I discovered your videos researching this lens, which eventually I finally got last week, and I absolutely love it! Now I am considering the extender, too. I've learned a lot about bird photography watching your videos and I appreciate all your knowledge and experience, you are definitely a pro!
In response to your request to Canon for a faster lens that will shoot at 600mm, I would recommend the Canon 300 EF 2.8 lens which I shoot with the 2.0 teleconverter for a 600mm 5.6 lens. It is one off the sharpest lenses Canon has ever made. I shoot it hand held for birds in flight and when I am photographing loons from a kayak.
Have you tried this lens combo and the 1.4x with the R6/5? I am debating this combo versus the 400mm DO II at this time. Curious how your combo AFs? Especially with the 300mm and 1.4 on the R6. Thanks
@@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife I have not tried the 300 EF 2.8 with a 1.4 teleconverter or an R6. I am using an R5 and the 2.0 teleconverter and have found the focusing time to be fine for fast moving birds.
@@dewarner12 ok then if anything the 1.4 would be even better. Definitely debating this combo versus the 100-500L. I always hated zoom lenses because I rarely get to photograph mammals and birds usually require the lens zoomed all the way out anyway so I just felt a zoom was wasted on me. The 300 by itself is an amazing lens, as that one and the 400 are always the benchmark for lens sharpness. Do you have the EF 1 or 2? Curious thank you! I’ll look into it. Thank you
Yes, this work deserves attention !!! I really liked it. You have a lot of cool work on your channel that I'm interested in! I will wait for your new videos.
I am so glad you are having success with that combo. It is so nice that cameras are now able to focus well at apertures such as f/13. Thanks so much for your comment.
Really enjoy your channel and reviews. Your videos have helped me decide to make the mirrorless transition, I need damn good gear for my bear view guiding job in Alaska and I love my current Canon gear that’s near new but you’ve definitely helped give confidence to step up to the R5 and rf lenses. Thanks fir the time you put in on these.
Ya I was so tempted to get the extender (s) but I knew very fast that the f10+ would be just to much. I'm holding out for the 400 or 500 f4. my hope is they're more compact. I know the rf system has made things smaller and lighter but I cannot see an f2.8 600... Thing would be a monster and I think pointless outside set up shots. Edit: also the price for a 600mm f2.8 would probably be north of 25,000 usd I would assume.
Thx again for the nice video. I think R5 and the 100-500mm will be my new Combo. Like your way of the telling your experiences with the Canon materials. Keep up posting the video’s. Maybe you can made a video of where you take your photos. From the car, hide, walking along the beach or just wandering around. Love your photos.
I hope to do more out in the field videos in the future. Doing those types of videos takes an assistant and I don't have that luxury at this time. But, I am always looking to improve. Thanks so much for your comment. I appreciate it very much.
Thanks so much for the comment. My experience in what I consider low light has been very good with the Animal Eye Detection and Tracking. I can only comment on my experiences, but I am more than happy as I can shoot any combination of lens and TC and do pretty much what I want. The only issues I have had with AF is when it under conditions where it is basically dark, but then I am not looking to get great images in conditions like that anyway.
This is why I bought the 100-400 V2, to be used with the Canon 2x and the Metabones speed booster, which they just released firmware for the R5 and R6 in March, to get 800mm at F8 in crop mode on the R5. The beauty is my 100-400mm bare is F3.2-4. 😉
Does the speed booster provide the lens corrections with the firmware update? I hear you on the 100-400ii, full use of teleconverters and with a speed booster, it’s like having 2 lenses of you have a crop body. I’m seriously considering this but leaning to the 100-500 as the sharpness is a notch up along with the speed and weight
@@mvp_kryptonite not sure about the lens corrections. The 100-500 is a beautiful lens but very expensive, almost $3000! Then if you want both TC’s your talking another $1000. For me I couldn’t justify the cost for the extra 100mm when you can get a good used 100-400mm for around $1200 that’s just as sharp. You also don’t lose the 100-300 range when using the TC’s and is still more compact than the 100-500 with TC’s attached although it would be nice not to use the adapter and have a native lens. I think though If I was just getting into the Canon system I would have gotten the 100-500mm with the 1.4x TC but I already have a lot of EF glass which I could use the adapters with and the Speed booster with, so that is what really swayed my decision as well as cost. Hope that helps 😊
@@jamesseward9263 indeed it does help! I have an R7 and a lot of EF glass and recently got the Canon 0.71x. From what I can tell, no loss of functionality and as you already pointed out, an extra stop of light gained. But it does leave the odd fringing which can probably be fixed in post somewhat (no change in dof however). I’d agree, the 100-500 cost is substantial and there are a lot of benefits to the prior 100-400ii. Certainly now I’ll grab the EF lens. Thanks a lot for responding and enjoy your day.
Still waiting on my 100-500. I’ll probably have the same concerns as you do (speed, usability, practicality etc). It’s always a tricky balance and there are always concessions... but even if that 500 2.8 comes out I don’t think I’d want it. I’m so used to 600 +/- the 1.4x. The RF 600 f4 DO is still the dream. Gimme a weight and size savings. I love my 600 but it’s never fun to drag around.
Thanks for the video, Ron! You saved me the cost of that 2x! On the throw issue, I agree with you that it would be better to have a lens with less throw, like the Sony 2-600. However, the 1-500 is better suited for landscapes due to the short end. And of course, had they made a 1-5 with a shorter throw, then that would be weird too because the throw over that range would be hard to use because the lens would advance too fast. It is a complicated trade to have to deal with. I also agree that using a 1.4x with a 7.1 lens is a bit limiting, but I like to shoot butterflies and dragon flies in the summer here in upstate SC when there are almost NO birds around. So shooting at f/10-f/13 is perfect for that. So, again, is complicated trade off. A 2-600 would also be heavier, and you have to admit, that 1-500 w or w/o the tc is really light! Anyway, just thinking out loud. I got my Mossy Oak graphics tape to cover my lens. I notice you have two different colors on yours. I did find getting it to lie flat on the hood was a bit of a challenge. And the covering all of the bits is a pain. I really like the price though.
I agree with you on your points. My comments come from a bird photographers point of view almost exclusively, so speed over DOF for me tends to predominate. Yep, it is always a bit of a pain to have to cut and place the camo, but I tend to like to do such things so it is part of the process for me that I enjoy. Thanks as always for the comment.
