# Issues with RF100-500



## kimster (Jan 18, 2021)

I was one of the first to buy the RF100-500. For various reasons I was unable to use the lens for some weeks..
In my first shoot I was very disappointed with the images as they were soft, particularly at the long end of the zoom.
I have been out twice since and my pictures are rubbish.
It must be a lens issue as I also have the RF800 and those images are the proverbial tack sharp.
Today I spoke with Canon and I am preparing to send the lens in for service. (Dealing with Canon service by telephone wasn't the best or fastest process sadly).
Before I package the lens and send it off, has anybody else experienced issues with the lens?
(I have the latest firmware installed and I have tried stabiliser on, stabiliser off).
I am gutted because especially during my first outing I had what should have been awesome bird pictures.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 18, 2021)

I always buy lenses on-line from dealers who will take returns up to 30 days so I can test them thoroughly. On the day of arrival or the next, I test the resolution and contrast against charts and paper currency notes, in the centre and across the frame. If it passes those tests, and I keep all my old results for comparison, then I do image stabilization and field tests. My 100-500mm is very sharp, and is particularly uniform across the field.
As you can handle the RF800, it can't be your technique so it must be your copy of the lens.


----------



## Joules (Jan 18, 2021)

For anything other than guesses and stories, you have to post pictures of something that can be used as a comparison point. Alan already mentioned suitable targets.

But seeing that you mention birds, I suppose you did not shoot just with one shutter speed that may be affected by shutter shock. You haven't mentioned the camera either, so maybe that is not a factor anyway in case it is an R or RP. Blaming the lens seems like the safest bet from the info you have provided.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 18, 2021)

Joules said:


> For anything other than guesses and stories, you have to post pictures of something that can be used as a comparison point. Alan already mentioned suitable targets.
> 
> But seeing that you mention birds, I suppose you did not shoot just with one shutter speed that may be affected by shutter shock. You haven't mentioned the camera either, so maybe that is not a factor anyway in case it is an R or RP. Blaming the lens seems like the safest bet from the info you have provided.


I had missed that the OP hadn't mentioned which R it is. Reviewers all write that the 100-500mm has poor AF on the R and RP. Well spotted.


----------



## kimster (Jan 18, 2021)

Joules said:


> For anything other than guesses and stories, you have to post pictures of something that can be used as a comparison point. Alan already mentioned suitable targets.
> 
> But seeing that you mention birds, I suppose you did not shoot just with one shutter speed that may be affected by shutter shock. You haven't mentioned the camera either, so maybe that is not a factor anyway in case it is an R or RP. Blaming the lens seems like the safest bet from the info you have provided.


I have the R5. I pre-ordered the lens from B&H and I also bought a Canon carepak. I will post a few of my disappointing images along with metadata. One thing I forgot to mention is that video _seems_ better. The plot thickens. On the other hand, the RF800 is amazing. I will post a couple of those. I see that the best course of action is to test a lens as soon as you receive it. I will remember that for the future. Thank you all.


----------



## kimster (Jan 18, 2021)

Here is an example of my disappointment with the RF100-500. About 50% crop, animal Eye AF was locked on, ISO 1000, 500mm, f8, 1/2000 sec.
By comparison I am attaching an image from my RF800. 75% crop (I mean the image is about 25% of original), ISO 1000, f11 obvs, 1/2000 sec.


----------



## avoidingconcrete (Jan 19, 2021)

I can tell based on looking at the water that the bird is dead center in the plane of focus, so it does seem like something might be off with the lens elements. It's definitely unacceptably soft, even for a heavy crop.

Was it shot with or without IBIS? Wonder if that is introducing blur somehow.


----------



## kimster (Jan 19, 2021)

avoidingconcrete said:


> I can tell based on looking at the water that the bird is dead center in the plane of focus, so it does seem like something might be off with the lens elements. It's definitely unacceptably soft, even for a heavy crop.
> 
> Was it shot with or without IBIS? Wonder if that is introducing blur somehow.


Thanks for the comments. I leave IBIS on. My RF800 images are really good. I am quite depressed about the hundreds of images that I shot with the 100-500. I am tempted to buy the RF600 now. I am usually at 500 for birding shots.


