# Canceling My Rf 100-500mm Order...Or not?



## YuengLinger (Dec 7, 2020)

I've had the lens in my B&H shopping cart for about a month. Adorama also shows them backordered. Amazon, surprisingly, has them in stock--sold by Amazon. I hung in a little longer because of a $100 discount offer, but I think by next year such discounts will be back.

I'm glad I've had the extra time to think. The 100-500 is very expensive, especially considering that this would be more of a hobby lens for, not one for portraits and events.

What bothers me most about the lens design is the tele-extender limitation. And, yes, light as it is, the f/7.1 limitation is also something that seems to lower the value for me.

Interestingly, when I first started looking for comparisons online several months ago, most of the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary reviews were not very positive, just concluding it was a decent lens at a bargain price. But lately my youtube "Recommended" feed has been showing older and newer reviews of the Sigma, and they are all much more positive about image quality and AF. Really hard to know what to believe without trying it for myself.

But my GAS is in a mellow state at the moment, and I realize I can wait to see if Sigma is going to announce plans for an RF version of the lens next year, or if Canon has plans to offer something a little faster and longer--even if it is heavier and a _bit_ more expensive. As things stand, I just can't justify the 100-500mm price tag with its perceived limitations.


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2020)

+1 Nice post for us GAS-strikken people. To tell the truth 100-500 seems a versatile lens though.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Dec 7, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> But my GAS is in a mellow state at the moment, and I realize I can wait to see if Sigma is going to announce plans for an RF version of the lens next year, or if Canon has plans to offer something a little faster and longer--even if it is heavier and a _bit_ more expensive. As things stand, I just can't justify the 100-500mm price tag with its perceived limitations.


I like my 100-500mm but so far the 70-200mm would have been a better choice for me. I don't do a lot of wildlife shooting but also have suffered from GAS most of my life. Once I get my electronic flash needs fulfilled, I'll probably start saving up for the 70-200mm Canon lens.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I've had the lens in my B&H shopping cart for about a month. Adorama also shows them backordered. Amazon, surprisingly, has them in stock--sold by Amazon. I hung in a little longer because of a $100 discount offer, but I think by next year such discounts will be back.
> 
> I'm glad I've had the extra time to think. The 100-500 is very expensive, especially considering that this would be more of a hobby lens for, not one for portraits and events.
> 
> ...


Just flashed across my screen from Canon UK: We are delighted to tell you, your order has now been confirmed and is on its way. 1 x Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS.

I've tried the Sigma 150-600mm C on the R5. The AF was slow, even after I updated the firmware. And, with the 1.4xTC, it was very slow. Get a used 100-400mm II - it works really well with the R5. I'll be using the 100-500mm bare.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 7, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I've had the lens in my B&H shopping cart for about a month. Adorama also shows them backordered. Amazon, surprisingly, has them in stock--sold by Amazon. I hung in a little longer because of a $100 discount offer, but I think by next year such discounts will be back.
> 
> I'm glad I've had the extra time to think. The 100-500 is very expensive, especially considering that this would be more of a hobby lens for, not one for portraits and events.
> 
> ...


I had the RF 100-500 on order from both B&H (with $100 discount) and CPW (Canon Price Watch, with an even bigger discount). After a very long wait I got the lens from B&H, but it was delivered with an appreciably crushed box. B&H was very helpful in allowing me to return it and have another ordered. But it still took forever with no lens delivery. Then CPW called me and told me there was an order cancellation of a single new lens and if I wanted it I could get it. So I did. It arrived well packaged from CPW's authorized dealer and it works beautifully! I'll show you a photo I took with it:



R5 & RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L
500mm, f6.7, 1/90", ISO 50, handheld with animal eye AF (Yes, the exif does say f6.7 and 500mm for some reason)
(note: there was a little subject motion at 1/90", so I should have used ISO 400 to get a 8x shorter shutter speed. Now I know for next time)

If I were you, I would wait until you can get this RF 100-500 lens. It is superb! The friction-adjust ring allows you to make the zoom barrel as easy-to-stiff as you want and that is really a huge improvement over the RF 70-200mm f2.8L lens (which I also have). I suggest you call CPW as well as B&H or other authorized dealers, and I also sometimes see offers for immediate limited stock at MSRP if you order right away. I really suggest you get this lens, as you will be so happy you did!


----------



## unfocused (Dec 7, 2020)

Smart choice. Unless you are an avid wildlife or outdoor sports photographer I don’t see any reason to rush into this lens. It will come down a bit in price once supplies balance out with demand, plus canon is going to be releasing a lot of new products next year, so no need to rush if you aren’t certain it’s the best lens for you.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 7, 2020)

An additional thought...this is one reason why Canon needs to break tradition and issue a road map. With the DSLR and EF system, the pace of introductions was incremental, so when a new product came out, people could consider it and decide if it was what they wanted. But as Canon hurries to build out the R system, it can be a bit head spinning and frustrating to decide whether to buy or to wait and see what the next product coming round the corner might be. I know, I am sitting on my money right now to wait to see what 2021 brings and I suspect lots of other people are doing the same, especially since the supply chain has been so severely disrupted. I think Nikon was smart to release their lens roadmap and I think Canon would benefit from doing the same.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Smart choice. Unless you are an avid wildlife or outdoor sports photographer I don’t see any reason to rush into this lens. It will come down a bit in price once supplies balance out with demand, plus canon is going to be releasing a lot of new products next year, so no need to rush if you aren’t certain it’s the best lens for you.