I have just looked through all your pictures personally I think they are absolutely amazing could not fault any of them crystal-clear even with ISO 2000 what’s not to like fantastic combination wish I had the cash thanks for your time and sharing much appreciated
I enjoyed your review and I'm saving to upgrade to the R5 and the 100-500mm lens. I would have liked to have seen a couple of the closest images you could have taken both at 500mm and with the converter, just to be able to see what you were seeing. Very cooperative bird:) What about a 600mm f5.6 prime and then add a 1.4 converter?
4:51 Does all the focus point modes like...point..zone..area work with 1.4 tc...or are there any limitations. I would appreciate if you could demonstrate that through view finder or external monitor....
There are no limitations that I know of. I have been shooting with the 1.4x a lot with this lens. It is more the camera body than the lens that would limit the AF points/areas available given a certain f-stop. Cheers, Ron
Great vid buddy, Still waiting for mine lol 😫 .... I had problems with a 1.4 with my 100-400 on the 5d mk4 and the 90d so took it off, it’s a go to for when I use the 600 prime tho so it’s a tool for a job...
Did you find that the 100-400l with the 1.4x adapted to the R5/6 performed worse than the 100-500 and a TC? Is the 100-500 better af in comparison to this?
Thanks, Ron, that's just the comparison I was looking for. The limitations you mention are going to be worse with a crop sensor, like the R7, where low light is already an issue. I am curious whether you think it's usable with an R7/RF 100-500, or is that wishful thinking? Thanks again for your helpful assessment
I do not use TCs on my R7 with the 100-500. Given it already gives me a "built in" 1.6x TC I just leave it at that. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks for weighing in. I think you're not alone in your conclusion, given the paucity of RUclips videos testing performance on the R7. Mind you, there was a recent demonstration from Phil Thach and Heather Boyd (ruclips.net/video/VSE1Jzfr5eE/видео.html). They compared the R7/RF 800mm F11 vs the R7/RF100-500/1.4xTC, which are comparable in terms of maximum aperture (F11 vs F10) and reach (800 vs 420-700mm). The TC images were surprisingly good, which is why I was wondering if I should reconsider. Mind you, I think TC image quality depends on both the quality of the primary lens and sensor resolution, where the R7/RF100-500 shine. Thanks again.
Another great video. Im looking at the 100-500 to replace my 100-400 V1. I find the 400 is not enough reach alot of the time so I will probably get the 1.4 as well. I was hoping wondering if canon may bring a 200-600 as well but you answered that in the video that its doubtful
I have waited and waited to see whether time will change my point of view. Well, it didn't or it still hasn't to date. I have never felt forced into buying a lens before and the RF 100-500mm would be one of those. The shorter focal length and more importantly the super long throw of the external zoom design is just too much for me to overcome. Especially for BIF. While I have warmed up to the R5 to the point may be I can even turn a blind eye on its overheating issue, the shortcomings of the RF 100-500mm remain to be a deal breaker at this point as compared to the Sony FE 200-600mm. If I were a prime shooter, I would opt for the R5 or may be wait for the high res version of the R5 even as there are a plethora of RF mount big primes coming, but unfortunately I am not. So, as a zoom shooter, the lens matter a lot because that one super zoom is all you've got. And to think it is significantly more expensive than the Sony too, it seals the fate of the RF 100-500mm for me. Given the advancement of the R5, what I think I will do is to wait for the announcement of the A9X and may be the A7R V (if is launching next year). Is already November, I shouldn't have to wait that long. If the rumours are true, then the preliminary specs of the A9X are looking pretty good. So, I think that will be the route that I would take. Canon will not make another internal zoom like the EF 70-200mm again given they have now gone for this short and stubby RF lens design language which means they will always want their zooms to be retracted as much as possible. I don't know whether you follow your fellow Floridian bird photography RUclipsr Mark Smith, he has also just bought a R5 and he will be testing it against his A7R IV and A9. Who knows, if even he is sold on the R5, it might just change my point of view. LOL.
I had really hope that they would have made it a max aperture of 5.6. would have given a lot more flexibility to the teleconverters. Obviously they were going for lightweight and they succeeded but even if it added an extra pound or pound and a half having that lower f-stop would have been great.
For me, I agree. Actually even 6.3 would have been better. But for some, where weight and portability is of maximum importance going with the 7.1 was a good move by Canon. I just hope Canon brings out a 600mm lens that is relatively fast and light. I want a 600 f/4 DO or a 200-600 f/5.6. I can always dream.
It is a DIY coat and I used a material called Mossy Oaks Graphics. I did a video on it here: ruclips.net/video/iM2I-Le_VYU/видео.html Thanks for the comment.
Great info. I’m one step closer to pulling the trigger on the R5/100-500 combo. Presently shooting the 1DX MarkII w/400mm prime. One question. What do you use for the camo covering 100/500 lens? Thanks, Michael
So with the Canon 100-400 F5.6 and a 1.4x your at F8 vs 7.1 for the RF and a 2x your at F11 vs F 14 for the 100-500. So is it really worth upgrading as image quality is really close if not the same? 🤔
Whether it is worth the upgrade or not is up to the individual. The IS performance and AF is better, so there is more to consider beyond IQ. It all depends on the type of shooting you do and what you demand from a lens. Best way to determine is to get your hands on a 100-500 and make your own determination. If I had a 100-400 I would not have gotten the 100-500, but that is just me.
Nice explanation. Thanks for the video. I have one doubt though, if we attach 1.4x extended with 100-500RF are we going to get f10 as maximum aperture in all the zoom levels? i.e. f10 in 500mm as well as 100mm. Or it will be something like f6.3 @100mm and f10@700mm?
Minimum focal length with an extender will be starting at 300mm, also the aperture will be variable. On my 2X at 300mm the F-stop is F11 and at 500 its F14
Nice video Ron How does the EF100-400 mark ii (with and w/out T.C) compare ? Also the EF400 f/5.6 ? Here in New Zealand the RF100-500 is nearly double the price of the EF100-400 ii so seems too much to pay if the performance difference is only modest Thanks Noel
If I still had my 100-400 II I would stick with that lens over the 100-500 if I had to pay the price you all have to pay in New Zealand. The 400 5.6 is great on the R5 image quality wise and the AF is good too. Where it does not work well with the R5 is FPS is greatly reduced in mechanical shutter and the EVF lag becomes an issue. Also, the IS is not nearly as good because you only get IBIS versus IS/IBIS combo with the 100-400 and the 100-500. Thanks so much for the comment. It is much appreciated.
Thanks for doing this, I am thinking of getting the Canon 100-500mm lens. I also have the Sony 200-600mm and was wondering the weight difference. I like to hike with the Sony 200-600mm but at my age it is getting harder to carry around, and with the animal autofocus it might be easier to carry around the Canon lenses.