----------



## kimster (Feb 9, 2021)

Update to my RF100-500 woes. I sent the lens back to Canon. They have now asked for the R5 so that the lens and camera can be fine tuned together. This is even though images shot with my other lenses are good. Is this normal? Once they mess with my R5 what will this mean for my other lenses? Anyone? Thank you.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 9, 2021)

kimster said:


> Update to my RF100-500 woes. I sent the lens back to Canon. They have now asked for the R5 so that the lens and camera can be fine tuned together. This is even though images shot with my other lenses are good. Is this normal? Anyone? Thank you


They do that with DSLRs that have AFMA and EF lenses. But that is news for me about Canon mirrorless which don't have AFMA settings, though Nikon mirrorless do have AF fine tune. I hope they don't think your R-series is a DSLR... A lens with aberrations could, in theory, need tuning.


----------



## kimster (Feb 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> They do that with DSLRs that have AFMA and EF lenses. But that is news for me about Canon mirrorless which don't have AFMA settings, though Nikon mirrorless do have AF fine tune. I hope they don't think your R-series is a DSLR... A lens with aberrations could, in theory, need tuning.


I am not at all confident about this. My images from the RF100-500 are soft, those from my other lenses are not. If they fine tune my R5 and RF100-500 to work together what will that mean for my other lenses I wonder?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 9, 2021)

kimster said:


> I am not at all confident about this. My images from the RF100-500 are soft, those from my other lenses are not. If they fine tune my R5 and RF100-500 to work together what will that mean for my other lenses I wonder?


You had better explain that to them unless the camera can register it to an individual lens as AFMA does on DSLRs.


----------



## kimster (Feb 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You had better explain that to them unless the camera can register it to an individual lens as AFMA does on DSLRs.


Thanks Alan. This is where I am looking for somebody who has knowledge of the R system. Canon told me that my RF100-500 was the first that they had seen at the repair facility. I don't have good feelings about any of this. I think they should send me another RF100-500.


----------



## amorse (Feb 9, 2021)

kimster said:


> Thanks Alan. This is where I am looking for somebody who has knowledge of the R system. Canon told me that my RF100-500 was the first that they had seen at the repair facility. I don't have good feelings about any of this. I think they should send me another RF100-500.


Didn't lens rentals find some unusual damage to a 100-500 repeated across a few lenses on return? I wonder if you had damage to an internal element?

This is the article they posted:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ement-a-canon-rf-100-500mm-f4-7-7-1-teardown/

Disappointing to hear - this is one of those lenses I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on.


----------



## kimster (Feb 11, 2021)

It seems as though others may be having issues with soft images. Maybe it is not just my RF100-500 and I should start a thread.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Feb 11, 2021)

kimster said:


> It seems as though others may be having issues with soft images. Maybe it is not just my RF100-500 and I should start a thread.


I have seen lot of reports of soft images with the RF 100-500 and turns out that most of the issues are use error or expecting things that are not possible. Your posts on DPReview are getting the attention of some really helpful people on that forum. 

@YuengLinger had some issues with critical focus on a couple of copies of his 100-500 which he sent back and now has a good copy but I do not think he had results as bad as the shot you have posted. 

I posted this link (



) on DPReview because Ron seems to be getting great shots and was also getting reports of soft images with the R5 and RF100-500 from viewers.

I am not saying there is not an issue with your setup but I tend to blame me for issues with my shots and not the gear so I am always trying to improve. 

@kimster for the soft shot you posted what were the exposure settings you used?


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Feb 12, 2021)

kimster said:


> I am not at all confident about this. My images from the RF100-500 are soft, those from my other lenses are not. If they fine tune my R5 and RF100-500 to work together what will that mean for my other lenses I wonder?


They might just want to get the R5 in to rule out any other possibilities. I have sent my cameras and lenses back to canon together in the past but they often just made a repair to the lens by itself with no changes made to the camera.

It seems like your copy of the 100-500 is actually focusing properly but that the point of focus is not resolving into a sharp image. If Canon can see that the AF is doing it’s job but that image is not very sharp I think that should rule out any changes being made to the body. Especially if the body performs well with other lenses. I wouldn’t stress about sending it in, it’s all you can do really... other than try and get a refund for the lens.

sorry for your trouble!


