Jan, I just want to add that the quality of the content you are putting out is excellent. Your videos are well thought out and your insights are clearly and articulately explained. Really great work!
All to the point. Big advantage of the RF100-500 to the prime and the Sony is the minimum focus distance. 1.2 m at 500 or 700mm with the 1.4 ex. That makes it also very good for close up work. Beside birds, I use the lens for butterfly's, Dragonfly and other bigger insect's works great. Also for handheld focus bracketing of all kinds of things like mushrooms, flowers etc. All that makes this lens for me a great walk arround lens. I own also a 500mm F4 and that one I still need for the darker conditions, mostly from a hide.
The first time I used my RF 100-500 was for bees and butterflies. I was blown away by both the stills and the slo-mo video I could never have captured with my old Tamron 150-600.
Great video mate, the best solution is to have both :-) But yes, I do wonder now why I waited so long to get a good zoom as they are very handy to have. Cheers, Duade
I think for amateurs like myself, it's also about ease of use. A prime is hard to use if your subject is small and/or in motion, whereas a zoom you can zoom in and out just to track your subject better. I have and use both prime (EF 300mm f/4L) and zoom (Tamron 150-600 f/4.5-6.3).
Great video once again. Of course i would like to have a big prime. But where i mostly photographing. that is in the Brazilian rainforest, and i have to walk a lot on small trails in the "jungle". There, a big prime would be difficult to use, also because of the birds many times comes to close for the big prime. Once again thanks for a great video Jan. Greetings from a Norwegian in Brazil.
You are Killing me Jan! I love that you made this video. You point out some requirements for using lenses like this and the disadvantages. When new lenses come out, like this, pros usually say they love them but don’t use them. You are making me consider the 100-500. I have the 400mm f2.8 and I shoot a lot in lowlight but I’m just not as agile as I was with my Sony 200-600. Idk, you got me thinking really hard about this.
This lens has definitely changed my bird photography life. Especially when it comes to taking video as well. It has added what was always missing before.
In general, primes are able to produce better absolute image quality, while zooms are more versatile. Some zoom lenses are pretty darn sharp, and very competitive with primes, though.
I'm having great luck and fun with my combination of rf 100-500 plus rf800. Both are easily hand-held. The zoom is hugely versatile (even up close) and the 800 gives me great reach (and it costs only a bit more than the 1.4 extender).
I own an older Nikon 400 2.8 and a Sigma 150-600 C. In terms of sharpness, they produce surprisingly similar results. The difference is blur and 2 stops of light at the cost of 8 extra pounds of gear. The Sigma zoom allows me to carry around and handhold easily. The prime gives me much blurrier background and about 2 extra T-stops, even when stopped down, so that helps a lot with keeping the ISO under control, but I need a tripod and gimbal head. In the end, it comes down to how much of a hassle carrying the prime would be (and using it). I often switch back and forth when picking what to bring.
Yep, I love the extra light I get with the 400mm f2.8, it allows me to shoot the active wildlife and birds in the evening that I just can’t get with the zoom. Crazy as it sounds, if I am not on an extended hike I will often carry both. I have a great backpack for the 400mm and a shoulder sling for my Tamron 150-600mm.
Another great video Jan. I’ve been watching all of your videos and find them to be on topics of interest to me. I have the R5 and the 100-500mm and it has been great. Im doing more work from blinds so hopefully a 600mm F4 will be attached to my R5 for the spring migration. I think the ultimate is having both. The other thing I was looking at is the 400 F2.8 as I seem to be early morning when shooting most wildlife. Wonder what that comparison would look like? 600nm F4 and 400mm F2.8.
You are fluent in field video production with the Canon R5. Have you considered providing tips on "getting started" with field videos? I have zero experience and so would be grateful for such help.
Hi Jan. Thank you for the informative video. Can you tell me what are your thoughts on the Canon 90D and the Sigma 150-600 Sport? One day I'll get into the mirrorless market. Thanks you once again.
This video was SO helpful Jan! Ty! I’ve been on the fence about adding the 600 to my camera gear but it’s so expensive lol. I do both photography and video - about 50/50 and the 100-500 on my R5 has just been such a joy - I feel relieved now that I don’t really need a 600 - so thanks again! Your videos are always so helpful!
Another great and fair comparison Jan, thank you. I use both depending on the situation in the field I am in. Yes, nothing beats the 600mm prime in image quality. But it is a labour to walk carrying it. That is when the 100-500mm zoom gives a fairly good alternative. Never used a teleconverter with a zoom, but now I will give it a try.
Since you mentioned about Sony, may I ask you for the comparison between the two on flying birds auto tracking system. For me, I think the R5 is still slow even I’m using 400mm F2.8 mark2 prime lens. Thanks.
I found both systems quite similar. Adapted EF lenses are slower finding focus initially compared to the RF glass and native Sony glass for that matter
The Sony A1, when paired with one of the Sony lenses that have linear motors beats, the R5 in three ways. First, the A1's autofocusing is slightly more decisive and it has the edge on the R5 when it comes to animal eye detection (some people would dispute this point about animal eye detection). Secondly it shoots more frames per second, so you get more choice and more opportunities to get the shot right. Thirdly, linear motors are faster at moving lens clusters around than helical systems like the EF and RF 600. And the Sony 600mm is simply a sharper lens no matter what the focusing speed.
Thanks for the video, I am looking at 150-600mm sigma contemporary versus sport lens , because $$$… and I am an amateur photographer. Still learning to do manual mode. Thanks and happy holidays
Im working with older equipment but I like my old 100-400mm zoom for everyday shooting and going out walking and my 500mm prime for special occasions when conditions are right (always get sharper images with the prime, though!)
I was out shooting Eagles this weekend with my 100-400. I have a set up that makes it easy to pack so when I hike I don't mind taking it. Met a guy shooting with a prime and tripod. He didn't seem to be able to react to opportunities as quickly and was more limited in where he could go. I think if I ever get a prime zoom it will be one of those new RF 800 f11 lenses since both cost and mobility are appealing.
I have both the 100-500 and the 800 f/11. The zoom is my main lens but I will use the 800 if the light is right and the subject is too far away to get a good shot at 500mm.
Another excellent video Jan. It is great to hear that the zooms are more or less on par with the primes in terms of image quality, at least in most circumstances. I have been using the 400 f5.6 L with an R6 and have been very pleased with the photos. Plus, the lens is very light and easy to walk around with. But as you say, the downsides are a long MFD and the lack of flexibility. So, I have been considering switching to a zoom. The RF 100-500 is out of my budget right now, so maybe the EF 100-400 IS II would be a good choice.
