# Review: Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM by TDP



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 8, 2020)

> Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of the brand new Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM, a lens that will take the place of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM for the RF lineup.
> Bryan came away super impressed with the lens.
> 
> The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens set the bar very high, but the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens has cleared it. Only six years after the EF 100-400 L II was released, the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens is on the streets. Featuring a lighter weight and longer focal length range, this lens surpasses the impressive predecessor in many regards and gained immediate strong popularity. This lens and I are going to spend a lot of time together...



Continue reading...


----------



## john1970 (Sep 8, 2020)

I received this lens early last week and it is an exceptionally versatile lens for wildlife photography. On an R5 with the available 17 MP APS-C crop I have a 800 mm field of view at the long end. Overall the combination makes for a lightweight flexible zoom that with the full frame and APS-C crop I can have a 100-800 mm field of view at my disposal without having to change a lens in the field. I now only hope that Canon releases a 500 mm f4 DO lens in the RF mount within the next 1-2 years.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 8, 2020)

I thought this was supposed to be DOA because of the f/7.1?


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 8, 2020)

Sounds really impressing from Brian.



Sharlin said:


> I thought this was supposed to be DOA because of the f/7.1?


...and because of the switch over of f value according to FL. See the remarks about FL @400mm in other threads.


----------



## Iain L (Sep 8, 2020)

Sounds great - now, where’s my crop-frame RF body to go with it, Canon?


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 8, 2020)

john1970 said:


> I received this lens early last week and it is an exceptionally versatile lens for wildlife photography. On an R5 with the available 17 MP APS-C crop I have a 800 mm field of view at the long end. Overall the combination makes for a lightweight flexible zoom that with the full frame and APS-C crop I can have a 100-800 mm field of view at my disposal without having to change a lens in the field. I now only hope that Canon releases a 500 mm f4 DO lens in the RF mount within the next 1-2 years.


How does that crop mode work? It seems to me that its just taking an APS-c sized chunk out of the middle of the image, and not doing any pixel magic/downsampling. So really, you're not gaining anything 'reach' wise vs. just zooming in on the same section of the full image. Or am I not understanding what the camera is actually doing?


----------



## Iain L (Sep 8, 2020)

You’ve got it right; all “crop mode” does is throw away the outer pixels if you know you won’t be needing them, for smaller file sizes on your memory card and write buffer. Certainly has its uses in that way.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 8, 2020)

That is correct. I guess I still remember my 1Dx which only had 18 MP across the entire full frame so for me having 17 MP across a APS-C crop can work as well.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2020)

john1970 said:


> I received this lens early last week and it is an exceptionally versatile lens for wildlife photography. On an R5 with the available 17 MP APS-C crop I have a 800 mm field of view at the long end. Overall the combination makes for a lightweight flexible zoom that with the full frame and APS-C crop I can have a 100-800 mm field of view at my disposal without having to change a lens in the field. I now only hope that Canon releases a 500 mm f4 DO lens in the RF mount within the next 1-2 years.


I can crop even further in post and get a 4,000mm field of view. Never change a lens. Looks like crap, though.


----------



## djack41 (Sep 8, 2020)

Isn't a big advantage of crop mode found in the OVF. The tighter field of view enlarges the subject in the OVF. This aids tracking and focusing. Wonder if the R5 eye AF mode will benefit?


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 8, 2020)

Now if mine would just show up! On order since 8/6/20!!!


----------



## abnagfab (Sep 8, 2020)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Now if mine would just show up! On order since 8/6/20!!!


Try ordering directly from Canon. I ordered from Amazon, and then 2 days before release ordered from Canon directly and got it on release day.


----------



## degos (Sep 8, 2020)

djack41 said:


> Isn't a big advantage of crop mode found in the OVF. The tighter field of view enlarges the subject in the OVF. This aids tracking and focusing.



But also discards the 'buffer' around the edges when panning with a subject.

As for the lens, looks impressive but why start at 100mm? A 200-500 could have been even sharper and fitted nicely above the 70-200. I usually have a 1.4 on my 100-400 and seldom need to take it off. Just change to a wider lens when needed.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 8, 2020)

degos said:


> But also discards the 'buffer' around the edges when panning with a subject.
> 
> As for the lens, looks impressive but why start at 100mm? A 200-500 could have been even sharper and fitted nicely above the 70-200. I usually have a 1.4 on my 100-400 and seldom need to take it off. Just change to a wider lens when needed.