The Canon Store leads off the description of the lens with: "*When you demand the very best quality images for wildlife and sports photography, the RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM super telephoto zoom, with its 100-500 mm focal length range and 5-stop image stabilisation, makes perfect sense. " * So, if you are not into wildlife or/and sports, this lens is indeed not aimed at you. If you are, then you have a lightweight package that is giving excellent images of birds, BIF etc that are adorning various forums posted by enthusiasts. I'm not buying an RF 50/1.2, but I'm not posting a thread to say I'm not since my views are irrelevant to those who would find that lens useful.


----------



## Nelu (Dec 7, 2020)

The R5 with the RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1 L IS feels like a pocket camera for me, compared to the 1DX Mark III and the Canon 600mm f/4 L IS II.
It's a very handy, flexible, less expensive and high quality configuration but of course, with much less "WOW!" factor than the super-tele lens.

If I want ultimate quality, I'll take the big gun, no matter what.
If I want to be able to walk more and still be able to take some great shots, I'll take the RF 100-500.

As a note, lately I only take wildlife photos. For any kind of indoor shooting, the RF 100-500 is not the optimum solution, regardless how good the R5 is at high ISO.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 7, 2020)

unfocused said:


> An additional thought...this is one reason why Canon needs to break tradition and issue a road map. With the DSLR and EF system, the pace of introductions was incremental, so when a new product came out, people could consider it and decide if it was what they wanted. But as Canon hurries to build out the R system, it can be a bit head spinning and frustrating to decide whether to buy or to wait and see what the next product coming round the corner might be. I know, I am sitting on my money right now to wait to see what 2021 brings and I suspect lots of other people are doing the same, especially since the supply chain has been so severely disrupted. I think Nikon was smart to release their lens roadmap and I think Canon would benefit from doing the same.


The trouble with a road map is it commits you to a path before you have all the data you might use to determine that path. 

For instance Canon will make another DSLR if they believe there is the demand, if there isn’t they won’t, how can they commit to anything in this time of extreme transition? Sure RF is the future, but given the worldwide uncertainty how quickly will people transition, what people do transition earlier will impact the best lens selection for that group of users, or it might push development in other lens areas to entice more people to transition.

At this point the only thing I have seen that RF does better than EF is AF, but my EF AF rarely is an issue.


----------



## Nelu (Dec 7, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> At this point the only thing I have seen that RF does better than EF is AF, but my EF AF rarely is an issue.


You know this is might be a trigger for yet another DSLR vs Mirrorless debate, right ? 

For me, the main mirrorless advantages are:

no need for the darn AF micro adjustment
no need for reading glasses to playback photos or access menus in the EVF because of the diopter adjustment
the AF points cover pretty much the entire screen, unlike the DSLR's where they're clustered in the middle
the R5 mechanical shutter noise is a whisper compared to the 1DX Mark III
the photo and the histogram visible in the EVF before you even take the shot
way better ergonomics for shooting videos (EVF vs back LCD)...although I don't really shoot much video

So, that's a tiny bit more than just the AF and NONE of the above mentioned points is something you can have on a DSLR.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 7, 2020)

I see the 100-500 as a lens of many intelligent compromises, but I've lost interest for now.

Part of the reason is I'm lining up a little bit of work, some headshots for the end of this month, and some interior lifestyle/environmental for next month.

I did enjoy my 100-400mm II very much, and often regret selling it. On the other hand, I remember being frustrated in some of my favorite light with f/5.6--but that was with the 5DIV's sensor. I'm sure the R5 is great at f/7.1.

Still, it is encouraging to hear, for when I reconsider, that those who are actually using the 100-500mm are appreciating it so much!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I see the 100-500 as a lens of many intelligent compromises, but I've lost interest for now.
> 
> Part of the reason is I'm lining up a little bit of work, some headshots for the end of this month, and some interior lifestyle/environmental for next month.
> 
> ...


If you were in the UK, I'd offer you my second copy of the 100-400mm II at a knockdown price.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Dec 7, 2020)

I'm really impressed with the 100-500 (although, I admit I never had anything longer than 200mm in full frame before). Now that I have it, I can't see not having it.

I wanted a long range lenses on RF mount so my choices were 100-500, 600, or 800 (with 1.4x/2x if need be). I chose to skip the 600/800 for the versatility of the 100-500 (and extend if needed). However the use of the extenders are odd to say the least. 300-600 doesn't sound bad... until you realize you're almost fully extended for that range, so you're basically walking around with an extended barrel if you decide to use it. However given the choice of carrying around 1 lens + 1 or 2 extenders to go from 100-1000 sounded nice (vs multiple lenses). Also, I really like the lens in general... I have not used the Sigma.. but I would look at the native again when you really are in the market for it. 