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 13, 2021)

Ramage said:


> ...
> @YuengLinger had some issues with critical focus on a couple of copies of his 100-500 which he sent back and now has a good copy but I do not think he had results as bad as the shot you have posted...


Friendly correction, I've only had AF issues with one copy. My first copy was excellent, but when I called Canon Pro Services early on, before they had been informed about image stabilization design changes, they thought my copy was not working properly because the IS element didn't park. They recommended that I return the lens while in my return window. Of course this turned out to be a mistake: The Rf 100-500mm is designed intentionally to not need parking. An excellent tear down by lensrentals.com, and lots of discussion online, led me to understand the new design sufficiently to be confident the lens is rugged enough for hiking, etc.

However, I did order a new one that was obviously subpar, though at first I didn't want to believe it, and I got a bit discouraged. But who knows what forces gear is exposed to during shipping? Or whether we might be receiving somebody's return? In any event, I missed the lens's compactness, weight, and performance so much that I gave it one more shot, and now I have another excellent copy. AF, IS, and IQ, all absolutely top notch and consistent.

It has taken me a long time to learn to reduce the emotional intensity of buying an expensive piece of gear--or to at least live with the suspense and anxiety. Just my personality, I guess. But when I see generally trustworthy reviews and sample images from smart photographers, and I read opinions here on CR expressed by members I've come to trust over the years, then find something I've purchased not behaving as expected, I know that it is easier to exchange an item than to agonize over it. Plus, I have become, over the years, more confident as a photographer, so I can troubleshoot methodically to eliminate user-error.

I knew very quickly, for example, that my second copy had problems, because I had already taken photos with an excellent copy, and because I was seeing proper results posted online--while reading praises from some very demanding photographers here! Despite all this, I still was ready to give up on the lens, to mumble "sour grapes." I'm glad I didn't.

The Rf 100-500mm might be a little slow at f/7.1, but with the new sensors' high ISO performance, and the compact design of the lens, it is the right longer-focal-length option for me. The lens is easy to use on walks, even if I'm with my two little kids. I can't imagine having the time or patience to drive to a special location with a Great White, tripod, and gimbal, and then sit with the mosquitoes until a bird does something interesting.  But I raise a glass to the intrepid nature photographers who are willing, and who bring back so many great moments!

Another note here: Despite being "experienced," I hadn't shot at over 200mm for at least two years before getting this lens. Getting sharp shots handheld at 500mm _consistently_, even with remarkable IS + IBIS, doesn't just happen. It is taking me trial and error, and plenty of practice. Making sure my shutter speed is high enough for creatures flying or swimming or even walking is a challenge. Light as the lens is, after holding it to my eye at the ready for more than a few minutes, my hands begin trembling more--and I can see it when reviewing my images, how a static subject starts jumping around all over the place in the frame. And even at f/7.1-f.10, depth of field can be an issue. At f/11, I think I'm seeing some tiny bit of softening from diffraction already. So this is a lens that needs patience, practice, and understanding of its limitations. Sometimes I need the tripod!


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 15, 2021)

Ramage said:


> I have seen lot of reports of soft images with the RF 100-500 and turns out that most of the issues are use error or expecting things that are not possible. Your posts on DPReview are getting the attention of some really helpful people on that forum.
> 
> @YuengLinger had some issues with critical focus on a couple of copies of his 100-500 which he sent back and now has a good copy but I do not think he had results as bad as the shot you have posted.
> 
> ...


This might be THE most useful youtube video for owners of the R5 seeking to understand and maximize the camera's still photography potential. Should be required viewing!


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I had missed that the OP hadn't mentioned which R it is. Reviewers all write that the 100-500mm has poor AF on the R and RP. Well spotted.


Why would it have poor AF on an R? Other than the fact the R doesn’t have animal eye AF, is there some other limitation?