Hello Jan, I would like to ask about Canon RF 100-500mm. Through your videos I already knew this lens is really great for wildlife. What do you think this lens for landscape and street photography. Have you ever taken or tested this lens for landscape? I love also to take landscape and street pics. I am using RF 70-200mm f4 and 800mm f/11 with Canon R6. If this lens working very well for landscape and street photography then i would upgrade. ( maybe I will sell other lenses🤔) I need your suggestion as before. 😀🙏
@@jan_wegener Thanks for your suggestion. 🙏 You are right for street photography using more wide open lenses are better. Like, I used Canon EF 35mm f/2 and Canon EF 50mm with Canon 90D.
Fully agree with you on this, the 100-500 is a fantastic lens, slow as it is its still given me some great opportunity. That said the new RF 600 F4 probably the nicest glass I've ever used (including the 300 2.8 MK II) just spectacular weight and so bloody fast on the R5 its just incredible. TC's on or off it's my fave
Amazing and educational session for me as a rookie. My question, were you using a Canon EF 100-500 zoom lens In your comparison examples with your R5; or the RF 100-500 zoom?
Jan I have a Canon 90D paired with a Sigma 150-600C and I am considering a second hand Canon 600mm prime lens, There seems to be quite a few different models available, especially from Japan what is worth considering
One other advantage of prime lens in general is light transmission. What is the wide open t-stop for the lens? Unfortunately, it's not an easy number to come up with. I have a Sony 100-400mm GM and the wide open f-stop at 400mm is 5.6, but the t-stop if 5.9. Light transmission is 90%...which I believe is pretty good for a zoom. Some of the Tamron zooms are not so good with light transmission. I'm guessing the super expensive prime 600mm lenses will have excellent light transmission which gives them even more advantage over most zooms.
That image at 4:05 ..... Holey Shamoley! It is a stunning environmental portrait! It would break my heart to see that scene and not be able to capture it because I had only a 600mm or 800mm prime. Being able to zoom out wider and capture more of the scene in front of you is invaluable. This is the biggest reason I use a 300-800mm f5.6 zoom instead of a 600 or 800mm prime.
A 400-800 f5.6???? Which manufacturer makes that and at what price point? Also, what weight is it? I use a Canon 800 f5. 6 prime and it weighs far too much so I cant imagine how heavy that must be.
@@TomReichner Ah yes the Sigma. We had a copy in my workplace because we also thought it would be convenient to have the large zoom capability. However, it was around 3lbs heavier than even the canon 800 prime, plus it didn't have IS and to be honest the image quality wasn't as good as we had hoped. As a result it was hardly ever used and eventually we traded it in for the Canon 800 prime which is one hell of a lens although still too heavy. We also have the 100-400 which gets used far more often, sometimes with an extender.
I think you made the best point in that it depends what you are doing on any particular shoot. I own both a Canon 500 f4 and the 100 -- 400 zoom and if I am in a dark tropical environment or want a good background I always go for the big prime. For larger birds like sandhill cranes the Zoom is better. Jan -- I think you should buy a used Canon 1200 mm f5.6???
I think for beginners and amateur photographers zoom lens serve well. Cost is major factor. I have been using a Sigma 150-600 and honestly quite satisfied with the performance. It's much easier to carry around and the focal length flexibility enables me to play around with composition better.
I was trying out using lightroom to make the background blurred and smoother. It works pretty well to approximate the smooth effect that you like. I prefer to be able to distinguish something of the background, but lightroom makes it easy to simulate a wide aperture.
When recently I bought and decided to have RF 400 2.8 over 600 is the option to use the 1,4 TC and still have wide open aperture [F4] at 560mm ... I like the 100-500 also but the prime is the king! Probably would be good for me to have the 2.0TC as well... Jan, are you really recommend the 2.0 TC for the prime 400 mm lens? These RF lenses are soooooo good... !
When I switched from Nikon to Sony, I sold my 600/4 Nikon and now am only shooting the 200-600G+TCs with my A1 doing a mix of stills and video. The zoom isn't as sharp as the prime of course, but the versatility of the zoom wins, and its sharper than any zoom I've ever used. Although I have the cash to replace the 600/4, I have no plans to do so. I wish Canon would release a 200-600 as I'd like to try an R3/R5 but it doesn't look to me like they ever will.
I was out this weekend and a guy next to me said it's too close, and I was nailing it with my zoom. I have a smaller zoom but I do like the range and ability to frame up a shot. Hey good segment!
I have Canon 600mm and 500mm primes but, frankly, I simply can't carry them around anymore on long days in the field. I bought a Sigma 150 - 600 zoom and I already had a Canon 100 - 400 II. These I use in preference to the big primes for ease of schlepping. I prefer the big primes if I know I'm going to be static or in a hide. I often use my Canon 300mm f2.8 especially in situations without much light but this lens comes into its own with a x2 extender. All of these are with an R5, by the way, or a 1DX. I always see my kit as tools and select the best tools for the situation in hand.
I feel I'm in the middle with the 400mm f/4 DO II on my R5. It's small enough to walk long distances with it, and the max aperture pairs it well with the 1.4 extender (560mm f/5.6) or even the 2x (800mm f/8). It's not a very popular lens though. Any exp with it?
I love hiking so love the EF 100-400 ii. For handholding since it is so light I think I have a higher hit rate than the bigger primes. That said I am saving up for an RF prime. Hoping the RF 500 f4 is lighter. 6 lbs is good for the 400 2.8 and 600 f4 but still no joke when trekking in hills for wildcats and such.
A double camera setup is also a possibility. I use a D500 with a 70-200f2,8 and a 300 f4 - for mid-range action and an Oly M1 with the 300mm (600 equivalent). Both cameras are small enough to be on my shoulders, ready for usage. They can get heavy on a long day, but no pain no gain I guess. The Olympus does 80% of the work and I have backup for close action. The shorter lenses get used in enviromental portaits or when I am photographing something large or tame. Having just one humungous prime will fill you with regrets, especially when something flies right above your head...
The Sony has no AA filter, so the images will be a bit sharper than R5 files, but overall the 600 has the better sharpness and IQ, but the difference isn't super huge
Hi Jan, interesting video. Whilst the thrust of the video is on quality of lenses, hasn’t the game changed with camera capabilities just as much or more? This particularly in camera ISO capabilities and an AF capabilities at higher ISO (smaller hole size) settings. Typing this to the tune of a juvenile King Parrot in the tree outside 🙂
@@jan_wegener thank you Jan! I am shooting ducks in migrating conditions in the Northern Hemishphere. I just don't think 7.1 is enough light to capture flight and other motion movements. I have to either crank the ISO or bring a tripod for everything I do. Always electronic shutter, cannot decide which I should use verse first curtain or straight electronic.....???
4 images at 13:15 make me want to switch from Canon to Sony 200-600. Currently debating to upgrade from Canon 7d mk ii + 100-400 is II to R5 + 100-500 or switch to Sony A1 + 200-600. What do you think?