How do you know a 200-500 designed by Canon would be sharper? How do you *know?.*


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 8, 2020)

abnagfab said:


> Try ordering directly from Canon. I ordered from Amazon, and then 2 days before release ordered from Canon directly and got it on release day.


The problem is that with B&H I save the sales tax of 8.25% ($200) and that's keeping me waiting.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 8, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> How does that crop mode work? It seems to me that its just taking an APS-c sized chunk out of the middle of the image, and not doing any pixel magic/downsampling. So really, you're not gaining anything 'reach' wise vs. just zooming in on the same section of the full image. Or am I not understanding what the camera is actually doing?




It works well - you just have to be really careful how you compose when you're shooting because you won't have much to work with when you get the image into post.

I was experimenting with it on my EOS-R and I prefer it over the on and off again of the 1.4X III. I've decided that I prefer the image from my naked 100-400L II over the greater reach when using the 1.4X III.

I'm programming one of my three custom spots for the crop mode and keeping the 1.4X III at the ready for the instances where I think I need the full resolution.

For birding - when I need that little bit of extra reach for a perched or slow moving subject I think the crop mode will be the superior option given the f-stop alternative of the 1.4X.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 8, 2020)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> The problem is that with B&H I save the sales tax of 8.25% ($200) and that's keeping me waiting.




Ditto. Pre-ordered from B&H this morning.. $2549 and no tax. Between my R5, Grip, Battery, CFExpress card, and this lens, B&H has saved me $960 in discounts and tax.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> How does that crop mode work? It seems to me that its just taking an APS-c sized chunk out of the middle of the image, and not doing any pixel magic/downsampling. So really, you're not gaining anything 'reach' wise vs. just zooming in on the same section of the full image. Or am I not understanding what the camera is actually doing?


But that is exactly how crop cameras work, so why/how would there be “_any pixel magic/downsampling_”?


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> But that is exactly how crop cameras work, so why/how would there be “_any pixel magic/downsampling_”?


That was my question. I didn't think there was any magic happening, and there isn't. I just wasn't sure if I'd missed something.


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 8, 2020)

This lens won’t be as popular as the 100-400 mk1 and 2... because of this huge price step again....
I can buy the mk2 for ~1300€ in 2nd market and for around 2k€ new. Sometimes with cashback of 200+€.

yeah it’s sharp, light but not that bright as I espected. Maybe for 1500€ but not for >3.000€!


----------



## apmadoc (Sep 8, 2020)

From a quality perspective... So far, I'm not impressed.

I ordered my 100-500 directly from Canon's store. When I got it (On August 28th), I hooked it up to my R5, got an Error 60. Called support, they had me try a few things, couldn't resolve it. They emailed me a shipping label to send it to the Canon repair depot. I shipped it out that on August 31st, Canon received it on the 1st. I'm told they don't have repair parts for the 100-500 in yet, and the parts aren't due until September 15th

How is it that Canon ships a new lens without making sure they have their repair depots stocked with parts?

I've been shooting Canon cameras and lenses since 2005 with the original 5D. I will say that this is the VERY first time I've had anything be dead out of the box. It might be the best lens ever, but having it sit in a repair depot for over two weeks isn't what I call quality.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 8, 2020)

degos said:


> But also discards the 'buffer' around the edges when panning with a subject.
> 
> As for the lens, looks impressive but why start at 100mm? A 200-500 could have been even sharper and fitted nicely above the 70-200. I usually have a 1.4 on my 100-400 and seldom need to take it off. Just change to a wider lens when needed.


Then you have to carry around the 70-200 with the 200-500. Instead, this lens is compact enough--not much bigger than the EF 70-200--that in most circumstances (low-light settings excluded) it replaces the 70-200 while providing added versatility.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2020)

degos said:


> But also discards the 'buffer' around the edges when panning with a subject.
> 
> As for the lens, looks impressive but why start at 100mm? A 200-500 could have been even sharper and fitted nicely above the 70-200. I usually have a 1.4 on my 100-400 and seldom need to take it off. Just change to a wider lens when needed.