But I totally get where you are coming from with 'selective GAS'. I want a wide angle lens (yes I'm looking at you 13-35 2.8)... but I don't currently see an immediate need to shoot under 24mm. So it's sit on my wish list (not my need list). Also wouldn't mind getting the 24-105 again (kind of regret selling that one) for a carry around to pair with the 100-500 (24-1000 w/ 2 lenses and a 2x converter seems nice on trail)... but again, I already have 24-105 covered with other lenses (in better fstop) so it's more convenience than need... so that one waits as well (I would get the wide angle first).


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 7, 2020)

Nelu said:


> You know this is might be a trigger for yet another DSLR vs Mirrorless debate, right ?
> 
> For me, the main mirrorless advantages are:
> 
> ...


I don't disagree that there are many differences between DSLR's and MILC's, my point was purely from a photographic consideration the only 'better' metric is AF, eye AF is a killer feature and is a reason for many to change systems immediately. 

But there are advantages in the user experience the other way too, I still struggle to look through an EVF for hours at a time, I am used to batteries that last all day of actual shooting, not a few hundred shots, I am invested in CFast cards to the tune of several thousand dollars, etc etc, none of these change the actual images out of the cameras, they just give a different user experience, eye AF gives an appreciably better keeper rate for many disciplines. 

But actual photographic metrics, DR, iso performance, etc are not game changing between EF and RF that I have seen, just better keeper rates because of the eye AF.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The trouble with a road map is it commits you to a path before you have all the data you might use to determine that path.



Canon certainly knows what they plan to release over the next 12-18 months and probably longer. If you prefer a different term, then maybe "planned releases" would be more suitable. Many of the "rumors" reported by Canon Rumors Guy could easily be confirmed by Canon simply saying that over the next 18 months they plan to bring three new RF mount cameras to market, a flagship, an APS-C and a high resolution. If any of those cameras are going to come out in the next year or so, Canon already has them well under development and may even be in the final stages of testing. 



privatebydesign said:


> For instance Canon will make another DSLR if they believe there is the demand, if there isn’t they won’t, how can they commit to anything in this time of extreme transition? Sure RF is the future, but given the worldwide uncertainty how quickly will people transition, what people do transition earlier will impact the best lens selection for that group of users, or it might push development in other lens areas to entice more people to transition.



I never mentioned DSLRs in my post. But, on that topic. Nikon already has sufficient data to warrant them developing additional new DSLRs and DSLR lenses. Certainly Canon has access to the same or similar data.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Canon certainly knows what they plan to release over the next 12-18 months and probably longer. If you prefer a different term, then maybe "planned releases" would be more suitable. Many of the "rumors" reported by Canon Rumors Guy could easily be confirmed by Canon simply saying that over the next 18 months they plan to bring three new RF mount cameras to market, a flagship, an APS-C and a high resolution. If any of those cameras are going to come out in the next year or so, Canon already has them well under development and may even be in the final stages of testing.
> 
> 
> 
> I never mentioned DSLRs in my post. But, on that topic. Nikon already has sufficient data to warrant them developing additional new DSLRs and DSLR lenses. Certainly Canon has access to the same or similar data.


I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to know, what I'm saying is Canon don't see it as a worthwhile option. If they did they would do it regularly, but as has been pointed out they never do. Maybe they are not 100% sure what they will actually commit to production given these uniquely uncertain times, maybe they don't want to telegraph their intentions to their competitors, I don't know the reason they don't, but in general they don't.

I'd take a lead from Nikon as an almost certain confirmation that Canon won't, unfortunately! They are like two contrary children arguing, if one mounts a lens clockwise the other does it counter clockwise, if one has dials move one way the other does it the other way...


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 8, 2020)

After having used my 100-400 II bought immediately after its introduction, pixelpeeping it with a wide smile each time, I still cannot see a reason to buy the RF 100-500. (Even though I'm convinced the RF 100-500 is a bit better).
Of course, had I started with mirrorless, things could be different.
But the limited used of extenders is a real drawback...


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 16, 2020)

Update: GAS prevailed, I couldn't pull the trigger for the Sigma 150-600mm, I was instantly overruled by my wife when I showed her the ef 500mm f/4 II refurbished on sale, and so I'm back on the 100-500mm waiting list.

Looks like holidays are going to be de facto lockdown. Neighbors' kids have been sent home because of Covid in their classes, so my kids, who are luckier, are going to have only the old man to play with for three weeks. I'm blessed! Truly, they are good kids, not too demanding, and will patiently hike for hours. 

The older one has a Canon G12 (?) that her mom doesn't use, so she can pretend to be a photographer too! The younger one will just collect things. All kinds of things when we hike. I really hope I can be there with camera ready next time my wife discovers a toad in a pants pocket.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Update: GAS prevailed, I couldn't pull the trigger for the Sigma 150-600mm, I was instantly overruled by my wife when I showed her the ef 500mm f/4 II refurbished on sale, and so I'm back on the 100-500mm waiting list.
> 
> Looks like holidays are going to be de facto lockdown. Neighbors' kids have been sent home because of Covid in their classes, so my kids, who are luckier, are going to have only the old man to play with for three weeks. I'm blessed! Truly, they are good kids, not too demanding, and will patiently hike for hours.
> 
> The older one has a Canon G12 (?) that her mom doesn't use, so she can pretend to be a photographer too! The younger one will just collect things. All kinds of things when we hike. I really hope I can be there with camera ready next time my wife discovers a toad in a pants pocket.