----------



## kimster (Feb 24, 2021)

I think I mentioned it was the R5 and that at one point canon Virginia wanted the R5 to “fine tune” it with the lens. However, I sent them more raw images as requested, using a link they sent. For some reason they decided to send the lens back to me before reviewing them. I am still to receive my lens! I have been without it for 4 weeks now and still no closer to a resolution (pardon the pun). After shipping my lens they finally reviewed the raw files and agreed that there is an issue. Who knows where my lens actually was? Canon service is shocking and as far as the R system goes, I don’t think they know what they are doing. I hate to do it but I will be selling the lens to KEH and buying a new copy.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2021)

Rule556 said:


> Why would it have poor AF on an R? Other than the fact the R doesn’t have animal eye AF, is there some other limitation?


As I wrote, all the reviews so far state that the AF of the 100-500mm on the R is poor, and we know that in general AF on the R is relatively slow for action.


----------



## JPAZ (Feb 24, 2021)

kimster said:


> Here is an example of my disappointment with the RF100-500. About 50% crop, animal Eye AF was locked on, ISO 1000, 500mm, f8, 1/2000 sec.
> By comparison I am attaching an image from my RF800. 75% crop (I mean the image is about 25% of original), ISO 1000, f11 obvs, 1/2000 sec.


BTW, that shot with the RF 800 bears mentioning. I am trying to come to terms with whether that lens is worth getting. My EF 100-400 with 1.4x and adapter or my EF 300 f/2.8 ii with 2x and adapter can give spectacular results but is quite a big setup to carry.

Let us know how the 100-500 repair or replacement works out.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Feb 24, 2021)

@kimster

Why would you sell a lens to KEH that you suspect is no good? Canon should be making you whole. 

Seems pretty dishonest to me.


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> As I wrote, all the reviews so far state that the AF of the 100-500mm on the R is poor, and we know that in general AF on the R is relatively slow for action.


I mean, I've heard this too, but as an R owner who has the 100-500mm on his list at some point, I'm wondering if it's just that the camera isn't getting the most out of the lens due to the fact it has slower AF acquisition _*across the board*_, or if there's a specific limitation inherent with the combination of R and the 100-500mm. I mean, if I purchase this lens will it behave worse than my RF 70-200mm f/2.8, or will it just be that the lens has more ability that the camera can't really access due to it not having the latest AF capability of the R5? Because if that's the case, I'll wait a couple of years until I decide to upgrade my R. If it's the camera, then I can still find many applications for this lens that don't require super fast animal and human eye AF for BIF and action sports.

TLDR: The R is generally adequate for my use, but I do run up against its limitations occasionally. Will this lens be worse, or will it work just as well as my other RF lenses in terms of AF acquisition.

Thanks for the response.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 24, 2021)

kimster said:


> I think I mentioned it was the R5 and that at one point canon Virginia wanted the R5 to “fine tune” it with the lens. However, I sent them more raw images as requested, using a link they sent. For some reason they decided to send the lens back to me before reviewing them. I am still to receive my lens! I have been without it for 4 weeks now and still no closer to a resolution (pardon the pun). After shipping my lens they finally reviewed the raw files and agreed that there is an issue. Who knows where my lens actually was? Canon service is shocking and as far as the R system goes, I don’t think they know what they are doing. I hate to do it but I will be selling the lens to KEH and buying a new copy.


If Canon finally agreed there is an issue, then you need to either get a replacement or a refund. Knowing there is an issue and then selling it to KEH is not the solution - someelse will be getting a bad lens and it will be your fault. Presumably, your lens is under warranty. You should not have to buy a new one.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2021)

Rule556 said:


> I mean, I've heard this too, but as an R owner who has the 100-500mm on his list at some point, I'm wondering if it's just that the camera isn't getting the most out of the lens due to the fact it has slower AF acquisition _*across the board*_, or if there's a specific limitation inherent with the combination of R and the 100-500mm. I mean, if I purchase this lens will it behave worse than my RF 70-200mm f/2.8, or will it just be that the lens has more ability that the camera can't really access due to it not having the latest AF capability of the R5? Because if that's the case, I'll wait a couple of years until I decide to upgrade my R. If it's the camera, then I can still find many applications for this lens that don't require super fast animal and human eye AF for BIF and action sports.
> 
> TLDR: The R is generally adequate for my use, but I do run up against its limitations occasionally. Will this lens be worse, or will it work just as well as my other RF lenses in terms of AF acquisition.
> 
> Thanks for the response.