Could it have been even sharper If it were 200-500mm? The Sigma 60-600, for example, is sharper in general than the 150-600, which in turn is much sharper than the 150-50mm. The 100-500mm has probably been designed for optimal sharpness at the longer range, where we most need it, and some extra wide angle added. Its diffraction-included MTFs at 500mm are as good as those for the 100-400 at 400mm when allowing for the diffraction difference between f/5.6 and 7.1.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 8, 2020)

A weird situation but a reseller in Australia has 15% off canon lens this month including pre-order of the 100-500mm. I had cancelled my original preorder from February when my R5 arrived due to cost but with AUD700 off, it seemed a better proposition - but my bank balance this year is cactus! I could just justify it as the RF100-400mm is basically unavailable second hand or at close to retail pricing as people are hanging onto them. Add the extender and the overall price difference isn't especially large. I wonder when local deliveries will start though.
Bryan's review is glowing. Buy quality up front and never need to replace it although apmadoc's experience is a concern
My Ikelite R5 underwater housing arrived yesterday (first in the country!) and I will take it out this weekend.


----------



## Danglin52 (Sep 9, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> How do you know a 200-500 designed by Canon would be sharper? How do you *know?.*


EF 200-400 f4 l is w/1.4 @ 560 is the prototype. You won’t find many sharper zooms.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> EF 200-400 f4 l is w/1.4 @ 560 is the prototype. You won’t find many sharper zooms.


Ahhhhh.... but that was not the question, nor have you provided an answer. The two lenses in question are a mythical RF 200-500 and the RF 100-500. The EF 200-400 f/4 is a constant Aperture zoom and not the prototype variable aperture RF 200-500 you make it out to be.

Speculation and wishful thinking are not = to facts.


----------



## Danglin52 (Sep 9, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ahhhhh.... but that was not the question, nor have you provided an answer. The two lenses in question are a mythical RF 200-500 and the RF 100-500. The EF 200-400 f/4 is a constant Aperture zoom and not the prototype variable aperture RF 200-500 you make it out to be.
> 
> Speculation and wishful thinking are not = to facts.


First, I was using the 200-400 as an example of the quality of optics Canon is capable of building into a zoom. I had both the 100-400 II and the 200-400, 200-400 was definitely sharper. Second, I didn’t see a requirement that the lens had to be a variable aperture. Canon has a demonstrated ability to build extremely high quality zooms and long primes when it fits there product direction. If not IQ, they have the ability to build with wider aperture. The real question is does Canon want that lens in their portfolio or does it conflict with their strategy for RF big whites? I would ask you the question why you think it couldn’t be sharper considering new materials and Canon’s demonstrated capabilities.


----------



## 1D4 (Sep 9, 2020)

degos said:


> But also discards the 'buffer' around the edges when panning with a subject.
> 
> As for the lens, looks impressive but why start at 100mm? A 200-500 could have been even sharper and fitted nicely above the 70-200. I usually have a 1.4 on my 100-400 and seldom need to take it off. Just change to a wider lens when needed.


100-500 is much more versatile than 200-500. I went over to the dark side for a short time, and kept missing out on opportunities with the Nikkor 200-500, that my Canon 100-400 IS II would've captured at the wide end. I tried the Nikkor 80-400, and while it had the range I needed, I wasn't very impressed. When the Canon 100-500 was announced, I knew I was coming back to the good guys. Not everyone shooting the 200-500 range is using it for distant wildlife...the gap from 100-200 is big in a lot of cases.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 9, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> First, I was using the 200-400 as an example of the quality of optics Canon is capable of building into a zoom. I had both the 100-400 II and the 200-400, 200-400 was definitely sharper. Second, I didn’t see a requirement that the lens had to be a variable aperture. Canon has a demonstrated ability to build extremely high quality zooms and long primes when it fits there product direction. If not IQ, they have the ability to build with wider aperture. The real question is does Canon want that lens in their portfolio or does it conflict with their strategy for RF big whites? I would ask you the question why you think it couldn’t be sharper considering new materials and Canon’s demonstrated capabilities.


I don’t know whether it would be sharper or not. We will never know. That’s the point. The guy I replied to wondered why Canon went 100-500 instead of 200-500. Who knows? Then he speculates that a 200-500 would have been sharper. He does not KNOW this. The RF 100-500 is a $2,700 lens. Isn’t the EF 200-400 f/4 you dropped into the conversation about $12k? So what’s your point? Why are we running down this rabbit trail?