The Canon is lighter at 1365 grams vs 2115 for the Sony, so you would be better off with the Canon with regards to weight. I love the Sony 200-600 and wish Canon had a similar lens in the RF mount. But I too am now looking to reduce weight, so...
How does the 1.4x extender affect the macro properties? Wanting to get the 100-500mm for my welding shots but due to the extreme heat would rather zoom in from far away. Curious if the 1.4x would improve the macro image? Thanks!
Great video as always. Glad the 100-500 and 1.4x combo works out for you. I would definitely try this combo when I can get my hands on it. Are you saying the image quality of the 100-500 and the 100-500 + 1.4 are almost the same? If so, that is huge.
Yep, for me the image quality is not reduced much at all with the 1.4x TC attached. You always lose a bit of IQ, but the combo can produce very sharp images. If anything degrades images it is motion blur as the higher magnification really accentuates any motion issues, so you need good technique. I am sure some will see not so sharp images from the combo and attribute it to the optics, but almost all of the "softeness" I have seen in my images is because I have not done a good job at stopping the motion of the subject.
Another great and informative video, keep them coming. I finally got my R5 last week here in the UK, still no availability, so i went for an import. I've also got the RF 100-500 and i'm really impressed with the pairing so far with my limited use due to the weather! I will probably be going for the 1.4x converter, so thanks for this video. Can i ask a question; Does the lens have a mechanical lock when at 300mm with the converter to stop the optics from smashing together? Can't seem to find a definitive answer on the internet! Also have you tried the 100-500 in crop factor mode? would be interesting to see what the images look like, as i believe you still get a 17MP photo in crop mode, so should still look fairly good quality wise! Something i will try this weekend if the weather picks up. It's been non stop rain in the UK for a while now!! Thanks again.
Hey, thanks for the comment. Glad you got your hands on an R5. Yes, the lens has a mechanical stop so you can only zoom out so far before it stops and won't let you go any further. I have shot in the crop mode and the images look good. However, one of the main reasons I shoot the R5 is for the 45mp, so I really do not like going to crop. Just a personal thing as crop can be useful for many. Hope the rain stops for you and you can get out and really see what the R5 can do. Cheers.
Great review thanks. I have a 500mm f4 mk1 and I am finding it too heavy these days so I am considering changing to an R5 with 100-500. Could I ask how the 100-500 compares with the old 500 prime in terms of image quality ?
I would say the overall image quality is better. My old 500 f/4 had some chromatic aberration and fringing issues and the 100-500 has none of that. Of course it is much slower and you can’t get as much background separation on closer backgrounds as you can with a f/4.
I recently purchased the 100-500, and I was hoping it would replace my heavy 500 L f4 version 1 prime. I sold my 100-400 II to purchase the 100-500. In my estimation, the 100-500 is as good as the 100-400 II in terms of IQ, but it is only better than the 100-400 in that it has 25% more reach. After conducting comparison experiments, and after comparing 100-500 files to my existing 500 prime files, I have to give the edge in IQ to the 500 prime. The 500 prime files are slightly sharper, and I do have the capability of shooting at f4 as opposed to 7.1. The backgrounds are creamier on the prime at lower apertures. Hands down, the 100-500 has better IS, and much faster auto focus than the prime. However, after using the 100-500 for a few months, I have decided to keep my 500 prime. It is the sharpest lens in my arsenal. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a prime is sharper than a zoom.
Nice review again, though some thoughts You say there is no difference in AF speed, image quality, tracking and so one, with or without the 1,4 teleconverter But in the meantime you say it's slow with the converter ?? Am I missing something here ?
Yes, slow and fast are terms that can be used to describe the widest aperture of a lens. The 100-500mm is f/7.1 at 500mm, which is considered by many to be rather slow. Put the 1.4x TC on it and now it is a f/10 lens at 700mm. That, is pretty slow.
This will take some studying if ya rent familiar with these terms. Example being a 50mm f1.2 is VERY “fast” at collecting light, where as a 50mm f5.6 is “slower” at collecting light. “Fast” lenses allow you to take a brighter picture in less time than you could with a “slower” lens.
I was talking about the speed in regards to the f/stop. It being f/17 with the 2x TC attached. That is just so slow that it really is not practical for any type of photography I do. Cheers.
Having a hard time justifying this set up from my D500 with 200-500. Feel like I’m losing reach but I also know I can crop in with the extra megapixel- is there a way to calculate how much reach I’d gain cropping in and still having sharp images
I wish they would. A 200-600 5.6 non-L would be a great lens. Sony produced a non-GM lens at 200-600 at 6.3 and it costs less than 2000 dollars US. It is an amazing lens with great IQ. So, I know Canon could do the same or better with a non-L zoom. Right now the cheapest lens that you can get to 600mm natively (i.e., without adding a TC) made by Canon that will work well on the R5 and R6 is the 600mm f/4 IS Mk. II. A used version will cost close to if not at 7000 and it is huge, heavy, and does not have the flex of a zoom. It used to be that you had to shoot a prime to get the best image quality. With modern manufacturing and materials this is no longer the case. Zooms are producing great results. So, Canon please bring out a great 200-600 with a minimum f of at least 6.3 if not 5.6 for under $4000 US. You will not be able to keep them on the shelves they will sell so fast.
I have shot the 800 f/11 and the image quality and AF performance are very good. In looking at images side by side I think the 100-500 images have better fine detail, but not by much. This assessment is from shooting the 800 for only one day, so take it with as much salt as you feel it warrants.
@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks for the reply! I rented the 800 for the week and I’m very impressed, but having a zoom would be so nice. Even if it were to just help track a subject by zooming out slightly.
I have shot the 800 f/11. I was very impressed with the AF and image quality. Given it is an f/11 lens it is pretty slow for what I need, but if you can get by with f/11 it sure is a nice light and reasonable priced option to get to 800mm.
@@419tommy Unfortunately, I do not have the R6. I do not think it is the camera, however. There are poor copies of both the lens and 1.4x TC out there. I would investigate whether you may have a bad copy of either. That would be my first step as long as you tried using the lens naked, and then the lens with TC on the R6 on a tripod on a static subject at reasonable shutter speed. If you do this and you cannot get sharp images than you know it is not you and there is something not working right with the system.
The 600mm mkiii is 13K your mkii is at least 6K ? I think the 100-500RF with 1.4 is 3K.....not a bad starting point. I guess the question is for us poor folk is --800mm and save $$ or 100-500 with 1.4 tele......I'm steering toward spending a bit more and getting 100-500 + 1.4 tele
I’d still like to hear about the 2x 600-1000 option. Not everyone can afford f4 at this focal length. So what is the 2x capable of from a Amatuer standpoint
I tried the 2x on 100-500 and it works, but the lens becomes so slow that unless you have awesome light it just does not function for my needs. A person can work around just about any limitations if they really want to, so I am sure you could use this combo and do some great photography, it is just not the solution for me.