The Sigma 150-600mm C is an excellent lens for the money. However, the 100-500mm out-resolves and has better contrast than the Sigma at 600mm on the R5 although being 100mm shorter, and the AF is much faster. So, when the pain of spending nearly $3000 has subsided, you won't regret the quality gear you have bought and it's about a lb lighter.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 16, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The Sigma 150-600mm C is an excellent lens for the money. However, the 100-500mm out-resolves and has better contrast than the Sigma at 600mm on the R5 although being 100mm shorter, and the AF is much faster. So, when the pain of spending nearly $3000 has subsided, you won't regret the quality gear you have bought and it's about a lb lighter.


Remember that CPW can often get you a new RF lens at a very good discount, and even B&H can have $100 discounts sometimes (but CPW will usually mention that as well in their posts). I heard of them here from other users, and got all my lenses from them, and just wanted to pass that on in case you weren't aware of it.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Remember that CPW can often get you a new RF lens at a very good discount, and even B&H can have $100 discounts sometimes (but CPW will usually mention that as well in their posts). I heard of them here from other users, and got all my lenses from them, and just wanted to pass that on in case you weren't aware of it.


Thanks, but, unfortunately, they don't operate in the UK, Europe, Australia etc. Cheap means going to the grey market.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 16, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Thanks, but, unfortunately, they don't operate in the UK, Europe, Australia etc. Cheap means going to the grey market.


Yes, that true. I'm guessing they're only good for the US and Canada (maybe others), but I never asked about it. It's a shame to have to go grey, as I understand it affects warranties, right?


----------



## john1970 (Dec 16, 2020)

Purchased my 100-500 mm lens as a general purpose wildlife lens to use with the R5. It is an excellent combination that in crop mode provides an 800 mm FOV. Looking forward to purchasing a RF 500 mm f4 to compliment the kit for wildlife photography.


----------



## Nemorino (Dec 16, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> and so I'm back on the 100-500mm waiting list.


Wouldn't it be nice to edit the title of this thread?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 16, 2020)

B&H let me reapply a $100 discount from the order I had canceled. It was so long ago that I cannot remember what the discount was for.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> After having used my 100-400 II bought immediately after its introduction, pixelpeeping it with a wide smile each time, I still cannot see a reason to buy the RF 100-500. (Even though I'm convinced the RF 100-500 is a bit better).
> Of course, had I started with mirrorless, things could be different.
> But the limited used of extenders is a real drawback...


I agree there is no real need to upgrade as the 100-400mm II works brilliantly on the R5 and the AF with the 1.4xTC is still superb. The problem with extenders on the 100-500mm is not that serious, however. As I have posted in another thread, the 100-500 at 500mm resolves slightly better then the 100-400mm II with a 1.4xTC so there is no need to use a 1.4xTC on the 100-500mm if you are only using the 100-400mm II from 100-400/140-560mm. I am pondering whether to keep the RF 1.4 extender. I'll probably keep it as it's so small and light and is OK for long distances. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...s-ef-100-400mm-ii-vs-400mm-do-ii-on-r5.39813/


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 17, 2020)

Nelu said:


> You know this is might be a trigger for yet another DSLR vs Mirrorless debate, right ?
> 
> For me, the main mirrorless advantages are:
> 
> ...


Agreed with all, but you forgot one of the biggest and most obvious advantages... IBIS!


----------



## Joules (Dec 17, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The Sigma 150-600mm C is an excellent lens for the money. However, the 100-500mm out-resolves and has better contrast than the Sigma at 600mm on the R5 although being 100mm shorter, and the AF is much faster. So, when the pain of spending nearly $3000 has subsided, you won't regret the quality gear you have bought and it's about a lb lighter.


No to mention the weight and size. As I do use the 150-600 C frequently, I absolutely agree that it is excellent for the money. But it is a factor to consider. And with the adapter, it get's even bigger still  

Unless Sigma give us a modernized version for the RF mount, I am inclined to think I'll get a Canon variant when I go FF at some point.


----------



## Nelu (Dec 17, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Agreed with all, but you forgot one of the biggest and most obvious advantages... IBIS!


Most obvious advantage for some users, not me 
I mostly shoot at fairly high shutter speeds (wildlife) so for me IBIS doesn't really matter...It was easy to forget about it if I don't need (use) it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 18, 2020)

Order update! B&H expecting to have stock by 12/31/2020.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 21, 2020)

"Order in Progress"?!?