----------



## Jethro (Sep 9, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> a reseller in Australia has 15% off canon lens this month including pre-order of the 100-500mm.


They had a too-tempting price on the RF 600mm too ...


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 9, 2020)

john1970 said:


> I received this lens early last week and it is an exceptionally versatile lens for wildlife photography. On an R5 with the available 17 MP APS-C crop I have a 800 mm field of view at the long end. Overall the combination makes for a lightweight flexible zoom that with the full frame and APS-C crop I can have a 100-800 mm field of view at my disposal without having to change a lens in the field. I now only hope that Canon releases a 500 mm f4 DO lens in the RF mount within the next 1-2 years.



Are you get sharp IS shots with mechanical or FC shutter? Mine on an R5 can't take a sharp shot at any speed except with electronic shutter. Canon CPS support says they are hearing of problems (Ken Rockwell has reported) and hope for a firmware solution. I'll also be attentive to developments prior to my 30-day purchase window.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 9, 2020)

To my way of thinking a longer lens will always beat cropping. With my R5 if I take a picture of something with my 100-500mm that has never arrived (fist shaking @ B&H), I'll get a 8192 x 5464 pixel image or 44,761,088 total pixels on a 36 x 24 mm sensor (same as 35 mm film). This is 45 Megapixels of information crammed into a 1-1/8 inch x 1-inch rectangle.

Now if I take my 24-70 f2.8 L lens and take the same shot, I'll get the same number of pixels all stuffed into the 36x24 frame. Now here's the tricky part.

Assuming I have to use 25% of the image for the shot that my future 100-500 could take full-frame, then I only start with 1/4th of the 44+ Megapixels (25% of the original full frame shot). When I blow the 1/4th image up to full scale then I'll have 11 Megapixels to spread out over the 36x24 size. Obviously packing 45 Mp onto a rectangle is going to have all the little dots closer together than putting 11 Mp onto the same rectangle.

With fewer dots, then there is more whitespace between each pixel which makes the image fuzzy therefore as intuitively obvious to the casual observer as my college professor used to say, I think a longer lens taking a full-frame image will always be sharper than taking a small section of an image and blowing it up to the same size as the telephoto. Does this make sense or am I missing something here?

I used to shoot both 35mm and 2-1/4 images and that to me is the same reference. A larger negative will always win out, assuming the lenses are the same quality. This tells me that I need to trade in my R5 for a 4x5 Speed Graphic and a pocket full of flashbulbs!


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 9, 2020)

Just got off the phone with Canon and they said this lens doesn't release until September, yet people already have them in hand.

Can someone throw me a clue please?

Going to go ahead and order this because it looks like it might be Christmas before I see my R5.


----------



## ethanz (Sep 9, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Going to go ahead and order this because it looks like it might be Christmas before I see my R5.



"Merry Christmas to me"


----------



## xps (Sep 9, 2020)

Still waiting for 200-600mm. Why not such an zoom lens like Sony made? Or an faster 500mm?
Guess, Canon will release some kind of this with an golden price


----------



## Dantana (Sep 10, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> First, I was using the 200-400 as an example of the quality of optics Canon is capable of building into a zoom. I had both the 100-400 II and the 200-400, 200-400 was definitely sharper. Second, I didn’t see a requirement that the lens had to be a variable aperture. Canon has a demonstrated ability to build extremely high quality zooms and long primes when it fits there product direction. If not IQ, they have the ability to build with wider aperture. The real question is does Canon want that lens in their portfolio or does it conflict with their strategy for RF big whites? I would ask you the question why you think it couldn’t be sharper considering new materials and Canon’s demonstrated capabilities.


An enormous, extremely pricey, constant aperture zoom is in a completely different category than a relatively lightweight, variable aperture, pricey but not crazy pricey zoom. It's a different market, and maybe they will make something like that in RF for the future. Just not this time.


----------



## Danglin52 (Sep 10, 2020)

Dantana said:


> An enormous, extremely pricey, constant aperture zoom is in a completely different category than a relatively lightweight, variable aperture, pricey but not crazy pricey zoom. It's a different market, and maybe they will make something like that in RF for the future. Just not this time.