@@whistlingwingsphotography The 100-500 with the 1.4x at 700mm is f10, with the 2x at 700mm it is f11.2, while giving the option to go up to 944mm at f12.6. Although when used at 700mm you lose a bit of light, you gain the option in good light of going to 944 or 1,000mm. Do you feel you lose a lot by going for the 2x rather than the 1.4x.
@@petergardner1358 I feel loosing a full 2 stops of light on a 7.1 lens just too much for me. Now, I have a 600 f/4 at my disposal so I can get to 840 and 1200mm and be at f/5.6 and 8, respectively, so for me this is a much better option. For those who do not have a long, fast lens using a 2x on the 100-500 and going to f/13 may be an option. It just is not for me.
Let's see; RF 100-500mm lens with 1.4 Teleconverter about f9 or f10 about 3k$. Canon 600mm f11 lens $700. I got some fantastic shots with the 600mm on my R6 that I would match up against the RR 100-500 even though it is not considered a pro L lens. Just saying........
100-500 with 1.4x gives 700mm f10 100-400 with 2x gives 800mm f11 I expect quite an improved image quality, but i did not find any comparison up to now. The 2x IQ was never on the level of 1.4x IQ (my experience)
Given my personal experience, the IQ on the 100-500 with the 1.4x at 700mm is better than the 2x on the 100-400 at 800mm. Also the IS/IBIS is better on the 100-500 combo. It all depends on how much IQ really matters to your work which combo is best to go with. For some folks the 100-500 is just too expensive and if they have the 100-400 is the upgrade worth it? Only the individual can make that decision as we all shoot differently and have different wants and needs. They are both great lenses, in the end. Thanks so much for the comment.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Accidentally I did not go into the 100-400 (I did not recognize the big jump between version I and II for quite some time and then decided to pick up the oncoming generation based on mirrorless), so I am totally free to choose today ... BTW: The difference in price is not too high, think about the price dropping of bodies. Lenses hold the value , especially RF glass. Those being invested in the great 100-400 do have more to think about. This lens looses nothing of its quality by the young brother RF beside. A 200-600 is the equivalent of one camera body more in weight, it is not the same casual carry around option than this class of lenses with f5.6 up to max 400mm (77mm filter size) Thanks for the quick reply!
Well it looks like Canon isn’t coming out with a 200-600 F6.3 but rather a 200-500 F4! 😁 I’m sure it won’t be as light weight as the 100-400 either. The question is, could that replace your 600 F4? Because I’m sure it won’t be cheap either. Lol
Where did you see an announcement of the 200-500 f/4. I would like to see the details as I have not heard this. Would it have a built in 1.4x TC like the EF 200-400? Thanks for any info on this lens you can pass along.
Thanks for the great information! Did you notice how big the AF area was when at 700mm f/10? I guess it's not full sensor coverage anymore but I'm hoping it's still bigger than with the (cheap) 800mm f/11. Here is a link to a video where one can see how small AF box becomes: Timestamp is 8;07 ruclips.net/video/5gCgJvm3VPI/видео.html
I really have not found the AF area to be a problem. I am just glad cameras can now AF at slower apertures unlike just a few years ago. Thanks so much for your comment.
Keep dreaming of the Nikon pf lenses for 3000 bucks, not gonna see those from Canon, ever. But we can see something for 30,000 bucks for sure, like 400-800 zoom.
I've increased my ISO comfort level a lot since I got my R5 and 800mm f/11. Noise is not bad natively and can be hugely improved with modern software.
I discovered your videos researching this lens, which eventually I finally got last week, and I absolutely love it! Now I am considering the extender, too. I've learned a lot about bird photography watching your videos and I appreciate all your knowledge and experience, you are definitely a pro!
Thanks so much for you comment. It is much appreciated.
Appreciated the honesty. There are other videos on this lens waxing lyrical 👍🏻
It is a great lens for what it is with overall great image quality, but it is slow on the long end especially with a 1.4x TC attached.
In response to your request to Canon for a faster lens that will shoot at 600mm, I would recommend the Canon 300 EF 2.8 lens which I shoot with the 2.0 teleconverter for a 600mm 5.6 lens. It is one off the sharpest lenses Canon has ever made. I shoot it hand held for birds in flight and when I am photographing loons from a kayak.
Can't disagree with that.
Have you tried this lens combo and the 1.4x with the R6/5? I am debating this combo versus the 400mm DO II at this time. Curious how your combo AFs? Especially with the 300mm and 1.4 on the R6. Thanks
@@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife I have not tried the 300 EF 2.8 with a 1.4 teleconverter or an R6. I am using an R5 and the 2.0 teleconverter and have found the focusing time to be fine for fast moving birds.
@@dewarner12 ok then if anything the 1.4 would be even better. Definitely debating this combo versus the 100-500L. I always hated zoom lenses because I rarely get to photograph mammals and birds usually require the lens zoomed all the way out anyway so I just felt a zoom was wasted on me. The 300 by itself is an amazing lens, as that one and the 400 are always the benchmark for lens sharpness. Do you have the EF 1 or 2? Curious thank you! I’ll look into it. Thank you
@@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife I have the 2.
Yes, this work deserves attention !!!
I really liked it.
You have a lot of cool work on your channel that I'm interested in!
I will wait for your new videos.
Thanks so much for you comment. It is very much appreciated.
Nice review. I do notice the photo behind you. It is beautiful.
I am using the Sigma 150-600 on the R5 with the Ef-rf converter and the Sigma 2x tele. It works quite well. I am at f13 at the 1200mm range
I am so glad you are having success with that combo. It is so nice that cameras are now able to focus well at apertures such as f/13. Thanks so much for your comment.
Really enjoy your channel and reviews. Your videos have helped me decide to make the mirrorless transition, I need damn good gear for my bear view guiding job in Alaska and I love my current Canon gear that’s near new but you’ve definitely helped give confidence to step up to the R5 and rf lenses. Thanks fir the time you put in on these.
Thanks so much for the comment. It is much appreciated. Good luck with you guiding job. Would love to visit AK some day!
Ya I was so tempted to get the extender (s) but I knew very fast that the f10+ would be just to much.
I'm holding out for the 400 or 500 f4. my hope is they're more compact. I know the rf system has made things smaller and lighter but I cannot see an f2.8 600... Thing would be a monster and I think pointless outside set up shots.