It's something you will have to try for yourself. Here are a couple of reviews:








Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM review


The Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM is the latest premium super-telephoto zoom for EOS R mirrorless cameras




www.digitalcameraworld.com









Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 USM L IS - Review / Test Report


Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 USM L IS - Review / Test Report




www.opticallimits.com


----------



## Rule556 (Feb 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It's something you will have to try for yourself. Here are a couple of reviews:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you, I hadn't seen the second link you shared. Gordon's review didn't really answer the question. Frankly I think it's more of "you won't get the most out of it until you upgrade your body" situation rather than a specific issue that makes the lens a non-starter with an R. It's obviously meant to really shine with the animal eye AF of the R5 and R6, but I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't work just fine for applications like telephoto landscapes and aviation photography. I mean, I could do decent aviation photography with my 6D and my EF 70-300mm non L lens, so I can't imagine this would be more limiting than that.

Edited to add: Just started reading the second link, and apparently there was some sort of issue. I'll keep looking to see if that issue has been resolved with firmware, or I'll just wait until it's time to upgrade my R. Disappointing really.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 25, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I had missed that the OP hadn't mentioned which R it is. Reviewers all write that the 100-500mm has poor AF on the R and RP. Well spotted.



FWIW, when I used the 100-500 on my RP it didn't show any _new_ AF issues, it behaved just like other tele lenses. The sensor in the RP is a lot slower than the R one, so I suspect the slowness hides a lot of issues the R runs into.


----------



## kimster (Feb 27, 2021)

So I got my lens back after *4 weeks*. Put it on a tripod, used single shot. Awful, soft images. RF70-200 hand held for the same shot is sharp.
I told canon and now they have sent me a fedex label for me to send in the R5 and send the RF100-500 back. They are talking about fine tuning.
I have no faith and wonder how long I will be without my camera and lens this time.
At this point I wish I had not traded up from my 5DIV yet. I guess this may be my final lesson about being an early adopter.
PS - my *RF *lens came back with two pages from the *5D* manual about lens settings!


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Feb 27, 2021)

kimster said:


> So I got my lens back after *4 weeks*. Put it on a tripod, used single shot. Awful, soft images. RF70-200 hand held for the same shot is sharp.
> I told canon and now they have sent me a fedex label for me to send in the R5 and send the RF100-500 back. They are talking about fine tuning.
> I have no faith and wonder how long I will be without my camera and lens this time.
> At this point I wish I had not traded up from my 5DIV yet. I guess this may be my final lesson about being an early adopter.
> PS - my *RF *lens came back with two pages from the *5D* manual about lens settings!


You might be better off selling the R5 and getting a new 5DIV, you will for sure be able to sell it and maybe in a year or so after Canon has worked out all the bugs you can try again.

Win some lose some.


----------



## kimster (Mar 4, 2021)

Today I sent my R5 and RF100-500 back to Canon in Virginia. We will see what they come up with.
When I previously mentioned selling the RF100-500 to KEH it was because I know that KEH test lenses before they pay you and it would be my independent check of the lens.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 4, 2021)

kimster said:


> Today I sent my R5 and RF100-500 back to Canon in Virginia. We will see what they come up with.
> When I previously mentioned selling the RF100-500 to KEH it was because I know that KEH test lenses before they pay you and it would be my independent check of the lens.


I found it difficult to believe that KEH or any used lens dealer (other than lensrentals) would check with any rigour, if at all, the sharpness of a lens, which was the fault that your lens has, so I checked - and they don't. (They leave things like that to the buyer under their return policies, and there aren't manufacturers' specs for sharpness). This is what they do:

Lenses - KEH tests​
Visually inspect the physical condition of the lens including grips, mount area, filter ring threads, hood locking tabs and more.
Thoroughly examine the glass from the front, rear and sides with a bright light, checking for any anomalies throughout the lens like haze, dust, fungus, scratches, cleaning marks or damage.
Mount the lens to a test camera body.
Rotate the focus, zoom and aperture rings through their full range for stiffness, loose areas, and roughness or grit.
Test autofocus accuracy both near and far if applicable, taking note of any squeaks or sounds.
Check aperture response at widest and smallest, taking note of any sticky apertures or oil spots.
Activate image stabilization if applicable to confirm proper engagement.
Test lens shutter speeds if applicable from 1 second to the fastest speed, making sure that the shutter opens smoothly and completely.
Test any buttons or switches on the lens including focus hold, depth of field preview or zoom locks.
Note any problems, damage, wear, loose or missing pieces and confirm grade before sending to the next step.