I think you are missing the point. All of that R&D createsd developing those “enormous & expensive” lenses can be leveraged across the entire product line. With that knowledge and experience, they can continue to expand the capabilities of lower priced options. We see this in camera bodies, cars , computers, etc. Where do you think the lens tech for the RF 600/800 originated - two generations of $7k EF 400 DO lenses. The original discussion was could a 200-500 be sharper and the answer is probably yes based on Canon’s capabilities. I think it is more a question if that type lens fits in their product strategy. 

None of us know if it can/can’t be done. Let’s all just enjoy a little optimism. I think this type zoom is coming, but it will probably be the expensive version. The 300, 500, and 200-400 did not get the EF III weight loss / update and my bet is they will be the first RF big whites. I know a RF300 patent has been mentioned on CR. 

Btw - I paid $7,500 for a 200-400 Canon factory refurb about 8 months after launc, not $12k. Sold in the move to R/RF.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 10, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> This lens won’t be as popular as the 100-400 mk1 and 2... because of this huge price step again....
> I can buy the mk2 for ~1300€ in 2nd market and for around 2k€ new. Sometimes with cashback of 200+€.
> 
> yeah it’s sharp, light but not that bright as I espected. Maybe for 1500€ but not for >3.000€!



The 100-400L first generation isn’t worth mentioning in the same conversation with the II or the 100-500.

It’s not a huge price step at all. $2200 for a 100-400L II in 2014 = $2450 today. I paid $2549 for my RF 100-500L today - basically the same money as I paid for the 100-400L II six years ago. $100 more six years later for a longer lens that’s better in every regard. Bargain.

As more people migrate to mirrorless this lens will be huge.


----------



## Chig (Sep 10, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Pretty rubbish review and not convinced that this lens is worth twice the price of the excellent EF100-400 mark ii 
The RF lenses are all very pricy but this one costs NZD6,000 here in New Zealand vs only $3,140 for the EF100-400 ii which is basically the same lens


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 10, 2020)

Chig said:


> Yep in New Zealand it's nearly twice the price of the EF100-400 mark ii but really it’s pretty much the same lens so who would buy it apart from rich posers ?



Wow.

That’s your situation.

In America it’s virtually the same price. Better lens, longer reach, and RF mount...

Who wouldn’t buy it apart from peasant losers?

Love,

A Rich Poser


----------



## SteveC (Sep 10, 2020)

My 100-400 IIL is less than a year old, and I've got no compelling reason to swap even if I could do it for the difference in retail prices--and one good reason _not_ to swap, and that's that my current lens will work on EF-M (and has done quite well on my M6-II). Plus I have extenders for it which would also need replacing.


----------



## ScottO (Sep 10, 2020)

My opinion for what it's worth. Having owned the original 100-400 as well as the 100-400 mk II and a number of versions of 150-600, the RF 100-500 is the best of the bunch. I have only had the 100-500 for a little over a week but to my eye the images are sharper. That along with the extra reach, lighter weight, better balance and faster focusing on the R5 mean I will be packing up my 100-400 mk II, control ring adapter, and extenders and shipping them off this afternoon. 

I'm not saying that either of the 100-400's were in anyway bad lenses, the 100-500 is just better for what I do.


----------



## HenryL (Sep 10, 2020)

SteveC said:


> My 100-400 IIL is less than a year old, and I've got no compelling reason to swap even if I could do it for the difference in retail prices--and one good reason _not_ to swap, and that's that my current lens will work on EF-M (and has done quite well on my M6-II). Plus I have extenders for it which would also need replacing.


Exactly my situation...the 100-400II and the 100L Macro are the only two EF lenses I intend to keep. The 100-400II + 1.4III is tough to beat, it's just less than a year old and I can use the extender for the full range, not limited like the 100-500. That comes in handy...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 10, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Wow.
> 
> That’s your situation.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure a $600 price difference or 30% more ($2,000 vs. $2,600 via CPW) is "virtually the same price" to anyone but "Rich Posers." Plus, if you watch the Canon refurbished sales, you can usually pick up the 100-400 for $1,700 or so. I'm not saying it isn't worth the extra money. That's a personal decision. But let's not pretend it isn't significantly more than the 100-400.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 10, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I'm not sure a $600 price difference or 30% more ($2,000 vs. $2,600 via CPW) is "virtually the same price" to anyone but "Rich Posers." Plus, if you watch the Canon refurbished sales, you can usually pick up the 100-400 for $1,700 or so. I'm not saying it isn't worth the extra money. That's a personal decision. But let's not pretend it isn't significantly more than the 100-400.




