# Cameralabs review of Canon RF 100-500 L



## Chaitanya (Sep 28, 2020)

Cameralabs posted their review of Canon Rf 100-500 L.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 28, 2020)

My general impression from this video is that it is fantastic but also meh if you already have a 100-400II or a similar focal length lens.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 28, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> My general impression from this video is that it is fantastic but also meh if you already have a 100-400II or a similar focal length lens.


Only advantage of RF being better AF and slightly longer range compared to EF.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> My general impression from this video is that it is fantastic but also meh if you already have a 100-400II or a similar focal length lens.


Ken Rockwell has a very good comparison of the 100-400mm II and the 100-500mm at the end of his review of the RF. 
https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-500mm.htm and is quite emphatic that it's not worth "upgrading" if you have the EF lens already. I had already made the decision to stick with the 100-400mm II as it works so well with the R5. The 100-400mm II works so well with extenders on the R5.
Ken Rockwell appears quite erudite compared with the YouTubers than when he was one of the rare "popular" reviewers.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 28, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Ken Rockwell has a very good comparison of the 100-400mm II and the 100-500mm at the end of his review of the RF.
> https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-500mm.htm and is quite emphatic that it's not worth "upgrading" if you have the EF lens already. I had already made the decision to stick with the 100-400mm II as it works so well with the R5. The 100-400mm II works so well with extenders on the R5.
> Ken Rockwell appears quite erudite compared with the YouTubers than when he was one of the rare "popular" reviewers.



Aye and as you know I dinny have the EF ether. £7377 is a lot of money to get a R5 and 100-500 that isn't as sharp nor as bright as the nifty 500. I think a 400 f/4 DO or 500 f/4 - f/5.6 DO would get me to drop serious money, but there is alway time. I'll buy the 500 PF and wait it out with that for a few years, focusing on my technique, and then see who has the big boy lens I want. I can spend the £4000 I save on a nice Canon printer and some bits and bobs.

Edit: Just to add, I don't think this is a bad lens. I just don't personally think it is the one to get me into the RF system.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 28, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Ken Rockwell has a very good comparison of the 100-400mm II and the 100-500mm at the end of his review of the RF.
> https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-500mm.htm and is quite emphatic that it's not worth "upgrading" if you have the EF lens already. I had already made the decision to stick with the 100-400mm II as it works so well with the R5. The 100-400mm II works so well with extenders on the R5.
> Ken Rockwell appears quite erudite compared with the YouTubers than when he was one of the rare "popular" reviewers.



That's just about where I am at. In fact a good reason NOT to buy the 100-500mm is if you ever anticipate wanting something like this to be used on an non RF camera, such as my M6 mark II.

As such, even though I bought my 100-400 about a year ago, I am NOT in the camp of people saying, "dang, if I had only waited, I could have got the R 100-500, now with the money sunk into the 100-400 it's not worth the upgrade." I'd actually _rather_ have the EF 100-400 than the RF 100-500.

However: Everyone's circumstances are different!

Was on a trip this weekend and saw at least two 100-400s on other peoples' cameras (I was using the 24-105). As far as I know I had the only R5 but I did see a 5D or two and a couple of 40s. (And those are only people I struck up a convo with; I can't recognize them on sight!)

I saw many Canons, about half as many Nikons, and no S*nys. (Very unlike where I live where Nikon seems to rule the roost.)


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> That's just about where I am at. In fact a good reason NOT to buy the 100-500mm is if you ever anticipate wanting something like this to be used on an non RF camera, such as my M6 mark II.
> 
> As such, even though I bought my 100-400 about a year ago, I am NOT in the camp of people saying, "dang, if I had only waited, I could have got the R 100-500, now with the money sunk into the 100-400 it's not worth the upgrade." I'd actually _rather_ have the EF 100-400 than the RF 100-500.
> 
> ...


There are some real advantages of the 100-400mm when working with extenders (the RF 1.4x and 2x are very expensive, and I have the EF ones anyway). First, the 100-400mm, gives you 140-560mm and 200-800mm, but the design (flaw?) of the 100-500mm gives 420-700mm and 600-1000mm, losing a lot of the short end and requiring removal for carrying the lens fully retracted. Secondly, I feel with 2xTC attached the 100-400mm at 800mm and f/11 is going to b e more useful than 1000mm f/14 with the 100-500mm. That's not to knock the 100-500mm, it's a great lens and has advantages of size, weight and reach when used bare. In short, it's win-win for Canon users - nice choice to make,


----------



## docsmith (Sep 28, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Only advantage of RF being better AF and slightly longer range compared to EF.


Owning the 100-400 II, the "better AF" is the only aspect that really interests me. The 100-400 II with 1.4TC is great on my 5DIV (still waiting on an R5). I am content to wait to see if the faster AF is significant enough that it warrants the swapping of lenses. So far, doesn't seem like it.

That said, I am also tempted to keep most of my EF lineup as it is very good, and I really like the idea behind the drop in filter adapter.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 28, 2020)

AlanF said:


> There are some real advantages of the 100-400mm when working with extenders (the RF 1.4x and 2x are very expensive, and I have the EF ones anyway). First, the 100-400mm, gives you 140-560mm and 200-800mm, but the design (flaw?) of the 100-500mm gives 420-700mm and 600-1000mm, losing a lot of the short end and requiring removal for carrying the lens fully retracted. Secondly, I feel with 2xTC attached the 100-400mm at 800mm and f/11 is going to b e more useful than 1000mm f/14 with the 100-500mm. That's not to knock the 100-500mm, it's a great lens and has advantages of size, weight and reach when used bare. In short, it's win-win for Canon users - nice choice to make,



Wow, I had totally forgotten about the RF extenders imposing a lower limit higher than would be expected! Yeah, I made the right decision _for me_ for sure.

I just picked up an EF 1.4 extender and haven't had the chance to try it out. It's supposedly MUCH better on the 100-400 than the 2.0 is, at least anecdotally (and not just because of gaining a stop of speed).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Wow, I had totally forgotten about the RF extenders imposing a lower limit higher than would be expected! Yeah, I made the right decision _for me_ for sure.
> 
> I just picked up an EF 1.4 extender and haven't had the chance to try it out. It's supposedly MUCH better on the 100-400 than the 2.0 is, at least anecdotally (and not just because of gaining a stop of speed).


The 1.4 is very good on the 100-400. Much to my surprise, the 2.0xTC is quite good and focusses well. My very good Sigma 150-600mm is going to be sold as it is now redundant - it focusses very slowly with the 1.4xTC on the R5 and isn't fast without the TC.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 29, 2020)

The only thing I'm not thrilled with the 100-500 is the TC usage. 100-300 is 3" of extension on the lens... 300-500 is 1/2" more. So when using a TC, you are almost always at full lens extension. Outside of that... I am really happy with the IQ.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 29, 2020)

Cancelled my order until I get the R5 in hand and see how she handles the current set up. The 560mm will work just as well in crop mode as the 100-500.


----------