I have bought excellent used lenses from reputable dealers, but also several that had poor sharpness, decentering etc and otherwise cosmetically good.


----------



## Czardoom (Mar 4, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I had missed that the OP hadn't mentioned which R it is. Reviewers all write that the 100-500mm has poor AF on the R and RP. Well spotted.


I haven't read those reviews, so I may be mistaken, but I would imagine the difference between the R and the newer R5 and R6 would mainly be with moving targets as those cameras have better tracking. I rented the RF 100-500 and using my R camera, had no AF issues with static subject whatsoever. I am not experienced with a tele zoom with a reach of 500mm, but every shot the AF was extremely fast and accurate. So, not sure what the deal is with the R, but personally I found the AF to be excellent on my R for non-moving targets.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 4, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I haven't read those reviews, so I may be mistaken, but I would imagine the difference between the R and the newer R5 and R6 would mainly be with moving targets as those cameras have better tracking. I rented the RF 100-500 and using my R camera, had no AF issues with static subject whatsoever. I am not experienced with a tele zoom with a reach of 500mm, but every shot the AF was extremely fast and accurate. So, not sure what the deal is with the R, but personally I found the AF to be excellent on my R for non-moving targets.


They are interesting reviews and well worth reading.


----------



## kimster (Mar 22, 2021)

My RF100-500 and R5 are going back to Canon again today.
The previous "repair" seemed to make the lens worse!
Canon reviewed images I sent them and agreed that there is an issue.
Yesterday I went out and took a number of images with both the 100-500 and RF70-200. Same subjects, same lighting and settings.
The RF100-500 images are appreciably worse in every case, actually unusable.
I have effectively been unable to take any decent bird pictures for 4 months.
Canon have requested that I send the SD card along with the camera and lens.
This will be the third time that the lens has gone back, second time for the camera.
I have to say that my confidence in Canon service is extremely low.


----------



## Fischer (Mar 22, 2021)

Sad to hear your story. Good luck. I do not have good memories of Canon service myself. 

I actually just saw this 2 minutes after happily ordering the lens after I got a very rare 15% discount offer - and the seller still had one lens in stock  . Now I'm in doubt if it was wise to be lured by the otherwise excellent reviews. 

Crossing fingers for us both.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 22, 2021)




----------



## kimster (Mar 22, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Sad to hear your story. Good luck. I do not have good memories of Canon service myself.
> 
> I actually just saw this 2 minutes after happily ordering the lens after I got a very rare 15% discount offer - and the seller still had one lens in stock  . Now I'm in doubt if it was wise to be lured by the otherwise excellent reviews.
> 
> Crossing fingers for us both.


Everything I see from others shows that the lens design is excellent. I think I was unlucky to get a bad lens. I was doubly unlucky to get the service techs that looked at my lens and don't seem to know what they are doing. I asked them for the test images they made after my repair. They said they don't keep them! Hmmmmmmmmm


----------



## kimster (Mar 22, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


>


what is this?


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 22, 2021)

Fischer said:


> I actually just saw this 2 minutes after happily ordering the lens after I got a very rare 15% discount offer - and the seller still had one lens in stock  . Now I'm in doubt if it was wise to be lured by the otherwise excellent reviews.


Yes, it is possible to get a lens that is subpar, but you very likely have nothing to worry about!

Linked below is a shot of two birds bickering about a feeder full of bird seed. I took it with the 100-500mm. You will get shots like this. If for some reason you can't within the first ten days of owning it, and you are using an R5 or R6, then just send it back and try again. 

When properly functioning and used correctly, the lens is amazing and RELIABLE. Anything else you might read is due to user error or the rare bad copy. Otherwise, somebody is blowing smoke. (And the same is true for the R5/R6, no matter how many "other stories on other forums" we might be peppered with.)