A 100-400L II that cost $2200 at launch would cost $2450 today. I paid $2549 for my 100-500L. Virtually the same price considering the longer reach and RF mount. I'm a rich poser, I don't buy refurbs.


----------



## Chig (Sep 10, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Wow.
> 
> That’s your situation.
> 
> ...


Yes we’re ripped off a bit here - I don’t understand why the price difference is so huge here however Canon New Zealand has a 5 year warranty on all cameras and lenses which is much better than the lame Limited 1 year warranty that Canon USA offers


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 10, 2020)

Chig said:


> Yes we’re ripped off a bit here - I don’t understand why the price difference is so huge here however Canon New Zealand has a 5 year warranty on all cameras and lenses which is much better than the lame Limited 1 year warranty that Canon USA offers




We can buy extended warranties for reasonable prices so that's not an issue at all. My post was purely sarcastic (but true) because I was a little surprised someone would ridicule and call someone a 'rich poser' because of their choice of gear.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 10, 2020)

HenryL said:


> Exactly my situation...the 100-400II and the 100L Macro are the only two EF lenses I intend to keep. The 100-400II + 1.4III is tough to beat, it's just less than a year old and I can use the extender for the full range, not limited like the 100-500. That comes in handy...



I own a couple of Tamron EF-S lenses I should probably evaluate to decide whether I want to dump 'em, in particular the 10-24mm. If it's no better than the EF-M 11-22 I should unload it. The 18-400 makes a good walk-around lens on an M, though, but the 18-200 (which is actually an EF-M mount) might just be enough for that purpose (and it's much smaller). My EF lenses (other than the 100-400) are inexpensive primes; I've gotten some use out of the 85, and the very first pictures on the R5 were from the pancake 40.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 10, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> A 100-400L II that cost $2200 at launch would cost $2450 today.



So what? No one is traveling back in time to buy a lens. 



Bert63 said:


> I'm a rich poser, I don't buy refurbs.



I don't throw money away. 

I never understand, when people make a statement that is clearly a mistake, why it's so hard on the internet to just admit it.


----------



## Dantana (Sep 10, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> I think you are missing the point. All of that R&D createsd developing those “enormous & expensive” lenses can be leveraged across the entire product line. With that knowledge and experience, they can continue to expand the capabilities of lower priced options. We see this in camera bodies, cars , computers, etc. Where do you think the lens tech for the RF 600/800 originated - two generations of $7k EF 400 DO lenses. The original discussion was could a 200-500 be sharper and the answer is probably yes based on Canon’s capabilities. I think it is more a question if that type lens fits in their product strategy.
> 
> None of us know if it can/can’t be done. Let’s all just enjoy a little optimism. I think this type zoom is coming, but it will probably be the expensive version. The 300, 500, and 200-400 did not get the EF III weight loss / update and my bet is they will be the first RF big whites. I know a RF300 patent has been mentioned on CR.
> 
> Btw - I paid $7,500 for a 200-400 Canon factory refurb about 8 months after launc, not $12k. Sold in the move to R/RF.


All I was saying was that apples and oranges were being compared. From what I have read, the 100-500 improves on the 100-400 II. To me, that's the lens it should be compared to in the Canon lineup. I never said it couldn't be done, or wouldn't be done.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 10, 2020)

unfocused said:


> So what? No one is traveling back in time to buy a lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, intelligent people understand that to measure the true cost of a lens you must compare apples to apples. 100-400L II at launch as compared to the 100-500L at launch. A $100 increase over 6 years is a bargain.

As for throwing money away, I can buy a used 100-400L or I can buy a new 100-500L. One could argue that buying the old lens and adapting it to the new mount is throwing your money away.

As for admitting mistakes, pot meet kettle.


----------



## Danglin52 (Sep 10, 2020)

Dantana said:


> All I was saying was that apples and oranges were being compared. From what I have read, the 100-500 improves on the 100-400 II. To me, that's the lens it should be compared to in the Canon lineup. I never said it couldn't be done, or wouldn't be done.