Edit: also the price for a 600mm f2.8 would probably be north of 25,000 usd I would assume.
Thank you for an awesome review. Will definitely be adding the 1.4x to my R6 and 100-500 combo. Just need them to be available haha.
Yep, I hope Canon will catch up with demand soon. There is one drawback to that though, then everyone will be getting great images. Ha ha.
thanks again for all the info and an honest opinion. BTW, your images on your home page are simply stunning!
Karin, thanks so much for the comment. It is much appreciated.
In this case RF 800mm f/11 won't be a bad idea alongside my 100-400mm f/4.5. Thanks for your honesty.
Great real world review, honestly told and understandable, thank you
Thx again for the nice video. I think R5 and the 100-500mm will be my new Combo. Like your way of the telling your experiences with the Canon materials. Keep up posting the video’s. Maybe you can made a video of where you take your photos. From the car, hide, walking along the beach or just wandering around. Love your photos.
I hope to do more out in the field videos in the future. Doing those types of videos takes an assistant and I don't have that luxury at this time. But, I am always looking to improve. Thanks so much for your comment. I appreciate it very much.
Canon eye AF is demonstrated to struggle in low light. That said, this looks like a fantastic lens for at least decent light conditions.
Thanks so much for the comment. My experience in what I consider low light has been very good with the Animal Eye Detection and Tracking. I can only comment on my experiences, but I am more than happy as I can shoot any combination of lens and TC and do pretty much what I want. The only issues I have had with AF is when it under conditions where it is basically dark, but then I am not looking to get great images in conditions like that anyway.
Thanks for your review on RF 100-500mm. I’m glade I bought one
Thank you for your comment. It is much appreciated
Good review. Got the lens a week ago and like it. I`m trying to find a camouflage lenscover just like yours, where did you get that ?
This is why I bought the 100-400 V2, to be used with the Canon 2x and the Metabones speed booster, which they just released firmware for the R5 and R6 in March, to get 800mm at F8 in crop mode on the R5. The beauty is my 100-400mm bare is F3.2-4. 😉
And your IQ on that set up will be shit.
Does the speed booster provide the lens corrections with the firmware update? I hear you on the 100-400ii, full use of teleconverters and with a speed booster, it’s like having 2 lenses of you have a crop body. I’m seriously considering this but leaning to the 100-500 as the sharpness is a notch up along with the speed and weight
@@mvp_kryptonite not sure about the lens corrections. The 100-500 is a beautiful lens but very expensive, almost $3000! Then if you want both TC’s your talking another $1000. For me I couldn’t justify the cost for the extra 100mm when you can get a good used 100-400mm for around $1200 that’s just as sharp. You also don’t lose the 100-300 range when using the TC’s and is still more compact than the 100-500 with TC’s attached although it would be nice not to use the adapter and have a native lens. I think though If I was just getting into the Canon system I would have gotten the 100-500mm with the 1.4x TC but I already have a lot of EF glass which I could use the adapters with and the Speed booster with, so that is what really swayed my decision as well as cost. Hope that helps 😊
@@jamesseward9263 indeed it does help! I have an R7 and a lot of EF glass and recently got the Canon 0.71x. From what I can tell, no loss of functionality and as you already pointed out, an extra stop of light gained. But it does leave the odd fringing which can probably be fixed in post somewhat (no change in dof however). I’d agree, the 100-500 cost is substantial and there are a lot of benefits to the prior 100-400ii. Certainly now I’ll grab the EF lens. Thanks a lot for responding and enjoy your day.
Still waiting on my 100-500. I’ll probably have the same concerns as you do (speed, usability, practicality etc). It’s always a tricky balance and there are always concessions... but even if that 500 2.8 comes out I don’t think I’d want it. I’m so used to 600 +/- the 1.4x. The RF 600 f4 DO is still the dream. Gimme a weight and size savings. I love my 600 but it’s never fun to drag around.
I am with you on all that you state. Looks like no 600 f/4 DO in the near future unfortunately.
Great review! Thanks for the honesty!
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for the video, Ron! You saved me the cost of that 2x! On the throw issue, I agree with you that it would be better to have a lens with less throw, like the Sony 2-600. However, the 1-500 is better suited for landscapes due to the short end. And of course, had they made a 1-5 with a shorter throw, then that would be weird too because the throw over that range would be hard to use because the lens would advance too fast. It is a complicated trade to have to deal with. I also agree that using a 1.4x with a 7.1 lens is a bit limiting, but I like to shoot butterflies and dragon flies in the summer here in upstate SC when there are almost NO birds around. So shooting at f/10-f/13 is perfect for that. So, again, is complicated trade off. A 2-600 would also be heavier, and you have to admit, that 1-500 w or w/o the tc is really light! Anyway, just thinking out loud. I got my Mossy Oak graphics tape to cover my lens. I notice you have two different colors on yours. I did find getting it to lie flat on the hood was a bit of a challenge. And the covering all of the bits is a pain. I really like the price though.
I agree with you on your points. My comments come from a bird photographers point of view almost exclusively, so speed over DOF for me tends to predominate. Yep, it is always a bit of a pain to have to cut and place the camo, but I tend to like to do such things so it is part of the process for me that I enjoy. Thanks as always for the comment.
What sticker set up is that if you don't mind me asking!
Just wondering if there's any damage possibility going to the 420mm focal length?
Thankyou for your time.😄
I have just looked through all your pictures personally I think they are absolutely amazing could not fault any of them crystal-clear even with ISO 2000 what’s not to like fantastic combination wish I had the cash thanks for your time and sharing much appreciated
Hey, thanks so much for the comment. It is greatly appreciated.
I enjoyed your review and I'm saving to upgrade to the R5 and the 100-500mm lens. I would have liked to have seen a couple of the closest images you could have taken both at 500mm and with the converter, just to be able to see what you were seeing. Very cooperative bird:) What about a 600mm f5.6 prime and then add a 1.4 converter?
4:51 Does all the focus point modes like...point..zone..area work with 1.4 tc...or are there any limitations. I would appreciate if you could demonstrate that through view finder or external monitor....
There are no limitations that I know of. I have been shooting with the 1.4x a lot with this lens. It is more the camera body than the lens that would limit the AF points/areas available given a certain f-stop. Cheers, Ron
what you thin k of JP saying extenders are useless and he advises not to use them ?
Great vid buddy, Still waiting for mine lol 😫 .... I had problems with a 1.4 with my 100-400 on the 5d mk4 and the 90d so took it off, it’s a go to for when I use the 600 prime tho so it’s a tool for a job...