Cheers!






Show your Bird Portraits


Beautiful shot. Well done, ERHP.




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## kimster (Mar 22, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Yes, it is possible to get a lens that is subpar, but you very likely have nothing to worry about!
> 
> Linked below is a shot of two birds bickering about a feeder full of bird seed. I took it with the 100-500mm. You will get shots like this. If for some reason you can't within the first ten days of owning it, and you are using an R5 or R6, then just send it back and try again.
> 
> ...


If you read my posting, you will see that I took images with the RF100-500 and the RF70-200. These clearly show a problem with the RF100-500. Why they are asking for my R5 again I have no idea. Canon themselves say that there is an issue. It is NOT user error in this case. I also added that the lens seems to be amazing. Just not my copy. And yes, I highly recommend that people test new lenses as soon as thy get them. That was not the case with my purchase, sadly. But hey, have some fun at my expense Yeng.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 22, 2021)

kimster said:


> If you read my posting, you will see that I took images with the RF100-500 and the RF70-200. These clearly show a problem with the RF100-500. Why they are asking for my R5 again I have no idea. Canon themselves say that there is an issue. It is NOT user error in this case. I also added that the lens seems to be amazing. Just not my copy. And yes, I highly recommend that people test new lenses as soon as thy get them. That was not the case with my purchase, sadly. But hey, have some fun at my expense Yeng.



He was responding to Fischer, not to you.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 22, 2021)

kimster said:


> If you read my posting, you will see that I took images with the RF100-500 and the RF70-200. These clearly show a problem with the RF100-500. Why they are asking for my R5 again I have no idea. Canon themselves say that there is an issue. It is NOT user error in this case. I also added that the lens seems to be amazing. Just not my copy. And yes, I highly recommend that people test new lenses as soon as thy get them. That was not the case with my purchase, sadly. But hey, have some fun at my expense Yeng.


I really don't understand why people feel the need to be sarcastic when someone provides a well-documented post about an issue with a Canon product. Obviously Canon knows there is a problem and they are trying to figure it out. It's unfortunate that you are the unlucky one, but since this is clearly an anomaly or a one-off, hopefully they will get it resolved or replace the lens.


----------



## Quattrocoupe (May 17, 2021)

kimster said:


> I was one of the first to buy the RF100-500. For various reasons I was unable to use the lens for some weeks..
> In my first shoot I was very disappointed with the images as they were soft, particularly at the long end of the zoom.
> I have been out twice since and my pictures are rubbish.
> It must be a lens issue as I also have the RF800 and those images are the proverbial tack sharp.
> ...


I have had great luck with the lens I received in January. Sharp, fast and accurate with birds. However, this past week an internal lens element cracked in the exact pattern shown in the teardown by Lens Rentals. Will be picking up the repaired lens in a day or so after a week in Canon repair.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 16, 2021)

Just a quick comment that I am very pleased with photos taken with my RF100-500, attached to my R6 body. You know the feeling, arriving home, quickly popping your SD card into your computer and being mostly wowed by the results. Quick, tack sharp auto focus throughout the zoom range. I should preface my comment with the fact most of my photos were taken on mostly bright sunny days, where the F7.1 aperture at the long end is more than capable. Will update when I get a chance to ck performance in low light. For now, I am very happy with this combo, especially knowing I haven't needed a tripod or monopod to get sharp photos. Now, I mostly take this lens and leave my heavy EF500 F4L and EF70-200 F2.8L lenses at home. If I were to find fault with it, at all, it would be the long throw of the zoom ring, when racking from 100-500mm but you quickly adjust to it. I should also, mention that I have been very impressed with the most affordable RF24-105mm F4 lens, as well, finding it to be most capable. I am so glad I made the decision to migrate to the R/RF camp, as I work to tweak my R6 auto focus settings, to fit my personal photo shooting style. I'm still working on applying dual back button auto focus, sometimes stumbling on its use, until such time as I develop enough muscle memory to make it work consistently and without my current hiccups. It is definitely a learning process, as occasionally, I forget to back button focus before hitting the shutter release. My bad but I'm working on it.