I actually agree that it should be compared to the 100-400 II, but you also need to step back and look at the macro view if you are to anticipate what is possible / not possible. The higher end capabilities typically filter down over time and at a lower price. The bigger question is Canon product strategy.


----------



## Chig (Sep 11, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> We can buy extended warranties for reasonable prices so that's not an issue at all. My post was purely sarcastic (but true) because I was a little surprised someone would ridicule and call someone a 'rich poser' because of their choice of gear.





Danglin52 said:


> I actually agree that it should be compared to the 100-400 II, but you also need to step back and look at the macro view if you are to anticipate what is possible / not possible. The higher end capabilities typically filter down over time and at a lower price. The bigger question is Canon product strategy.


I think they would be a poser to pay double here in New Zealand or just so rich it doesn’t matter, in other countries where the price difference is modest it would be fair enough and why should you be expected to pay extra for a warranty when such an expensive device should last much longer than 1 year ?


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 12, 2020)

Chig said:


> I think they would be a poser to pay double here in New Zealand or just so rich it doesn’t matter, in other countries where the price difference is modest it would be fair enough and why should you be expected to pay extra for a warranty when such an expensive device should last much longer than 1 year ?



A $5000 TV that hangs on your wall only comes with a one year warranty at best. A one year warranty on a camera that is having rice shoved up it’s butt by ELiTe HaCkERs seems reasonable.

You don’t have to be rich to buy nice things. You just have to be able to prioritize. Over the course of my life I watched people drink their savings away in bars or smoke them away in cigarettes. I saved and invested and retired at age 48. I don’t drink, smoke, have cable, or use a cellphone - it saves thousands and thousands a year. Two packs a day = $20 in Washington. The same money I invested in a nice lens is wasted by a smoker in less than three months.

It’s all about the priorities.

Rich poser sounds like language used by a jealous person.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> A $5000 TV that hangs on your wall only comes with a one year warranty at best. A one year warranty on a camera that is having rice shoved up it’s butt by ELiTe HaCkERs seems reasonable.
> 
> You don’t have to be rich to buy nice things. You just have to be able to prioritize. Over the course of my life I watched people drink their savings away in bars or smoke them away in cigarettes. I saved and invested and retired at age 48. I don’t drink, smoke, have cable, or use a cellphone - it saves thousands and thousands a year. Two packs a day = $20 in Washington. The same money I invested in a nice lens is wasted by a smoker in less than three months.
> 
> ...


When I bought my 2 1DX II’s via CPW they came with a free third party 3 year warranty to supplement the 12 month Canon one. I never asked for it, they just came with them, I was very impressed.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 12, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> When I bought my 2 1DX II’s via CPW they came with a free third party 3 year warranty to supplement the 12 month Canon one. I never asked for it, they just came with them, I was very impressed.




I’ve gotten things like that as part of package deals from Adorama over the years. It was appreciated and like you, I was impressed.

I was merely drawing a parallel based on what the OP said - that something so expensive should come with a longer warranty.

I guess it depends on your perspective and location.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I’ve gotten things like that as part of package deals from Adorama over the years. It was appreciated and like you, I was impressed.
> 
> I was merely drawing a parallel based on what the OP said - that something so expensive should come with a longer warranty.
> 
> I guess it depends on your perspective and location.


Oh I agree, I was just relaying a personal experience not getting into nitty gritty of the conversation otherwise.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 12, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> A $5000 TV that hangs on your wall only comes with a one year warranty at best. A one year warranty on a camera that is having rice shoved up it’s butt by ELiTe HaCkERs seems reasonable.
> 
> You don’t have to be rich to buy nice things. You just have to be able to prioritize. Over the course of my life I watched people drink their savings away in bars or smoke them away in cigarettes. I saved and invested and retired at age 48. I don’t drink, smoke, have cable, or use a cellphone - it saves thousands and thousands a year. Two packs a day = $20 in Washington. The same money I invested in a nice lens is wasted by a smoker in less than three months.
> 
> ...