----------



## dwarven (Dec 23, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Interestingly, when I first started looking for comparisons online several months ago, most of the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary reviews were not very positive, just concluding it was a decent lens at a bargain price. But lately my youtube "Recommended" feed has been showing older and newer reviews of the Sigma, and they are all much more positive about image quality and AF. Really hard to know what to believe without trying it for myself.
> 
> But my GAS is in a mellow state at the moment, and I realize I can wait to see if Sigma is going to announce plans for an RF version of the lens next year, or if Canon has plans to offer something a little faster and longer--even if it is heavier and a _bit_ more expensive. As things stand, I just can't justify the 100-500mm price tag with its perceived limitations.



I have the Sigma 150-600 and have been shooting with it on my R6 for almost a month now. It is, sadly, kind of smooshy at 600mm in all but the most pristine lighting conditions. I'd have traded 50mm at the short end for a little more sharpness at the long end. It's good enough for me at that price, though, to get that much reach. At 500mm and lower it's actually quite sharp. Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat as you and my budget will not allow me to go much higher in price for a purely hobby lens. The options are pretty limited at that focal length for Canon shooters 

If you're okay with less reach, Sigma's 100-400 gives you a ton of bang for your buck. I know I'll probably get roasted for this, but I actually preferred it over Canon's much more expensive version. The IQ was nearly identical to Canon's in real world shooting, AF was just as quick on mirrorless, and it's quite a bit cheaper and lighter. But before you come at me, I tested them side by side, on the same day, shooting birds and squirrels and whatnot. When I returned the Canon to the rental store, the clerk asked me how I liked it with a little smirk of superiority on his face. I told him I was not impressed. At least not when you take into account how much it costs, and that it's over a pound heavier.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I have the Sigma 150-600 and have been shooting with it on my R6 for almost a month now. It is, sadly, kind of smooshy at 600mm in all but the most pristine lighting conditions. I'd have traded 50mm at the short end for a little more sharpness at the long end. It's good enough for me at that price, though, to get that much reach. At 500mm and lower it's actually quite sharp. Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat as you and my budget will not allow me to go much higher in price for a purely hobby lens. The options are pretty limited at that focal length for Canon shooters
> 
> If you're okay with less reach, Sigma's 100-400 gives you a ton of bang for your buck. I know I'll probably get roasted for this, but I actually preferred it over Canon's much more expensive version. The IQ was nearly identical to Canon's in real world shooting, AF was just as quick on mirrorless, and it's quite a bit cheaper and lighter. But before you come at me, I tested them side by side, on the same day, shooting birds and squirrels and whatnot. When I returned the Canon to the rental store, the clerk asked me how I liked it with a little smirk of superiority on his face. I told him I was not impressed. At least not when you take into account how much it costs, and that it's over a pound heavier.



Things might have changed for the better for the Sigma 100-400 f/6.3 with firmware updates, but you might find these threads useful before considering buying one.






Sigma 100-400mm quick test


I recently reported a quick comparison of the Sigma 100-400mm on my 5DSR with shots of a nearby flagpole. The results weren't quite as good as my Canon 100-400mm II. My local dealer got in another copy today and lent it to me for more extensive testing as I had a view to buying. I took shots of...




www.canonrumors.com





https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/100-400mm-canon-vs-tamron-vs-sigma.34124/

and also the Opticallimits review.





Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 HSM DG OS Contemporary (Canon EOS) - Review - Sample Images & Verdict


Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 HSM DG OS Contemporary (Canon EOS) - PREVIEW




opticallimits.com




And, I would definitely compare the AF and IS with the 100-400mm II yourselves,
ps
Dustin Abbott also didn't like the tracking abilities of the Sigma 100-400mm but he reviewed their latest offering for the Sony mount much more favourably and perhaps Sigma will bring that out as an RF version.


https://dustinabbott.net/2020/06/sigma-100-400mm-f5-6-3-dn-os-review/


----------



## dwarven (Dec 23, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Things might have changed for the better for the Sigma 100-400 f/6.3 with firmware updates, but you might find these threads useful before considering buying one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That fact that I was using them both on an R6 likely closed the gap. I had also used the Sigma adapted to a Sony a6100, which was sort of my temporary camera until the R6 came out. On the a6100, the focusing system _was _very sluggish and less accurate than I'd have liked. I chalked it up to the fact that it's a budget lens and I shouldn't expect anything incredible out of it. But it's incredible on the R6. Maybe the camera is doing all the heavy lifting? It's flawlessly sharp at 400mm, all the way up to 1600 ISO. We're here to make images, and arguing about gear won't make us better at what we do. But, I can tell you I have no desire whatsoever to get Canon's 100-400 f/5.6. I'm not saying the Canon version is bad. Of course it's very far from that. It's just not $1700 better in my experience. If I had infinite money I'd still use the Sigma because it's so deft and light.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 23, 2020)

dwarven said:


> That fact that I was using them both on an R6 likely closed the gap. I had also used the Sigma adapted to a Sony a6100, which was sort of my temporary camera until the R6 came out. On the a6100, the focusing system _was _very sluggish and less accurate than I'd have liked. I chalked it up to the fact that it's a budget lens and I shouldn't expect anything incredible out of it. But it's incredible on the R6. Maybe the camera is doing all the heavy lifting? It's flawlessly sharp at 400mm, all the way up to 1600 ISO. We're here to make images, and arguing about gear won't make us better at what we do. But, I can tell you I have no desire whatsoever to get Canon's 100-400 f/5.6. I'm not saying the Canon version is bad. It's just not $1700 better in my experience. If I had infinite money I'd still use the Sigma because it's so deft and light.