----------



## StandardLumen (Sep 25, 2021)

I rented a 100-500mm a while back, and was pretty disappointed with it. It was functional, but the 600mm F/11 was significantly sharper than the 100-500 was at 500mm, and my in-focus hit rate was at least twice as high with the 600mm as well. 

There are enough people satisfied with the 100-500 that I assumed it was an isolated case, and I recently (and maybe foolishly) ordered the lens, as I really want a long zoom lens. Hopefully when it arrives I will think it performs better than the one I had rented.


----------



## Centofanti (May 15, 2022)

kimster said:


> I was one of the first to buy the RF100-500. For various reasons I was unable to use the lens for some weeks..
> In my first shoot I was very disappointed with the images as they were soft, particularly at the long end of the zoom.
> I have been out twice since and my pictures are rubbish.
> It must be a lens issue as I also have the RF800 and those images are the proverbial tack sharp.
> ...


I know this is an old post but I too have soft images with this lens over 300mm shooting wildlife and fighter jets. I have tried all kinds of settings and I am not impressed. Curious did it get any better when you got it back from Canon?


----------



## AlanF (May 15, 2022)

Centofanti said:


> I know this is an old post but I too have soft images with this lens over 300mm shooting wildlife and fighter jets. I have tried all kinds of settings and I am not impressed. Curious did it get any better when you got it back from Canon?


If it's soft send it back as there are very few complaints about it and all the published reviews praise how sharp it is. Mine is very sharp, and yours must be defective if it isn't.


----------



## rpg51 (Jun 10, 2022)

I guess I should report that my copy of the RF 100-500 is sharp. I love it. I hope the OP reports back about the ultimate outcome.


----------



## LogMeCode3 (Oct 19, 2022)

kimster said:


> I was one of the first to buy the RF100-500. For various reasons I was unable to use the lens for some weeks..
> In my first shoot I was very disappointed with the images as they were soft, particularly at the long end of the zoom.
> I have been out twice since and my pictures are rubbish.
> It must be a lens issue as I also have the RF800 and those images are the proverbial tack sharp.
> ...


I know this is an old thread and there’s not really enough information to determine if the following could be the cause. But for those reviewing this thread later, don’t forget about heat distortion. Heat distortion can easily affect shots in this way, especially with long lenses. It can happen from shooting over a warm road, field, water, parking lot, over a warm vehicle hood, out a car window (especially when the inside air is hotter or colder than the outside air or the hot air from under a running vehicle is rising around the vehicle), or even from a large lens hood that is heating up or cooling down. Basically anywhere you have a decent temperature difference causing heat waves to move through pockets of cooler air. Sometimes it’s easy to see, like over a very hot road, but sometimes it’s not so easy to notice, but can still wreak havoc with your shots. It can seem like everything is dialed in: aperture not wide open and not closed enough for diffraction, shutter speed is high. IS/IBIS working properly, ISO is low, focus appears to be locking properly and yet you still have shots that are out of focus. Just something to think about and remember. Sometimes avoidable, sometimes not.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 19, 2022)

LogMeCode3 said:


> I know this is an old thread and there’s not really enough information to determine if the following could be the cause. But for those reviewing this thread later, don’t forget about heat distortion. Heat distortion can easily affect shots in this way, especially with long lenses. It can happen from shooting over a warm road, field, water, parking lot, over a warm vehicle hood, out a car window (especially when the inside air is hotter or colder than the outside air or the hot air from under a running vehicle is rising around the vehicle), or even from a large lens hood that is heating up or cooling down. Basically anywhere you have a decent temperature difference causing heat waves to move through pockets of cooler air. Sometimes it’s easy to see, like over a very hot road, but sometimes it’s not so easy to notice, but can still wreak havoc with your shots. It can seem like everything is dialed in: aperture not wide open and not closed enough for diffraction, shutter speed is high. IS/IBIS working properly, ISO is low, focus appears to be locking properly and yet you still have shots that are out of focus. Just something to think about and remember. Sometimes avoidable, sometimes not.


I read an article a few weeks ago where a photographer discovered that when shooting from your car in proper winter, the lens hood will trap heat and create heat distortion. Removing the hood or having the lens chill down for a few minutes helped tremendously.
We rarely get proper winter here, so I haven’t tested it myself.


----------