I changed from a 90D with Sigma 150-500 to an R5 with rf100-500 and rf800. It made a huge difference in quality and keeper rate. The eye AF was a large part of that.
I would describe myself as a bird watcher who loves to take above ID-shot of birds. So for me the 100-500 (arriving tomorrow!) is the best lens at the moment. I have an R6 behind it because I could not justify the extra costs of the R5 (does sting a bit I do admit). When I get more time on my hands and money a prime would indeed be the best addition to this. Jan, would it be possible to - in the future - do a video on how to do video with the R5(6) and 100-500? I want to learn but I am still a complete newbie to video! Thanks again for the great video.
I use a Canon 600mm f/4 II prime as my main wildlife lens. The photo quality is really unmatched, even though the difference is sometimes small it just has a more professional overall look. I do want the Canon 100-500 so I can grab it & quickly take photos of birds overhead from a vehicle or in my backyard, works great for bigger mammals. To carry my 600 prime I use a harness system with a monopod for my 600mm with extenders so I can hike for hours & control my camera & lens with one hand, birds in flight not a problem, kneeling down is fairly easy, video no problem. Its basically a dual strap military surplus flag pole holder with a Wimberley mono-gimbal I got the idea from whistling wings photography on RUclips. I don’t even use my tripod anymore.
With the eventual release of the Z Nikon 400 mm f/2.8 TC S which will have a teleconverter inside, is the difference between FOV 560 mm at f/4 going to be that much different than another prime with 600 mm f/4? I feel like with this upcoming lens, it will be the best of both worlds in that you have a shorter focal length but can also zoom and an f/ 2.8 background will dissolve even more than an f/4 and let more light in when you are in the jungle/forest.
for me for birds a 600 will always beat a 400mm lens. Because it gets me to 600,840,1200mm. Whereas the 400 tops out at 800mm with worse IQ than the 840mm
Loved the video, and I love my zoom lenses , especially my 300mm Nikon. I also use the Tamron 600mm G2 for photographing whales, where I can set up and not have to move around with a tripod too much. Being an amateur, I find the Nikon 300mm great to just have fun with while walking around or going on a hike, and do not own a prime lens. So the choice for me is easy. If I was a professional photographer, I would HAVE to own a prime lens for that superb quality.
The content on your channel is highly informative, well-researched and articulated! So much so that I have bought your courses as gifts for others as well. One question I had was about birds on high trees - in my neck of the woods, we have trees with dense tops and most birds tend to favor them. Primes can give better IQ when paired with a body that can handle high ISOs, but make it difficult to find them. What would you recommend in such scenarios?
Awesome, thank you! It the one skill I always tell people they need to learn and practice. Being able to point your lens at a certain point without having to look through the viewfinder. Once you can do that, you can use any lens. I actually made a separate video about that a while ago.
I’m seriously looking into buying the RF 600mm f/4 for its image quality and weight. I tried out the 100-500mm and was disappointed with the throw (zoom) from 100 tp 500. Just felt like a bit much. Currently I have the 400mm f/2.8 III which is awesome, especially for larger subjects, but the 600mm would be ideal for birds!
I use a Sigma 150-600 sport lens and have the original canon 600mm f4 non IS. It has been a great combo however after a wrist injury I’m finding the Sigma is too heavy to hand hold…hopefully will be able to upgrade to the canon 100-500 in the new year.
Hey Jan, yet another very balanced video, superbly illustrated ! As it stands, it looks like the big white primes are only justifiable by the true professionals (or the owners of a hide cabin). But you're still comparing with the EF600/4 .. what if the RF600/4 made a similar step compared it EF ancestor like 100-500 compares to the 100-400Lii ?? First indications gave the impression Canon didn't change much optically .. but we noticed on the zooms, the RF one has a reduced focus area when extended, while the EF doesn't have this reduction. And while a bigger focus area can be nice, I strongly believe this area reduction allows a significant faster AF speed. Silently hoping Canon would come with a 300-700 (and similar in weight, aperture and price as the 100-500) because by the time I saved again some money, it might be easier to explain my wife compared to losing money on swapping my now 1 year old 100-400Lii for a 100-500 ;-)
I haven't tried it myself yet, but all the images I have seen taken with the Rf 600 make me believe the IQ is the same, but the handling of the RF and AF is better
@@jan_wegener would that be worth an upgrade to you ? or would you rather wait for something like a RF800/4.5 or 300-700 or whatever new concept Canon has in its sleeve ?
@@WernerBirdNature I was certain I'd buy an RF 4/600, but the lens being version III essentially, has made me put that off until I can try one for a while at least. I don't like 800mm lenses, that's too long, but some other cool lens could be interesting, although a 600 is a really nice lens to have
@@jan_wegener yes, that price tag requires some testing upfront ! Let's agree Canon should make us in 100-500 style (&weight & price & L) some 300-700 with F8 @700mm and accepting an extender from 300mm .. but this would seriously damage their sales of the big white primes, so I fear this will only appear a few years after the unicorn R7.
@@WernerBirdNature There were a few rumours they're thinking about making something like a 2.8/120-300 and 4/300-500 or so instead of some more RF white primes, but who knows. Seeing how they have only focused on the 2.8/400 and 4/600 there could be some truth to it
Good video, not a lover of tele converters my self. Having just received my RF 100-500mm at long last. May give them another try. Try the lens first, without.
Allen, how long did you have to wait for your 100-500? I’ve had an order in with B&H for over 2 1/2 months now…wondering if I’ll see it before the New Year.
Your examples were all excellent quality. If any of them were not suitable for some use, please let us know where the problem might be. I don’t see it. As to your question, I have only one lens so far for my Z6ii, a 24-200mm zoom. Not suitable for your work at all. Still, I like it a lot. Being a Z user, the longer zooms are not yet released. A 500PF, adapted, is attractive. Naturally, I’m not rushing to buy. At my age, your big prime is not for me. And, Covid-19 will keep me away from another visit to South Africa for another year at least. So, I’ll have to live vicariously through the photos you and your colleagues post, for awhile.
I'm still using my old EF 500 f4 mostly with 1.4x TC on the R5 and also have a RF 100-500. I'd rather not use the prime with adapter but am not sure anymore Canon will ever release a RF 500 f4. The RF 600 is not really available around here yet and costs $13k.
I heard rumours the 500 might become something like a 300-500 zoom or so. The only primes canon seems to be committed to for sport and wildlife is 400 & 600
I have a Sigma 500 f4, and I would not exchange it for a zoom lens at all. The only situation where I think a 100-500 would help, it's when I try doing "bird in flight" and when the weight is a problem in order to be really fast and reactive. But that's only a small subset of the pictures I like to take. I like the super-blurry-dissolved background prime lenses give us, and it would be hard for me to trade that for less weight. Let's do some pushups instead!