If a lens does what you need it to do, then it is suitable for you. I am always looking for light lenses, the lighter the better, and actually bought the Tamron 100-400 because of its size and weight, and a good review. But, the AF wasn't up to it for flying birds and I sold it after a month at a loss. I also like a lens that it is sharp at the edges because when following erratically flying birds, there are often good shots when the bird is awkwardly at the edge of the frame. So, my requirements are for fast and accurate AF and sharpness all over the frame. The 100-400mm II fitted the bill and the 100-500 I have just bought not only has excellent AF but the best edge performance outside of a prime. None of these lenses is flawlessly sharp - you'll see the difference against a good prime. It's horses for courses.


----------



## dwarven (Dec 23, 2020)

AlanF said:


> None of these lenses is flawlessly sharp - you'll see the difference against a good prime. It's horses for courses.



Maybe, but it would take a few thousand dollars to get there. Like you said, use the tool that suits you. Canon probably had no competition against their top glass for decades, but that's over now. I think a lot of Canon shooters are still stuck in the mindset of chasing that sweet *L *and it's costing them a ton of money. Canon's marketing is the best in the business.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 23, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Maybe, but it would take a few thousand dollars to get there. Like you said, use the tool that suits you. Canon probably had no competition against their top glass for decades, but that's over now. I think a lot of Canon shooters are still stuck in the mindset of chasing that sweet *L *and it's costing them a ton of money. Canon's marketing is the best in the business.


With refurbs and secondhand if you can handle the weight then there is a very good supply of big white L’s at a fraction the price of the newest and lightest versions.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 23, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Thanks, but, unfortunately, they don't operate in the UK, Europe, Australia etc. Cheap means going to the grey market.


_Cheap grey market_ here in Texas means a date from the blue haired crowd.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 24, 2020)

Arrived. Somehow I let the kids talk me into not opening even the shipping carton until tomorrow morning when they open their presents. In fact, this is the right way to go; otherwise, I'd have been absent the rest of the evening, testing and playing with it. Instead, I'll be enjoying homemade cacciatore, some cheap but excellent Sam's Club Italian Prosecco, a sappy movie (with the kids), and the next episode of the new season of _The Expanse_ (once the kids are sleeping).

Merry Christmas to anybody who doesn't mind being wished it, and Happy End of Year from Hell holiday to all others.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 25, 2020)

AlanF said:


> If a lens does what you need it to do, then it is suitable for you. I am always looking for light lenses, the lighter the better, and actually bought the Tamron 100-400 because of its size and weight, and a good review. But, the AF wasn't up to it for flying birds and I sold it after a month at a loss. I also like a lens that it is sharp at the edges because when following erratically flying birds, there are often good shots when the bird is awkwardly at the edge of the frame. So, my requirements are for fast and accurate AF and sharpness all over the frame. The 100-400mm II fitted the bill and the 100-500 I have just bought not only has excellent AF but the best edge performance outside of a prime. None of these lenses is flawlessly sharp - you'll see the difference against a good prime. It's horses for courses.


Hi, Alan, please, could you compare the shifting movement of elements within the 100-500mm and 100-400mm lens barrels? I was startled by how, when the lens is not attached to a body, or when it is and IS has been disabled, the inner elements seem to really flop about! For a second my heart dropped--but then I guessed it just had to be that way for IS. Sure enough, enabling IS not only reduced the shifting, but I could watch the IS working as the elements shifted to react to my movements.

My wife briefly couldn't see it until she held it herself and in pretty good light looked straight down the front of the barrel and then gently tilted the lens in different directions. When she did, her eyes got very wide.

I checked my Rf 70-200mm and see the same type of shifting, but not nearly as dramatic. Of course it is shorter. (How did I miss it before?)

So, just curious...Does the 100-400mm have the same visible shifting about of the inner elements? And the old 70-200mm? If so...HOW DID I MISS IT FOR SO MANY YEARS??? 

Thanks!


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 26, 2020)

For anybody interested, I posted some shots from my first 24 hours with the lens, plus a few comments.

In the Lens Galleries.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 2, 2021)

A sad, but educational sequel. After sending back an excellent copy of the 100-500mm (great IS and razor sharp at f/7.1) purchased from one of New York's great camera stores, I mulled things over and ordered another one, free of the fear of the free floating IS element. Unfortunately, I did receive, from the world's biggest retailer, a subpar copy of the lens, one which could not get even ef-s kit-lens sharp until stopped down to f/9, and even then seemed to have IS that was way off, perhaps by as much as three stops less effective than the first, under-appreciated copy. Yes, I did send back the second copy.