Thanks so much for the comment. I know your pain in waiting. I really hope Canon gets caught up soon.
thanks for trying, what did you take to cover the lens?
Did you find that the 100-400l with the 1.4x adapted to the R5/6 performed worse than the 100-500 and a TC? Is the 100-500 better af in comparison to this?
will you buy a 100-300 2.8 with 2x?
Thank you! This is exactly what I wanted to know : )
Thanks for commenting.
What camouflage are you using? Not many allow the extension tube to be covered and still work.
How is the performance of the RF100-500 with 1.4x teleconverter and use of the 1.6x crop mode? Thanks :)
What tripod plate you using??
What camouflage cover do you have on the lens?
What camouflage rap would you recommend with company?
I use mossy oaks graphics. You can Google it to get more information.
What lens covering are you using abd where do you purchase it?
Ron, sharpness-wise, how do you think this lens compares to a big prime, say the 400 2.8 or 500mm f4?
Thanks, Ron.
Thanks for the comment. It is always appreciated.
Thank you for the review,
Which camo do you use on that lens?
Thanks, Ron, that's just the comparison I was looking for. The limitations you mention are going to be worse with a crop sensor, like the R7, where low light is already an issue. I am curious whether you think it's usable with an R7/RF 100-500, or is that wishful thinking? Thanks again for your helpful assessment
I do not use TCs on my R7 with the 100-500. Given it already gives me a "built in" 1.6x TC I just leave it at that. Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks for weighing in. I think you're not alone in your conclusion, given the paucity of RUclips videos testing performance on the R7. Mind you, there was a recent demonstration from Phil Thach and Heather Boyd (ruclips.net/video/VSE1Jzfr5eE/видео.html). They compared the R7/RF 800mm F11 vs the R7/RF100-500/1.4xTC, which are comparable in terms of maximum aperture (F11 vs F10) and reach (800 vs 420-700mm). The TC images were surprisingly good, which is why I was wondering if I should reconsider. Mind you, I think TC image quality depends on both the quality of the primary lens and sensor resolution, where the R7/RF100-500 shine. Thanks again.
Another great video. Im looking at the 100-500 to replace my 100-400 V1. I find the 400 is not enough reach alot of the time so I will probably get the 1.4 as well. I was hoping wondering if canon may bring a 200-600 as well but you answered that in the video that its doubtful
very helpful, tell me please how to manage to have a such camouflage on the lens pls?
Take a look at this video as it shows you all about camo. Thanks for the comment. ruclips.net/video/iM2I-Le_VYU/видео.html
How does it compare to the Canon RF 800 at F11 for more than half the price? 🤔
Working on that comparison right now. I will have a video on this subject coming soon. Thanks for the comment.
I have waited and waited to see whether time will change my point of view. Well, it didn't or it still hasn't to date. I have never felt forced into buying a lens before and the RF 100-500mm would be one of those. The shorter focal length and more importantly the super long throw of the external zoom design is just too much for me to overcome. Especially for BIF. While I have warmed up to the R5 to the point may be I can even turn a blind eye on its overheating issue, the shortcomings of the RF 100-500mm remain to be a deal breaker at this point as compared to the Sony FE 200-600mm.
If I were a prime shooter, I would opt for the R5 or may be wait for the high res version of the R5 even as there are a plethora of RF mount big primes coming, but unfortunately I am not. So, as a zoom shooter, the lens matter a lot because that one super zoom is all you've got. And to think it is significantly more expensive than the Sony too, it seals the fate of the RF 100-500mm for me.
Given the advancement of the R5, what I think I will do is to wait for the announcement of the A9X and may be the A7R V (if is launching next year). Is already November, I shouldn't have to wait that long. If the rumours are true, then the preliminary specs of the A9X are looking pretty good. So, I think that will be the route that I would take. Canon will not make another internal zoom like the EF 70-200mm again given they have now gone for this short and stubby RF lens design language which means they will always want their zooms to be retracted as much as possible.
I don't know whether you follow your fellow Floridian bird photography RUclipsr Mark Smith, he has also just bought a R5 and he will be testing it against his A7R IV and A9. Who knows, if even he is sold on the R5, it might just change my point of view. LOL.
Great review! Just picked my 100-500 up today. Where'd you get the camo for it if I may ask?
This will provide the information you are looking for. Thanks so much for watching. Ron Link to camo video: ruclips.net/video/iM2I-Le_VYU/видео.html
@@whistlingwingsphotography right on. Thank you kindly sir!
I had really hope that they would have made it a max aperture of 5.6. would have given a lot more flexibility to the teleconverters. Obviously they were going for lightweight and they succeeded but even if it added an extra pound or pound and a half having that lower f-stop would have been great.
For me, I agree. Actually even 6.3 would have been better. But for some, where weight and portability is of maximum importance going with the 7.1 was a good move by Canon. I just hope Canon brings out a 600mm lens that is relatively fast and light. I want a 600 f/4 DO or a 200-600 f/5.6. I can always dream.
Your camouflage lens coat looks unlike any I've shopped for. Can you share your source for your 100-500 lens coat?
It is a DIY coat and I used a material called Mossy Oaks Graphics. I did a video on it here: ruclips.net/video/iM2I-Le_VYU/видео.html Thanks for the comment.
Thanks you now i want it ... whit my new R7 !!
Hello, how does the lens perform with only the center focus while in autofocus while using a teleconverter?
Great info. I’m one step closer to pulling the trigger on the R5/100-500 combo. Presently shooting the 1DX MarkII w/400mm prime. One question. What do you use for the camo covering 100/500 lens? Thanks, Michael
ruclips.net/video/iM2I-Le_VYU/видео.html Here is a link to the video about the camo for the lens. Cheers. Ron
So with the Canon 100-400 F5.6 and a 1.4x your at F8 vs 7.1 for the RF and a 2x your at F11 vs F 14 for the 100-500. So is it really worth upgrading as image quality is really close if not the same? 🤔
Whether it is worth the upgrade or not is up to the individual. The IS performance and AF is better, so there is more to consider beyond IQ. It all depends on the type of shooting you do and what you demand from a lens. Best way to determine is to get your hands on a 100-500 and make your own determination. If I had a 100-400 I would not have gotten the 100-500, but that is just me.
Nice explanation. Thanks for the video. I have one doubt though, if we attach 1.4x extended with 100-500RF are we going to get f10 as maximum aperture in all the zoom levels? i.e. f10 in 500mm as well as 100mm. Or it will be something like f6.3 @100mm and f10@700mm?