@@Jessehermansonphotography I haven't tested any other prime telephoto lens, so I cannot compare, but I find the AF speed/accuracy just fine. What do you mean with "adapted"? It's an EF lens that I use with an R5 through the standard Canon RF-EF adapter, yes.
@@attiksystem no worries, I knew they only make it in EF. When I shot sony I wished they made a Sony E mount too. I like my 400mm f2.8 is v1 but it is brutally heavy. Just looking at other options. Thanks again.
I have both. Different tool is for different shooting situation. But prime always offers beautiful bokeh and creamy background that zoom lens does not. With zoom lens, the background has to be very far away from the subject to yield a very creamy background.
Long time no see, Jan. So, zoom vs prime? I think for many birders, you are always chasing for that ultimate sharpness in conjunction with budget as well as portability. I was trying to be creative and thought outside of the box about a brand that I normally wouldn't think about. It is the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. Needless to say, it is a prime, only it doesn't cost nor weigh like a prime. In fact, it is a light weight handhold prime. It weighs in at merely 1.46kg and costs around US$3.7K or A$5.2K. I am pretty certain it should be sharper than either the RF 100-500mm or the FE 200-600mm. So, just as I thought may be I should consider the Z9, then issues cropped up. People say the AF is slow when adapting it to Z-mount mirrorless bodies (at least when comparing the Z7 vs D850). I don't know whether the AF is faster with the Z7 II or even the coming Z9. Or do people need to wait for the Z-mount version of the lens. Right now there are no long Z-mount lenses with the longest being the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. If it is indeed slow, I guess I will stick to my guns on the A1 and FE 200-600mm. Yes, I still haven't changed to Sony yet because someone told me the A1a is coming as I thought it wouldn't make sense to spend flagship money and still be stuck with a low res LCD screen. 😃
@@jan_wegener Well, some Nikon shooters say the more powerful chip in the Z9 should be able to speed up the AF in some of these F-mount lenses. May be when the Z9 or even the R3 are here, some of your subscribers could lend them to you for a review? Should be interesting. Even Mark Smith has already ordered a Z9 to check out.
I was using my panasonic 100-300mm the other day and some birds came so close I had to use 200mm and even 100mm for a couple of pheasant's. Often I'll just find a target at 100mm then whack it up to 300. Can't imagine using a prime for birds, no matter how sharp they are.
Heavy f4 lens is no option for me any more due to problems with shoulders and back, and to carrie around with heavy tripod. As you say, the drawback is the bg and 500mm is also a little bit short. I use the no zoom Nikon 500mm pf. It works quite well with the 1,4 tc. I also have the Nikon 200-500mm and the bg is neraly the same as on the prime 500mm pf. If Sony and Canon could make a similar lens as the Nikon pf it really would be something for you Sony/Canon folks.
The answer is easy for me. There is zero chance I will devote the necessary funds for a big prime. Not in the cards. Even the good zoom and a converter is a tough pill to swallow. But, its doable.
If I owned both, I’d probably bring the wrong lens on the day. Did that ever happen to you? In the end it comes down to … budget. So for me the choice is super easy.
Hi, seems everyone is fixated on extenders so can you please tell me? Would I be better using an extender on my 2 lenses (Sony 70-200 F4 & 200-600 6.3) or buying a Sony crop camera? Would the crop camera still give F4 on the 70-200 but a FOV around 350mm where an extender 1.4 would give I think F5.6 on the 70-200mm. Thanks.
It depends. Generally a lot of the full frame cameras are more advanced than their crop counterparts. So you are not just getting more reach, but potentially lose in AF ability etc. So it's always a bit of a trade off. SO I would much rather have an A1 and 200-600 + extender than a crop body and 200-600. The 200-600 in particular die very well with extender. So I think it would do great on most bodies with it
I’ve got the same setup as you do. The 100-500 is a great lens in so many ways but I still prefer to use the 600 most of the time. I think the two together is a great set up and I often will take both out because the 100-500 is so lightweight having it on a shoulder strap hanging at my hip. I’ve always thought about trying the 200-400 F4, have you used it and how does images quality compare to the 100-500?
Yes, both gives you great options. I have never used the 200-400. I would imagine it to be somewhere between 100-500 and 600 in IQ, if it wasn't better than 100-500 it would be quite disappointing.
good commonsense talk here ....but a thought..... birds dont live in the world of creamy blurred backgrounds they live in environments that we should be able to see and appreciate .I feel technology and optics allows us to create creamy backgrounds but this doesnt mean they are aesthetically better,. If great art all had blurred backgrounds perhaps you could argue this was the pinnacle of aesthetics,but they dont and it isnt. Lets bring back composition and interest in photography and reduce cliched formats and techniques that many view as the pinnacle of great photography. As a nature lover the photographs which include the background are far more.... real ....interesting ....ecologically educational.....its what YOUR eyes experience...birds flitting through trees ...seeking cover ....foraging... and it enforces the importance of our fighting for these environments. Each to their own but just a thought
just because you are a Canon user you seem to have resigned to Canon's don't care attitude towards customer, at this day & age why can't canon produce a decent f/5.6 500mm lens ? others have done it.......... and the price is not as outragous as Canon's.... photographer's/customers should not encourage copany/products that undermine them.... the 100-500 lens to me seems 100-400 MK II with a 1.25x TC slapped on it, thus the focal length, the aperture & the bloated price for a less than consumer grade lens in term of Aperture... normal mortals also deserve a decent aperture lens (f/4 or f/5.6) if not a 2.8 for decent price, don't you think ?
Normally I find your videos pretty good. This one, not so much. You are comparing apples to oranges and you are not the first RUclipsr doing this, actually I have not seen one single video comparing apples to apples so far. Having Sid that, comparing a 4-600 fixed lens to a 100-400/100-500 is a joke. Please compare the 200-400 ext 1.4 as the zoom lens to get even close to being compatible. That lens, EF200-400 ext 1.4 is still way more productive on the RF camera then any other shit out there.
Jan, I just want to add that the quality of the content you are putting out is excellent. Your videos are well thought out and your insights are clearly and articulately explained. Really great work!
Thanks a lot Tom :)
I totally agree !!!
All to the point. Big advantage of the RF100-500 to the prime and the Sony is the minimum focus distance. 1.2 m at 500 or 700mm with the 1.4 ex. That makes it also very good for close up work. Beside birds, I use the lens for butterfly's, Dragonfly and other bigger insect's works great. Also for handheld focus bracketing of all kinds of things like mushrooms, flowers etc. All that makes this lens for me a great walk arround lens. I own also a 500mm F4 and that one I still need for the darker conditions, mostly from a hide.
Great point.
The first time I used my RF 100-500 was for bees and butterflies. I was blown away by both the stills and the slo-mo video I could never have captured with my old Tamron 150-600.
Great video mate, the best solution is to have both :-) But yes, I do wonder now why I waited so long to get a good zoom as they are very handy to have. Cheers, Duade
I waited for years and I didn't even think the 100-500 was any good, but then I got it to try and never let it go again!