So, call it sour grapes, but now I'm done (for a time) with my quest for 500mm of reach in a light package. One reason is I just haven't had enough experience with slower lenses, so I was getting very frustrated at Golden Hour: Just as the light was becoming exquisite, I was having to crank up the ISO. And of course as soon as the sun was down completely, during a brightish-gray 20 minutes leading into Blue Hour, up shoots the ISO even more. And we've had so many heavily overcast days the past month. Even the R5 starts doing unpleasant things to colors and details over ISO 3200. Sure--in a pinch, for an event, with some TLC in post processing, I'd take the R5's high ISO without blinking an eye. But for outdoor nature and sports, on a regular basis, I really don't want to be working so often with ISO 5000, ISO 6400, and up and up.

And, to be completely honest here, some of the powerful impulse to buy such a lens came from being cooped up too much this last 12 months! My first love is portrait photography, and then events, which I see as closely related, as a spontaneous, candid version of planned portraits. Also, there are some opportunities locally for real-estate work, as some of the most successful pros have moved away.

I did have the 100-400mm II, and I sold it because I wasn't using it enough, and the temptations of fast, new RF glass were very powerful. But beyond that, the solitude and patience needed for good wildlife photography are hurdles for me to overcome, hurdles on a path I'm not keen to follow at this time.

You may think this is simply buyer's remorse, and you'd be partly right, but I've always tried to be candid here on CR.

Thanks to all who have shared their opinions about the Rf 100-500mm, helpful, harsh, and otherwise!


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 2, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> A sad, but educational sequel. After sending back an excellent copy of the 100-500mm (great IS and razor sharp at f/7.1) purchased from one of New York's great camera stores, I mulled things over and ordered another one, free of the fear of the free floating IS element. Unfortunately, I did receive, from the world's biggest retailer, a subpar copy of the lens, one which could not get even ef-s kit-lens sharp until stopped down to f/9, and even then seemed to have IS that was way off, perhaps by as much as three stops less effective than the first, under-appreciated copy.
> 
> So, call it sour grapes, but now I'm done (for a time) with my quest for 500mm of reach in a light package. One reason is I just haven't had enough experience with slower lenses, so I was getting very frustrated at Golden Hour: Just as the light was becoming exquisite, I was having to crank up the ISO. And of course as soon as the sun was down completely, during a brightish-gray 20 minutes leading into Blue Hour, up shoots the ISO even more. And we've had so many heavily overcast days the past month. Even the R5 starts doing unpleasant things to colors and details over ISO 3200. Sure--in a pinch, for an event, with some TLC in post processing, I'd take the R5's high ISO without blinking an eye. But for outdoor nature and sports, on a regular basis, I really don't want to be working so often with ISO 5000, ISO 6400, and up and up.
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear that.  I assume you sent back that copy, too.
There are times (framing my cat Ollie) when I use ranges as low as 100mm on the RF 100-500 and am very thankful for having that range, but I find for birding I just set it to 500 and fire away now. Maybe Canon will come out with a 500 f4 or 500 f5 that would be more ideal for me to use, and I'd hope it'd work well with their TC's. One can hope!


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 2, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Sorry to hear that.  I assume you sent back that copy, too.
> There are times (framing my cat Ollie) when I use ranges as low as 100mm on the RF 100-500 and am very thankful for having that range, but I find for birding I just set it to 500 and fire away now. Maybe Canon will come out with a 500 f4 or 500 f5 that would be more ideal for me to use, and I'd hope it'd work well with their TC's. One can hope!


The second lens, sent back too, was worst at between 100-300mm. Better from 300-400mm, then softer again at 500mm. Plus there was, even in very good light from behind me, an odd haze or slight fogginess. Lemons happen! (The shipping and product cartons were pristine.) But, as stated above, my enthusiasm was gone, so I just asked for a refund. 

But, I agree, for anybody who knows how to work well with the aperture compromises, the ergonomics, compactness, and quickness of a good copy are amazing. It fit with no problem in the center console of our mini-van.

Enjoy it!


----------



## tron (Feb 2, 2021)

I am sorry to read that. At least you were able to return it.


----------



## tron (Feb 2, 2021)

You mention: world's biggest retailer

Does its name begin with A and ends with mazon by the way? 

I am asking because if I am going to try to get it at one point it will have to be from a place that supports returns...


----------



## stevelee (Feb 2, 2021)

Nelu said:


> Most obvious advantage for some users, not me
> I mostly shoot at fairly high shutter speeds (wildlife) so for me IBIS doesn't really matter...It was easy to forget about it if I don't need (use) it.


And supposedly IBIS is not that much of a factor on long lenses.


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 2, 2021)

stevelee said:


> And supposedly IBIS is not that much of a factor on long lenses.


Really? I must disagree. IBIS is more important the longer the focal length gets, as is lens IS (even more so). Their only function is to reduce handhold shake, and that shake is magnified by the longer focal distance and so their importance goes up accordingly. Sufficient IBIS + IS can free you from having to use a tripod, which is a wonderful option to have. If you only ever shoot on a rock solid tripod with mostly non-moving subjects then you can get away without it, but you pay the price with reduced freedom of choice in mobility.

It is also true that IBIS + lens IS does not correct for erratic/fast subject motion, so that your shutter speed must also go up as there is erratic/fast subject motion, but that does not mean that you can ignore IBIS + lens IS as if it is not needed - it still will drastically help!