Minimum focal length with an extender will be starting at 300mm, also the aperture will be variable. On my 2X at 300mm the F-stop is F11 and at 500 its F14
Nice video Ron
How does the EF100-400 mark ii (with and w/out T.C) compare ?
Also the EF400 f/5.6 ?
Here in New Zealand the RF100-500 is nearly double the price of the EF100-400 ii so seems too much to pay if the performance difference is only modest
Thanks
Noel
If I still had my 100-400 II I would stick with that lens over the 100-500 if I had to pay the price you all have to pay in New Zealand. The 400 5.6 is great on the R5 image quality wise and the AF is good too. Where it does not work well with the R5 is FPS is greatly reduced in mechanical shutter and the EVF lag becomes an issue. Also, the IS is not nearly as good because you only get IBIS versus IS/IBIS combo with the 100-400 and the 100-500. Thanks so much for the comment. It is much appreciated.
Thanks for doing this, I am thinking of getting the Canon 100-500mm lens. I also have the Sony 200-600mm and was wondering the weight difference. I like to hike with the Sony 200-600mm but at my age it is getting harder to carry around, and with the animal autofocus it might be easier to carry around the Canon lenses.
The Canon is lighter at 1365 grams vs 2115 for the Sony, so you would be better off with the Canon with regards to weight. I love the Sony 200-600 and wish Canon had a similar lens in the RF mount. But I too am now looking to reduce weight, so...
How does the 1.4x extender affect the macro properties? Wanting to get the 100-500mm for my welding shots but due to the extreme heat would rather zoom in from far away. Curious if the 1.4x would improve the macro image? Thanks!
Good question. I think it would probably work well, but would need to try it.
Close up, not macro.
Great video as always. Glad the 100-500 and 1.4x combo works out for you. I would definitely try this combo when I can get my hands on it. Are you saying the image quality of the 100-500 and the 100-500 + 1.4 are almost the same? If so, that is huge.
Yep, for me the image quality is not reduced much at all with the 1.4x TC attached. You always lose a bit of IQ, but the combo can produce very sharp images. If anything degrades images it is motion blur as the higher magnification really accentuates any motion issues, so you need good technique. I am sure some will see not so sharp images from the combo and attribute it to the optics, but almost all of the "softeness" I have seen in my images is because I have not done a good job at stopping the motion of the subject.
Another great and informative video, keep them coming. I finally got my R5 last week here in the UK, still no availability, so i went for an import. I've also got the RF 100-500 and i'm really impressed with the pairing so far with my limited use due to the weather! I will probably be going for the 1.4x converter, so thanks for this video. Can i ask a question; Does the lens have a mechanical lock when at 300mm with the converter to stop the optics from smashing together? Can't seem to find a definitive answer on the internet! Also have you tried the 100-500 in crop factor mode? would be interesting to see what the images look like, as i believe you still get a 17MP photo in crop mode, so should still look fairly good quality wise! Something i will try this weekend if the weather picks up. It's been non stop rain in the UK for a while now!! Thanks again.
Hey, thanks for the comment. Glad you got your hands on an R5. Yes, the lens has a mechanical stop so you can only zoom out so far before it stops and won't let you go any further. I have shot in the crop mode and the images look good. However, one of the main reasons I shoot the R5 is for the 45mp, so I really do not like going to crop. Just a personal thing as crop can be useful for many. Hope the rain stops for you and you can get out and really see what the R5 can do. Cheers.
Great review thanks. I have a 500mm f4 mk1 and I am finding it too heavy these days so I am considering changing to an R5 with 100-500. Could I ask how the 100-500 compares with the old 500 prime in terms of image quality ?
I would say the overall image quality is better. My old 500 f/4 had some chromatic aberration and fringing issues and the 100-500 has none of that. Of course it is much slower and you can’t get as much background separation on closer backgrounds as you can with a f/4.
Whistling Wings Photography . That's great news thanks.
I upgraded to RF 100-500 from EF 500 f4 v1 prime and I'm super impressed with the image quality with the R5
I recently purchased the 100-500, and I was hoping it would replace my heavy 500 L f4 version 1 prime. I sold my 100-400 II to purchase the 100-500. In my estimation, the 100-500 is as good as the 100-400 II in terms of IQ, but it is only better than the 100-400 in that it has 25% more reach. After conducting comparison experiments, and after comparing 100-500 files to my existing 500 prime files, I have to give the edge in IQ to the 500 prime. The 500 prime files are slightly sharper, and I do have the capability of shooting at f4 as opposed to 7.1. The backgrounds are creamier on the prime at lower apertures. Hands down, the 100-500 has better IS, and much faster auto focus than the prime. However, after using the 100-500 for a few months, I have decided to keep my 500 prime. It is the sharpest lens in my arsenal. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a prime is sharper than a zoom.
Thank you for the review. Any experience using Sigma 60-600 with R5?
Nope, no experience with that lens, sorry.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thank you for the reply. What type of camo wrap are you using on the lens?
@@arsalanuljamil6840 here is a video about the covering: ruclips.net/video/iM2I-Le_VYU/видео.html
@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks
Nice review again, though some thoughts
You say there is no difference in AF speed, image quality, tracking and so one, with or without the 1,4 teleconverter
But in the meantime you say it's slow with the converter ??
Am I missing something here ?
Yes, slow and fast are terms that can be used to describe the widest aperture of a lens. The 100-500mm is f/7.1 at 500mm, which is considered by many to be rather slow. Put the 1.4x TC on it and now it is a f/10 lens at 700mm. That, is pretty slow.
This will take some studying if ya rent familiar with these terms. Example being a 50mm f1.2 is VERY “fast” at collecting light, where as a 50mm f5.6 is “slower” at collecting light.
“Fast” lenses allow you to take a brighter picture in less time than you could with a “slower” lens.
Nice video how do you think it would work with the R6.
I think it works great with the R6. I have not had a ton of time with that combo but when I have shot it it has worked well for me.
@@whistlingwingsphotography ok thank you.
Hi, I was just wondering what you meant by speed of the lens with the 2x converter? Was it the shutter speed or the focusing speed? Or both? Thanks 😊
I was talking about the speed in regards to the f/stop. It being f/17 with the 2x TC attached. That is just so slow that it really is not practical for any type of photography I do. Cheers.
Small apertures means less light coming in. Less light coming in needs to be compensated for by either raising ISO, or using slower shutter speeds.
Having a hard time justifying this set up from my D500 with 200-500. Feel like I’m losing reach but I also know I can crop in with the extra megapixel- is there a way to calculate how much reach I’d gain cropping in and still having sharp images
It is not a straightforward calculation given it depends on how much crop you usually undertake with your images.