I think for amateurs like myself, it's also about ease of use. A prime is hard to use if your subject is small and/or in motion, whereas a zoom you can zoom in and out just to track your subject better. I have and use both prime (EF 300mm f/4L) and zoom (Tamron 150-600 f/4.5-6.3).
Zoom lens is better as it gives very clear images
Yes, finding the bird and tracking it with a long prime lens takes a lot of practice
Great video once again. Of course i would like to have a big prime. But where i mostly photographing. that is in the Brazilian rainforest, and i have to walk a lot on small trails in the "jungle". There, a big prime would be difficult to use, also because of the birds many times comes to close for the big prime.
Once again thanks for a great video Jan. Greetings from a Norwegian in Brazil.
Glad you liked it! Biggest advantage is the forest for a prime would be the ability to get more light in and have faster shutter speeds
You are Killing me Jan! I love that you made this video. You point out some requirements for using lenses like this and the disadvantages.
When new lenses come out, like this, pros usually say they love them but don’t use them.
You are making me consider the 100-500. I have the 400mm f2.8 and I shoot a lot in lowlight but I’m just not as agile as I was with my Sony 200-600. Idk, you got me thinking really hard about this.
This lens has definitely changed my bird photography life. Especially when it comes to taking video as well. It has added what was always missing before.
In general, primes are able to produce better absolute image quality, while zooms are more versatile.
Some zoom lenses are pretty darn sharp, and very competitive with primes, though.
exactly
sigma 24-70 2.8 on sony is amazing sharp, also the sony 200-600 G is pretty dang sharp if you use a high MP camera to crop a bit.
Nice summation of the practical differences between zooms and primes in this rapidly changing world of lens and camera technology.
:)
This and your other videos on lens selection have been so incredibly helpful - can’t thank you enough!
Happy to help!
I'm having great luck and fun with my combination of rf 100-500 plus rf800. Both are easily hand-held. The zoom is hugely versatile (even up close) and the 800 gives me great reach (and it costs only a bit more than the 1.4 extender).
Yes, having both is a great combo
@Jan, nice tip on-when using zoom lenses in place of primes-look for a camera with good auto focus and ISO 🐦
for sure
I own an older Nikon 400 2.8 and a Sigma 150-600 C. In terms of sharpness, they produce surprisingly similar results. The difference is blur and 2 stops of light at the cost of 8 extra pounds of gear.
The Sigma zoom allows me to carry around and handhold easily. The prime gives me much blurrier background and about 2 extra T-stops, even when stopped down, so that helps a lot with keeping the ISO under control, but I need a tripod and gimbal head.
In the end, it comes down to how much of a hassle carrying the prime would be (and using it). I often switch back and forth when picking what to bring.
same for me, I prefer the zoom for the ease of use, but in many situations I know the prime will be better so I take that
Yep, I love the extra light I get with the 400mm f2.8, it allows me to shoot the active wildlife and birds in the evening that I just can’t get with the zoom. Crazy as it sounds, if I am not on an extended hike I will often carry both. I have a great backpack for the 400mm and a shoulder sling for my Tamron 150-600mm.
@@Interbeing_CDN carrying both does sound extenuating, but I can see the advantages of doing so.
Another great video Jan. I’ve been watching all of your videos and find them to be on topics of interest to me. I have the R5 and the 100-500mm and it has been great. Im doing more work from blinds so hopefully a 600mm F4 will be attached to my R5 for the spring migration. I think the ultimate is having both. The other thing I was looking at is the 400 F2.8 as I seem to be early morning when shooting most wildlife. Wonder what that comparison would look like? 600nm F4 and 400mm F2.8.
for birds, I would always chose a 600 over a 400.
Thanks Jan. Amazing vid. Question: have you thought of running a few bird photography tours?
Thought about it from time to time, and I do private ones sometimes, but have not yet planned a bigger one, maybe after covid
You are fluent in field video production with the Canon R5. Have you considered providing tips on "getting started" with field videos? I have zero experience and so would be grateful for such help.
My next video :)
@@jan_wegener Too much! Thank you.
Hi Jan. Thank you for the informative video. Can you tell me what are your thoughts on the Canon 90D and the Sigma 150-600 Sport? One day I'll get into the mirrorless market. Thanks you once again.
From what I hear it's a decent combo
This video was SO helpful Jan! Ty! I’ve been on the fence about adding the 600 to my camera gear but it’s so expensive lol. I do both photography and video - about 50/50 and the 100-500 on my R5 has just been such a joy - I feel relieved now that I don’t really need a 600 - so thanks again! Your videos are always so helpful!
It's nice to have big, but a big luxury and extra weight for most
Fine points of view, Jan. You get a long way these days with these magnificent zooms!
Thanks for the video. Kind Regards, Jan
you sure do, thank you
Another great and fair comparison Jan, thank you. I use both depending on the situation in the field I am in. Yes, nothing beats the 600mm prime in image quality. But it is a labour to walk carrying it. That is when the 100-500mm zoom gives a fairly good alternative. Never used a teleconverter with a zoom, but now I will give it a try.
Yes, walking around with the 600 is quite a mission
Since you mentioned about Sony, may I ask you for the comparison between the two on flying birds auto tracking system. For me, I think the R5 is still slow even I’m using 400mm F2.8 mark2 prime lens. Thanks.
I found both systems quite similar. Adapted EF lenses are slower finding focus initially compared to the RF glass and native Sony glass for that matter
The Sony A1, when paired with one of the Sony lenses that have linear motors beats, the R5 in three ways. First, the A1's autofocusing is slightly more decisive and it has the edge on the R5 when it comes to animal eye detection (some people would dispute this point about animal eye detection). Secondly it shoots more frames per second, so you get more choice and more opportunities to get the shot right. Thirdly, linear motors are faster at moving lens clusters around than helical systems like the EF and RF 600. And the Sony 600mm is simply a sharper lens no matter what the focusing speed.
Thanks for the video, I am looking at 150-600mm sigma contemporary versus sport lens , because $$$… and I am an amateur photographer. Still learning to do manual mode. Thanks and happy holidays
Thanks :)
Im working with older equipment but I like my old 100-400mm zoom for everyday shooting and going out walking and my 500mm prime for special occasions when conditions are right (always get sharper images with the prime, though!)
is that the version I ?
having a mix of both is ideal
Jan, I think you are spot on with the pro’s & con’s. Keep up the great work 👍
Thanks so much!
I was out shooting Eagles this weekend with my 100-400. I have a set up that makes it easy to pack so when I hike I don't mind taking it. Met a guy shooting with a prime and tripod. He didn't seem to be able to react to opportunities as quickly and was more limited in where he could go. I think if I ever get a prime zoom it will be one of those new RF 800 f11 lenses since both cost and mobility are appealing.