----------



## stevelee (Feb 2, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Really? I must disagree. IBIS is more important the longer the focal length gets, as is lens IS (even more so). Their only function is to reduce handhold shake, and that shake is magnified by the longer focal distance and so their importance goes up accordingly. Sufficient IBIS + IS can free you from having to use a tripod, which is a wonderful option to have. If you only ever shoot on a rock solid tripod with mostly non-moving subjects then you can get away without it, but you pay the price with reduced freedom of choice in mobility.
> 
> It is also true that IBIS + lens IS does not correct for erratic/fast subject motion, so that your shutter speed must also go up as there is erratic/fast subject motion, but that does not mean that you can ignore IBIS + lens IS as if it is not needed - it still will drastically help!


I agree that the lens IS is especially important in long lenses. I am amazed at how well the 100-400 mm II works handheld. I don’t have personal experience with IBIS in full frame cameras, but it is commonly mentioned here as not being so effective with telephotos. The R cameras with it are supposed to coordinate both methods, so the IBIS may well contribute. And, as you say, subject motion is magnified by longer lenses, so all your stops of IS can be for nought.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> The second lens, sent back too, was worst at between 100-300mm. Better from 300-400mm, then softer again at 500mm. Plus there was, even in very good light from behind me, an odd haze or slight fogginess. Lemons happen! (The shipping and product cartons were pristine.) But, as stated above, my enthusiasm was gone, so I just asked for a refund.
> 
> But, I agree, for anybody who knows how to work well with the aperture compromises, the ergonomics, compactness, and quickness of a good copy are amazing. It fit with no problem in the center console of our mini-van.
> 
> Enjoy it!


You got me checking my 100-500mm at 100mm as I have used solely at 500mm. The Canon MTF charts indicate it should be slightly sharper at 100mm than the 100-400mm II, and I can report mine is. Optical limits finds it to be at prime level sharpness at 100mm, and it appears so. No more scares please.


----------



## tron (Feb 3, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> The second lens, sent back too, was worst at between 100-300mm. Better from 300-400mm, then softer again at 500mm. Plus there was, even in very good light from behind me, an odd haze or slight fogginess. Lemons happen! (The shipping and product cartons were pristine.) But, as stated above, my enthusiasm was gone, so I just asked for a refund.
> 
> But, I agree, for anybody who knows how to work well with the aperture compromises, the ergonomics, compactness, and quickness of a good copy are amazing. It fit with no problem in the center console of our mini-van.
> 
> Enjoy it!


Since you returned the second faulty copy you should try something crazy: Ask for the original copy from the N.Y retailer  
OK probably not possible but you never know


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 10, 2021)

Epilogue. And for anybody with GAS, it is certainly no surprise-ending...

Screwy Squirrel spoke to me this morning, saying, "Three's the charm, Yuenglinger. You've got a keeper. Hold on to it!"


----------



## SteveC (Feb 10, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Epilogue. And for anybody with GAS, it is certainly no surprise-ending...
> 
> Screwy Squirrel spoke to me this morning, saying, "Three's the charm, Yuenglinger. You've got a keeper. Hold on to it!"



Where's the "whew! what a relief!" emoticon in the "like" menu?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 10, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Epilogue. And for anybody with GAS, it is certainly no surprise-ending...
> 
> Screwy Squirrel spoke to me this morning, saying, "Three's the charm, Yuenglinger. You've got a keeper.  Hold on to it!"


Have you checked whether or not it's decentred and if the IQ changes at different distances from mfd to far, and at different focal lengths?


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 10, 2021)

Yes! Passed.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 28, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> R5 & RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L
> 500mm, f6.7, 1/90", ISO 50, handheld with animal eye AF (Yes, the exif does say f6.7 and 500mm for some reason)


 I'd be worried - probably not for any good reason, but still...


----------



## Fischer (Feb 28, 2021)

Waiting for my sample.

_*If *_the rumored RF 100-400 L can do the full range together with the two extenders I'll be seriously miffed. If not I think the RF 100-500mm is the better option than both the RF 100-400 L and the EF 100-400 L II with extender which is quite expensive for the little use I would give it.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 28, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Waiting for my sample.
> 
> _*If *_the rumored RF 100-400 L can do the full range together with the two extenders I'll be seriously miffed. If not I think the RF 100-500mm is the better option than both the RF 100-400 L and the EF 100-400 L II with extender which is quite expensive for the little use I would give it.


Isn't the rumoured 100-400 and non L lens?


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 28, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Isn't the rumoured 100-400 and non L lens?


Yes. Non-L.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 28, 2021)

stevelee said:


> And supposedly IBIS is not that much of a factor on long lenses.


Having some experience with other brands that have IBIS, but many lenses without IS, there is no doubt in my mind that lens IS is considerably more effective with longer lenses, but IBIS certainly is helpful in either case.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 1, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Isn't the rumoured 100-400 and non L lens?


Well that decides the matter then. No worries!


----------



## Fischer (Mar 25, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Well that decides the matter then. No worries!


Got it. Now planning how to escape my local lock down


----------