Why Canon is not making a 150-600mm with f6.3 at the long end...🤕
I wish they would. A 200-600 5.6 non-L would be a great lens. Sony produced a non-GM lens at 200-600 at 6.3 and it costs less than 2000 dollars US. It is an amazing lens with great IQ. So, I know Canon could do the same or better with a non-L zoom. Right now the cheapest lens that you can get to 600mm natively (i.e., without adding a TC) made by Canon that will work well on the R5 and R6 is the 600mm f/4 IS Mk. II. A used version will cost close to if not at 7000 and it is huge, heavy, and does not have the flex of a zoom. It used to be that you had to shoot a prime to get the best image quality. With modern manufacturing and materials this is no longer the case. Zooms are producing great results. So, Canon please bring out a great 200-600 with a minimum f of at least 6.3 if not 5.6 for under $4000 US. You will not be able to keep them on the shelves they will sell so fast.
I’m curious how it would hold up at 700mm f10 against the 800mm f11 fixed lens? Anyone here have any experience?
I have shot the 800 f/11 and the image quality and AF performance are very good. In looking at images side by side I think the 100-500 images have better fine detail, but not by much. This assessment is from shooting the 800 for only one day, so take it with as much salt as you feel it warrants.
@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks for the reply! I rented the 800 for the week and I’m very impressed, but having a zoom would be so nice. Even if it were to just help track a subject by zooming out slightly.
Very interesting
Did you test rf 600 or 800mm ?
I have shot the 800 f/11. I was very impressed with the AF and image quality. Given it is an f/11 lens it is pretty slow for what I need, but if you can get by with f/11 it sure is a nice light and reasonable priced option to get to 800mm.
@@whistlingwingsphotography I can not for the life of me get sharp images with it,I'm using it in combination with the R6
@@419tommy Unfortunately, I do not have the R6. I do not think it is the camera, however. There are poor copies of both the lens and 1.4x TC out there. I would investigate whether you may have a bad copy of either. That would be my first step as long as you tried using the lens naked, and then the lens with TC on the R6 on a tripod on a static subject at reasonable shutter speed. If you do this and you cannot get sharp images than you know it is not you and there is something not working right with the system.
@@whistlingwingsphotography I'm not even using the TC though,so I'll try what you suggested,thank
The 600mm mkiii is 13K your mkii is at least 6K ? I think the 100-500RF with 1.4 is 3K.....not a bad starting point. I guess the question is for us poor folk is --800mm and save $$ or 100-500 with 1.4 tele......I'm steering toward spending a bit more and getting 100-500 + 1.4 tele
I’d still like to hear about the 2x 600-1000 option. Not everyone can afford f4 at this focal length. So what is the 2x capable of from a Amatuer standpoint
I tried the 2x on 100-500 and it works, but the lens becomes so slow that unless you have awesome light it just does not function for my needs. A person can work around just about any limitations if they really want to, so I am sure you could use this combo and do some great photography, it is just not the solution for me.
@@whistlingwingsphotography The 100-500 with the 1.4x at 700mm is f10, with the 2x at 700mm it is f11.2, while giving the option to go up to 944mm at f12.6. Although when used at 700mm you lose a bit of light, you gain the option in good light of going to 944 or 1,000mm. Do you feel you lose a lot by going for the 2x rather than the 1.4x.
@@petergardner1358 I feel loosing a full 2 stops of light on a 7.1 lens just too much for me. Now, I have a 600 f/4 at my disposal so I can get to 840 and 1200mm and be at f/5.6 and 8, respectively, so for me this is a much better option. For those who do not have a long, fast lens using a 2x on the 100-500 and going to f/13 may be an option. It just is not for me.
Let's see; RF 100-500mm lens with 1.4 Teleconverter about f9 or f10 about 3k$. Canon 600mm f11 lens $700. I got some fantastic shots with the 600mm on my R6 that I would match up against the RR 100-500 even though it is not considered a pro L lens. Just saying........
100-500 with 1.4x gives 700mm f10
100-400 with 2x gives 800mm f11
I expect quite an improved image quality, but i did not find any comparison up to now.
The 2x IQ was never on the level of 1.4x IQ (my experience)
Given my personal experience, the IQ on the 100-500 with the 1.4x at 700mm is better than the 2x on the 100-400 at 800mm. Also the IS/IBIS is better on the 100-500 combo. It all depends on how much IQ really matters to your work which combo is best to go with. For some folks the 100-500 is just too expensive and if they have the 100-400 is the upgrade worth it? Only the individual can make that decision as we all shoot differently and have different wants and needs. They are both great lenses, in the end. Thanks so much for the comment.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Accidentally I did not go into the 100-400 (I did not recognize the big jump between version I and II for quite some time and then decided to pick up the oncoming generation based on mirrorless), so I am totally free to choose today ...
BTW: The difference in price is not too high, think about the price dropping of bodies. Lenses hold the value , especially RF glass.
Those being invested in the great 100-400 do have more to think about. This lens looses nothing of its quality by the young brother RF beside.
A 200-600 is the equivalent of one camera body more in weight, it is not the same casual carry around option than this class of lenses with f5.6 up to max 400mm (77mm filter size)
Thanks for the quick reply!
Well it looks like Canon isn’t coming out with a 200-600 F6.3 but rather a 200-500 F4! 😁 I’m sure it won’t be as light weight as the 100-400 either. The question is, could that replace your 600 F4? Because I’m sure it won’t be cheap either. Lol
Where did you see an announcement of the 200-500 f/4. I would like to see the details as I have not heard this. Would it have a built in 1.4x TC like the EF 200-400? Thanks for any info on this lens you can pass along.
Thanks for the great information! Did you notice how big the AF area was when at 700mm f/10? I guess it's not full sensor coverage anymore but I'm hoping it's still bigger than with the (cheap) 800mm f/11. Here is a link to a video where one can see how small AF box becomes:
Timestamp is 8;07
ruclips.net/video/5gCgJvm3VPI/видео.html
I really have not found the AF area to be a problem. I am just glad cameras can now AF at slower apertures unlike just a few years ago. Thanks so much for your comment.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks for the reply. Yes it's nice they can do that now! Canon is especially good at AF in low light.
f10 wtf bruh, just get a rf 800 11 at that point lol
Yep, that is definitely an option. Use the 100-500 as it and have the 800 f/11 for the long stuff.
Tjat, tjat och ännu mer tjat 😔😔
Keep dreaming of the Nikon pf lenses for 3000 bucks, not gonna see those from Canon, ever. But we can see something for 30,000 bucks for sure, like 400-800 zoom.