Yes, those 800 almost don't count as a prime, since the characteristics are so different to most primes, but they're a lot of fun to use!
I have both the 100-500 and the 800 f/11. The zoom is my main lens but I will use the 800 if the light is right and the subject is too far away to get a good shot at 500mm.
Another excellent video Jan. It is great to hear that the zooms are more or less on par with the primes in terms of image quality, at least in most circumstances. I have been using the 400 f5.6 L with an R6 and have been very pleased with the photos. Plus, the lens is very light and easy to walk around with. But as you say, the downsides are a long MFD and the lack of flexibility. So, I have been considering switching to a zoom. The RF 100-500 is out of my budget right now, so maybe the EF 100-400 IS II would be a good choice.
The lack of IS is probably the biggest drawback on your lens.
@@jan_wegener Would you rather have one of the RF 600/800 or perhaps the RF 100-400 over the EF 400 f5.6L ?
@@SagunSudhir it depends what you want to photograph
Hello Jan, I would like to ask about Canon RF 100-500mm. Through your videos I already knew this lens is really great for wildlife. What do you think this lens for landscape and street photography. Have you ever taken or tested this lens for landscape? I love also to take landscape and street pics. I am using RF 70-200mm f4 and 800mm f/11 with Canon R6. If this lens working very well for landscape and street photography then i would upgrade. ( maybe I will sell other lenses🤔) I need your suggestion as before. 😀🙏
I am sure it works great for landscape, street I am not sure, depends how wide open you like to shoot
@@jan_wegener Thanks for your suggestion. 🙏 You are right for street photography using more wide open lenses are better. Like, I used Canon EF 35mm f/2 and Canon EF 50mm with Canon 90D.
Fully agree with you on this, the 100-500 is a fantastic lens, slow as it is its still given me some great opportunity. That said the new RF 600 F4 probably the nicest glass I've ever used (including the 300 2.8 MK II) just spectacular weight and so bloody fast on the R5 its just incredible. TC's on or off it's my fave
Sounds awesome. Hopefully I get to test to soon. The Af will be much better than on mine for sure
Amazing and educational session for me as a rookie. My question, were you using a Canon EF 100-500 zoom lens In your comparison examples with your R5; or the RF 100-500 zoom?
Rf 100-500. EF there's only a 100-400
Jan I have a Canon 90D paired with a Sigma 150-600C and I am considering a second hand Canon 600mm prime lens, There seems to be quite a few different models available, especially from Japan what is worth considering
Probably Version II and newer. The others don't have parts available anymore
@@jan_wegener OK brilliant thanks
One other advantage of prime lens in general is light transmission. What is the wide open t-stop for the lens? Unfortunately, it's not an easy number to come up with. I have a Sony 100-400mm GM and the wide open f-stop at 400mm is 5.6, but the t-stop if 5.9. Light transmission is 90%...which I believe is pretty good for a zoom. Some of the Tamron zooms are not so good with light transmission. I'm guessing the super expensive prime 600mm lenses will have excellent light transmission which gives them even more advantage over most zooms.
That image at 4:05 ..... Holey Shamoley! It is a stunning environmental portrait! It would break my heart to see that scene and not be able to capture it because I had only a 600mm or 800mm prime. Being able to zoom out wider and capture more of the scene in front of you is invaluable. This is the biggest reason I use a 300-800mm f5.6 zoom instead of a 600 or 800mm prime.
A 400-800 f5.6???? Which manufacturer makes that and at what price point? Also, what weight is it? I use a Canon 800 f5. 6 prime and it weighs far too much so I cant imagine how heavy that must be.
maybe an Olympus counting the crop factor?
Yes, those situations I have missed a lot in the past, but not anymore :)
@@robertlawrence7958 Whoops - I made a typo. It's the Sigma 300-800mm f5.6. I'll edit my comment to make it correct.
@@TomReichner Ah yes the Sigma. We had a copy in my workplace because we also thought it would be convenient to have the large zoom capability. However, it was around 3lbs heavier than even the canon 800 prime, plus it didn't have IS and to be honest the image quality wasn't as good as we had hoped. As a result it was hardly ever used and eventually we traded it in for the Canon 800 prime which is one hell of a lens although still too heavy. We also have the 100-400 which gets used far more often, sometimes with an extender.
Hi Jan, would you recommend the 2xTC on the RF 100-500 with the R5?
It works well at times, but I wouldn't want to use it all the time
I think you made the best point in that it depends what you are doing on any particular shoot. I own both a Canon 500 f4 and the 100 -- 400 zoom and if I am in a dark tropical environment or want a good background I always go for the big prime. For larger birds like sandhill cranes the Zoom is better.
Jan -- I think you should buy a used Canon 1200 mm f5.6???
I don't think I would like it very much, too big :)
I think for beginners and amateur photographers zoom lens serve well. Cost is major factor. I have been using a Sigma 150-600 and honestly quite satisfied with the performance. It's much easier to carry around and the focal length flexibility enables me to play around with composition better.
Agreed
I was trying out using lightroom to make the background blurred and smoother. It works pretty well to approximate the smooth effect that you like. I prefer to be able to distinguish something of the background, but lightroom makes it easy to simulate a wide aperture.
Interesting, I have never found that to be giving me the same effect
When recently I bought and decided to have RF 400 2.8 over 600 is the option to use the 1,4 TC and still have wide open aperture [F4] at 560mm ... I like the 100-500 also but the prime is the king! Probably would be good for me to have the 2.0TC as well... Jan, are you really recommend the 2.0 TC for the prime 400 mm lens? These RF lenses are soooooo good... !
the 400 can definitely take a 2x
When I switched from Nikon to Sony, I sold my 600/4 Nikon and now am only shooting the 200-600G+TCs with my A1 doing a mix of stills and video. The zoom isn't as sharp as the prime of course, but the versatility of the zoom wins, and its sharper than any zoom I've ever used. Although I have the cash to replace the 600/4, I have no plans to do so. I wish Canon would release a 200-600 as I'd like to try an R3/R5 but it doesn't look to me like they ever will.
Yes, it seem like they don't like that range for some reason
I was out this weekend and a guy next to me said it's too close, and I was nailing it with my zoom. I have a smaller zoom but I do like the range and ability to frame up a shot. Hey good segment!
Yes, the MFD is another great point in favour of the zooms !
I have Canon 600mm and 500mm primes but, frankly, I simply can't carry them around anymore on long days in the field. I bought a Sigma 150 - 600 zoom and I already had a Canon 100 - 400 II. These I use in preference to the big primes for ease of schlepping. I prefer the big primes if I know I'm going to be static or in a hide. I often use my Canon 300mm f2.8 especially in situations without much light but this lens comes into its own with a x2 extender. All of these are with an R5, by the way, or a 1DX. I always see my kit as tools and select the best tools for the situation in hand.
exactly! Carrying those big lenses around is no fun!