It isn't necessarily how much one earns, but how one manages it. There are thousands of ways to just flush money away and then wonder where it went. Death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 13, 2020)

ScottO said:


> My opinion for what it's worth. Having owned the original 100-400 as well as the 100-400 mk II and a number of versions of 150-600, the RF 100-500 is the best of the bunch. I have only had the 100-500 for a little over a week but to my eye the images are sharper. That along with the extra reach, lighter weight, better balance and faster focusing on the R5 mean I will be packing up my 100-400 mk II, control ring adapter, and extenders and shipping them off this afternoon.
> 
> I'm not saying that either of the 100-400's were in anyway bad lenses, the 100-500 is just better for what I do.




I’m keeping my 100-400L II and 1.4x III at the ready in case I want to throw it on my 5D4 or 7D2 or EOS-R or even R5. My wife likes to shoot now and again as well!


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 13, 2020)

probably not in my near future buy, I have a 150-600 Sigma.. seems like less range, is the image quality that much better?


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 13, 2020)

snappy604 said:


> probably not in my near future buy, I have a 150-600 Sigma.. seems like less range, is the image quality that much better?




For me? Yes. Most folks are saying that it’s better than the 100-400L II and that lens is already better than the Sigma IMO. 

I prefer the 100-400L II and a teleconverter, or the 100-400L II naked and a crop to anything I’ve ever seen come out of the Sigma. Just my opinion.

I’ve also read that the Sigma isn’t actually 600mm on the long end - it’s closer to 550mm, but I haven’t verified that myself so YMMV.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> For me? Yes. Most folks are saying that it’s better than the 100-400L II and that lens is already better than the Sigma IMO.
> 
> I prefer the 100-400L II and a teleconverter, or the 100-400L II naked and a crop to anything I’ve ever seen come out of the Sigma. Just my opinion.
> 
> I’ve also read that the Sigma isn’t actually 600mm on the long end - it’s closer to 550mm, but I haven’t verified that myself so YMMV.


The focal lengths of the zooms increase with distance as focus breathing gets less. I have data to calculate some focal lengths at a distance of 19.5m, which is getting close to the maximum, which I have just done. You are right about the Sigma, but the Canon also falls short.
100-400mm II............................374mm
100-400mm II + 1.4xTC............505mm
100-400mm II + 2.0xTC............704mm
Sigma 150-600mm C @400.....382mm
Sigma 150-600mm C 600.........543mm


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The focal lengths of the zooms increase with distance as focus breathing gets less. I have data to calculate some focal lengths at a distance of 19.5m, which is getting close to the maximum, which I have just done. You are right about the Sigma, but the Canon also falls short.
> 100-400mm II............................374mm
> 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC............505mm
> 100-400mm II + 2.0xTC............704mm
> ...




My reading led me to the conclusion that the 100-400L II was 383, but close enough.


----------



## Squawk3000 (Sep 16, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Are you get sharp IS shots with mechanical or FC shutter? Mine on an R5 can't take a sharp shot at any speed except with electronic shutter. Canon CPS support says they are hearing of problems (Ken Rockwell has reported) and hope for a firmware solution. I'll also be attentive to developments prior to my 30-day purchase window.



I've been having issues with Firmware 1.1.1 R5 and 100-500 in Mode 2 with any shutter mode, while panning, 1/400-1/2000 and continuous shooting above 300mm

Sometimes it's just the beginning of the sequence, it seems like the IS takes a few moments to "free" the horizontal IS and allow the panning motion.
Sometimes everything seems blurry.
Sometimes it's the entire sequence.

If I turn off the IS then the only issues are me being in sync with the object I'm panning. But I miss alot fewer shots.

Static photos are fine. Anytime I'm following something that moves there are issues.


----------



## lawny13 (Oct 25, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> This lens won’t be as popular as the 100-400 mk1 and 2... because of this huge price step again....
> I can buy the mk2 for ~1300€ in 2nd market and for around 2k€ new. Sometimes with cashback of 200+€.
> 
> yeah it’s sharp, light but not that bright as I espected. Maybe for 1500€ but not for >3.000€!




True true... but that argument will never work to convince manufacturers to drop the price. 

Or rather... if you are selling a lens used you better not be asking for the price of a new and the lastest tech lens around!!

I never get this logic. Like why buy into the RF system at all? Compared to the R5 + 100-500, you can get a 5DIV and a 100-400 on the used market for HALF the price!!! Tsk tsk, what is canon thinking asking those prices for the former combo??


----------

