneous side light at all of the focal lengths, and yet not vignetting, especially at the widest setting. You might find your substitute hood is doing some of that, especially if you make a large print from a favored image. One thing you are paying with an L lens is the extensive service Canon provides for working Pro's. Sony never has, and Nikon has greatly reduced Pro Service in a cost cutting move. There was a time when it seemed Nikon had a Rep hidden behind every tree and goal post. Their financial pain
forced them to cut way back. Canon's CPI isn't perfect, but talk to Pro's using the other two Brands and you'll here about the differences.
Great review, thanks Phil.
Hi Phil, a great review of this awesome lens! I have upgraded it from the EF100-400ii which used the same concept regarding zoom stiffness. On my old 70D it was giving me good reach. but after switching to the R6 (before the R7 was at last announced) I liked everything expect the reach. And from Duade Paton I learned it was in reality rather a 100-370. As such, the 100-500 is actually just as fast relative to focal length. But unlike most zooms, on the 100-500 you don't need to stop down from 7.1 to get more sharpness. That's a big extra reason why the 7.1 is only in theory a handicap.
Some weeks ago, we already discussed about the lens hood. I think I figured out why Canon made it as wide as they did: only like this, it allows ad some camo like lenscoat, easycover etc.
The only real negative for me is the fact it only takes convertors from 300mm onwards. Still waiting on the delivery for the RF1.4x so I'm unsure how annoying this is IRL when attempting to find a tiny bird in some bushes. The RF2x is in stock, but then wide open means 600mm .. not buying that convertor before I know I can live with the 420-700 mode 😉
About a year ago, Canon filed some longer zoom L glass patents including some 150-600 versions .. but I feel most of these patents came too close to our 100-500, except for a 300-800L/8. And for my shooting, that would be an excellent complementary lens to the 100-500, assuming it could be a similar weight and price and IQ as the 100-500.
If I just came right out bashing on this lens, it probably wouldn't be a fair representation of it. The fact is, then lens is just not the "correct" lens for most of my shooting. Just too short. Anyway, I rented this lens, and nearly the whole time, I had the 1.4 or 2.0 TC slapped on it, which made it VERY slow. I also rented the RF 800 F11… twice. Liked it so much, I bought it. I still actually use the 1.4 TC on it, for 1120mm, about 30% of the time. I also use extender tubes on it, to get my MFD down as short at 12ft. Long story short > regardless of price < the RF 800 F11 is just a much more suitable lens for the majority of my shooting.
BTW, right around the same time I bought the RF 800 F11, I found some tutorials about how to make my Sigma 150-600 work (focus) much better, on my Canon R5. I think it worked…. but I can't be 100% sure how much of a fix / improvement that was, because once I slapped the 800 on, I can barely force myself to take it off 🙂 LOVE my RF 800 F11 😉
Very detailed information and review of the lens. I think you and Heather's backpack bags are real nice. Nice commentary about the lens.
How does the autofocus speed compare to the Nikon 200-500? I find that the 200-500mm is slow for action.
I have this lens, comments: 1-price is level, the dollar is what is going down. 2-"Air Pump" when zooming, don't worry Canon has good engineers. 3-Have used with light rain + heavy mist with R7-NO problems-was dripping wet. 4-Have covered it and your skinny lens hood with Mossy Oaks vinyl camo-works great. 5-You use the tele extender when you are at 300-500, whatz the problem, you don't use the 100-300 range all the time! 6-Phil, like your replacement skinny lens hood-own it. 7-1.4 extender + R7 + 100-500 gives great reach – seldom use 800f11. 8-High ISO and f8 &f11 causing a noise problem? Use DXO, Topaz, ON1, Adobe. Duh?? You must still be using software from1920. Phil, you left out the assignable ring – I use it for exposure compensation on the fly with bird photography.
Lens has no reason to be above the $1500 price point. I paid around $3000 with the Canon CarePak. Canon needs to release a 150-600 f5.6-6.3 like everyone else for a cheaper price.
I am currently selling my 100-500mm to get the Canon R7, Canon 800mm f11 (I sold this a couple months ago and regret it), and the RF 100-400mm (just bought used for $300).
That fact that I can all that gear for the price of one lens is crazy.
Don’t get me wrong I love the lens but again $3000 vs $300 for the 100-400mm is crazy
Great in depth review Phil. Amazing lens with superb optical performance. If I had some extra cash I’d definitely invest into one but will be using the EF 100-400 II via the adapter. P.s: what’s that lens hood you replaced the default with? Cheers
I love this lens coupled with the R5 and the ×1.4 converter my bird shots are mind-blowing stopping down to 1/250 and 1/125 just amazes me how clean and crisp my shots are.😍
I would also recommend it for Moon shots I get to use 100% of my frames when stacking compared to the Tamron 150-600mmG2 usually only 60% and I'm not doing anything differently.🥰
I own the RF 100-500mm and the RF 100-400. If Canon had not built the RF 100-400 then I would have said it’s worth the £ 2950.00 it costs in the UK. It’s sharper than the RF 100-400, has weather sealing, comes with a hood, is slightly faster but the question is whether it’s worth 4X the price of the RF 100-400 which is smaller, lighter not restricted using the RF 1.4X and 2X converters and can fit into a ruck sack much easier and given it’s price point is way sharper than maybe it deserves to be.
I will not be selling either but the acid test is I reach for the RF 100-400 way more than the RF 100-500. However the extra reach and the better sharpness (both are good in the centre but the RF 100-500 is sharper into the corners) is definitely an advantage in wildlife but less so in landscape.
Which of the 3 stabilization modes do you usually set your lens at?
All lens design must involve compromise I think? A great review explaining the pleasures of ownership whilst recognising the negative points. I currently use a Sigma 150-600 and am aware of the focusing issues but live with it on my R6. I just can't bring myself to stump up the asking price for this lovely Canon lens .Thank you
Best lens interview ever. Not just for this lens, but generally speaking in this subject.
I use a Tamron 150-600 g2 with my R7 and it works great. It is kinda of a beast but I get nice sharp images and nice auto focus.