I feel I'm in the middle with the 400mm f/4 DO II on my R5. It's small enough to walk long distances with it, and the max aperture pairs it well with the 1.4 extender (560mm f/5.6) or even the 2x (800mm f/8). It's not a very popular lens though. Any exp with it?
never used it myself, but the concept is nice
I love hiking so love the EF 100-400 ii. For handholding since it is so light I think I have a higher hit rate than the bigger primes. That said I am saving up for an RF prime. Hoping the RF 500 f4 is lighter. 6 lbs is good for the 400 2.8 and 600 f4 but still no joke when trekking in hills for wildcats and such.
Will be interesting to see what Canon does for the 500 range in RF
A double camera setup is also a possibility. I use a D500 with a 70-200f2,8 and a 300 f4 - for mid-range action and an Oly M1 with the 300mm (600 equivalent). Both cameras are small enough to be on my shoulders, ready for usage. They can get heavy on a long day, but no pain no gain I guess. The Olympus does 80% of the work and I have backup for close action. The shorter lenses get used in enviromental portaits or when I am photographing something large or tame. Having just one humungous prime will fill you with regrets, especially when something flies right above your head...
thanks for sharing :)
Those Sony images with 200-600mm are tack sharp! Could you compare Sony 200-600 with 600 F4 in a similar fashion as that in 14:00?
The Sony has no AA filter, so the images will be a bit sharper than R5 files, but overall the 600 has the better sharpness and IQ, but the difference isn't super huge
Hi Jan, interesting video. Whilst the thrust of the video is on quality of lenses, hasn’t the game changed with camera capabilities just as much or more? This particularly in camera ISO capabilities and an AF capabilities at higher ISO (smaller hole size) settings. Typing this to the tune of a juvenile King Parrot in the tree outside 🙂
Yes, I said in the video that a lot of this has become possible because the cameras are so much better now, especially the Af systems
Sorry, missed that. Probably listening to the King Parrot 🦜
struggling to get tack sharp hand-held images with my RF100-500. Saving for a big prime this time next year. Cannot decide 400 2.8 or 600 4.....
at what shutter speed? Using first curtain electronic or full electronic shutter will increase sharp images dramatically at low shutter speeds
for birds, I would only want a 600
@@jan_wegener thank you Jan! I am shooting ducks in migrating conditions in the Northern Hemishphere. I just don't think 7.1 is enough light to capture flight and other motion movements. I have to either crank the ISO or bring a tripod for everything I do. Always electronic shutter, cannot decide which I should use verse first curtain or straight electronic.....???
4 images at 13:15 make me want to switch from Canon to Sony 200-600. Currently debating to upgrade from Canon 7d mk ii + 100-400 is II to R5 + 100-500 or switch to Sony A1 + 200-600. What do you think?
100-500 is comfort to carry, 200-600 is much heavier than the 100-500
Moved from Canon 7D MKii & 100-400mm lens to Sony A9 and 200-600mm lens, best move I ever made.
I changed from a 90D with Sigma 150-500 to an R5 with rf100-500 and rf800. It made a huge difference in quality and keeper rate. The eye AF was a large part of that.
@@kevins8575 This is a very tempting setup. I have seen video showing the rf800 sharper than sony 200-600 with 1.4 TC.
@@taoyu8269 I would change my canon 100-400 for a sony 100-400 so would retain the light weight option
I would describe myself as a bird watcher who loves to take above ID-shot of birds. So for me the 100-500 (arriving tomorrow!) is the best lens at the moment. I have an R6 behind it because I could not justify the extra costs of the R5 (does sting a bit I do admit). When I get more time on my hands and money a prime would indeed be the best addition to this.
Jan, would it be possible to - in the future - do a video on how to do video with the R5(6) and 100-500? I want to learn but I am still a complete newbie to video!
Thanks again for the great video.
my next video will be about that hehe
I use a Canon 600mm f/4 II prime as my main wildlife lens. The photo quality is really unmatched, even though the difference is sometimes small it just has a more professional overall look. I do want the Canon 100-500 so I can grab it & quickly take photos of birds overhead from a vehicle or in my backyard, works great for bigger mammals. To carry my 600 prime I use a harness system with a monopod for my 600mm with extenders so I can hike for hours & control my camera & lens with one hand, birds in flight not a problem, kneeling down is fairly easy, video no problem. Its basically a dual strap military surplus flag pole holder with a Wimberley mono-gimbal I got the idea from whistling wings photography on RUclips. I don’t even use my tripod anymore.
Yes, it's an awesome lens
With the eventual release of the Z Nikon 400 mm f/2.8 TC S which will have a teleconverter inside, is the difference between FOV 560 mm at f/4 going to be that much different than another prime with 600 mm f/4? I feel like with this upcoming lens, it will be the best of both worlds in that you have a shorter focal length but can also zoom and an f/ 2.8 background will dissolve even more than an f/4 and let more light in when you are in the jungle/forest.
for me for birds a 600 will always beat a 400mm lens. Because it gets me to 600,840,1200mm. Whereas the 400 tops out at 800mm with worse IQ than the 840mm
Loved the video, and I love my zoom lenses , especially my 300mm Nikon. I also use the Tamron 600mm G2 for photographing whales, where I can set up and not have to move around with a tripod too much. Being an amateur, I find the Nikon 300mm great to just have fun with while walking around or going on a hike, and do not own a prime lens. So the choice for me is easy. If I was a professional photographer, I would HAVE to own a prime lens for that superb quality.
having, having both is nice, but for most people a few zooms are the best choice
The content on your channel is highly informative, well-researched and articulated! So much so that I have bought your courses as gifts for others as well. One question I had was about birds on high trees - in my neck of the woods, we have trees with dense tops and most birds tend to favor them. Primes can give better IQ when paired with a body that can handle high ISOs, but make it difficult to find them. What would you recommend in such scenarios?
Awesome, thank you!
It the one skill I always tell people they need to learn and practice. Being able to point your lens at a certain point without having to look through the viewfinder. Once you can do that, you can use any lens. I actually made a separate video about that a while ago.
I’m seriously looking into buying the RF 600mm f/4 for its image quality and weight. I tried out the 100-500mm and was disappointed with the throw (zoom) from 100 tp 500. Just felt like a bit much. Currently I have the 400mm f/2.8 III which is awesome, especially for larger subjects, but the 600mm would be ideal for birds!
600 is a great range for sure
I use a Sigma 150-600 sport lens and have the original canon 600mm f4 non IS. It has been a great combo however after a wrist injury I’m finding the Sigma is too heavy to hand hold…hopefully will be able to upgrade to the canon 100-500 in the new year.
Yes, that should be much easier on your wrist
The 100-500 is my next lens, that is unless the Powerball drops for me tonight and I'll get it and the RF 600 f4 as well
In that case I'd say get both :D
Hey Jan, yet another very balanced video, superbly illustrated ! As it stands, it looks like the big white primes are only justifiable by the true professionals (or the owners of a hide cabin). But you're still comparing with the EF600/4 .. what if the RF600/4 made a similar step compared it EF ancestor like 100-500 compares to the 100-400Lii ?? First indications gave the impression Canon didn't change much optically .. but we noticed on the zooms, the RF one has a reduced focus area when extended, while the EF doesn't have this reduction. And while a bigger focus area can be nice, I strongly believe this area reduction allows a significant faster AF speed.
Silently hoping Canon would come with a 300-700 (and similar in weight, aperture and price as the 100-500) because by the time I saved again some money, it might be easier to explain my wife compared to losing money on swapping my now 1 year old 100-400Lii for a 100-500 ;-)
I haven't tried it myself yet, but all the images I have seen taken with the Rf 600 make me believe the IQ is the same, but the handling of the RF and AF is better
@@jan_wegener would that be worth an upgrade to you ? or would you rather wait for something like a RF800/4.5 or 300-700 or whatever new concept Canon has in its sleeve ?
@@WernerBirdNature I was certain I'd buy an RF 4/600, but the lens being version III essentially, has made me put that off until I can try one for a while at least.
I don't like 800mm lenses, that's too long, but some other cool lens could be interesting, although a 600 is a really nice lens to have
@@jan_wegener yes, that price tag requires some testing upfront !
Let's agree Canon should make us in 100-500 style (&weight & price & L) some 300-700 with F8 @700mm and accepting an extender from 300mm .. but this would seriously damage their sales of the big white primes, so I fear this will only appear a few years after the unicorn R7.
@@WernerBirdNature There were a few rumours they're thinking about making something like a 2.8/120-300 and 4/300-500 or so instead of some more RF white primes, but who knows. Seeing how they have only focused on the 2.8/400 and 4/600 there could be some truth to it
Good video, not a lover of tele converters my self. Having just received my RF 100-500mm at long last. May give them another try. Try the lens first, without.
Allen, how long did you have to wait for your 100-500? I’ve had an order in with B&H for over 2 1/2 months now…wondering if I’ll see it before the New Year.
@@douglasmulcahy1778 Hi just over 2 months. Here in the UK.
The 1.4 is pretty good on it, when you need some extra reach
Australia seems to be the only place with constant stock for some reason
@@jan_wegener I have a feeling that there’s a container full of them sitting off the coast of Long Beach CA…???
Your examples were all excellent quality. If any of them were not suitable for some use, please let us know where the problem might be. I don’t see it. As to your question, I have only one lens so far for my Z6ii, a 24-200mm zoom. Not suitable for your work at all. Still, I like it a lot. Being a Z user, the longer zooms are not yet released. A 500PF, adapted, is attractive. Naturally, I’m not rushing to buy. At my age, your big prime is not for me. And, Covid-19 will keep me away from another visit to South Africa for another year at least. So, I’ll have to live vicariously through the photos you and your colleagues post, for awhile.
Yes, the 500pf is a great little lens. The only example I found a bit soft in this video was the hoopoe
I'm still using my old EF 500 f4 mostly with 1.4x TC on the R5 and also have a RF 100-500. I'd rather not use the prime with adapter but am not sure anymore Canon will ever release a RF 500 f4. The RF 600 is not really available around here yet and costs $13k.
I heard rumours the 500 might become something like a 300-500 zoom or so. The only primes canon seems to be committed to for sport and wildlife is 400 & 600
I have a Sigma 500 f4, and I would not exchange it for a zoom lens at all. The only situation where I think a 100-500 would help, it's when I try doing "bird in flight" and when the weight is a problem in order to be really fast and reactive. But that's only a small subset of the pictures I like to take. I like the super-blurry-dissolved background prime lenses give us, and it would be hard for me to trade that for less weight. Let's do some pushups instead!
How is the AF on that Sigma? Do you have it adapted?
@@Jessehermansonphotography I haven't tested any other prime telephoto lens, so I cannot compare, but I find the AF speed/accuracy just fine. What do you mean with "adapted"? It's an EF lens that I use with an R5 through the standard Canon RF-EF adapter, yes.
@@attiksystem yes, that is what I meant. If you had a native EF camera or were using an RF camera. Thank you!
@@Jessehermansonphotography Sigma does not manufacture RF mount lenses... yet! Hopefully one day!
@@attiksystem no worries, I knew they only make it in EF. When I shot sony I wished they made a Sony E mount too. I like my 400mm f2.8 is v1 but it is brutally heavy. Just looking at other options. Thanks again.
I have both. Different tool is for different shooting situation. But prime always offers beautiful bokeh and creamy background that zoom lens does not. With zoom lens, the background has to be very far away from the subject to yield a very creamy background.
exactly.
I wish Canon made a 200-600 zoom like the Sony. It just makes so much sense.
100mm is very usefull at the wide end, especially shooting motor sports.
Yes, not the replace a 100-500 but it would be a nice lens when you want something longer and don't need the wide end
Long time no see, Jan. So, zoom vs prime? I think for many birders, you are always chasing for that ultimate sharpness in conjunction with budget as well as portability. I was trying to be creative and thought outside of the box about a brand that I normally wouldn't think about. It is the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. Needless to say, it is a prime, only it doesn't cost nor weigh like a prime. In fact, it is a light weight handhold prime. It weighs in at merely 1.46kg and costs around US$3.7K or A$5.2K. I am pretty certain it should be sharper than either the RF 100-500mm or the FE 200-600mm. So, just as I thought may be I should consider the Z9, then issues cropped up. People say the AF is slow when adapting it to Z-mount mirrorless bodies (at least when comparing the Z7 vs D850). I don't know whether the AF is faster with the Z7 II or even the coming Z9. Or do people need to wait for the Z-mount version of the lens. Right now there are no long Z-mount lenses with the longest being the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. If it is indeed slow, I guess I will stick to my guns on the A1 and FE 200-600mm. Yes, I still haven't changed to Sony yet because someone told me the A1a is coming as I thought it wouldn't make sense to spend flagship money and still be stuck with a low res LCD screen. 😃
Yes, that's a cool lens. Even for Canon RF mount definitely beats adapted EF for speed. And EF on DSLR is often a bit snappier as well than adapted EF
@@jan_wegener Well, some Nikon shooters say the more powerful chip in the Z9 should be able to speed up the AF in some of these F-mount lenses. May be when the Z9 or even the R3 are here, some of your subscribers could lend them to you for a review? Should be interesting. Even Mark Smith has already ordered a Z9 to check out.
I was using my panasonic 100-300mm the other day and some birds came so close I had to use 200mm and even 100mm for a couple of pheasant's.
Often I'll just find a target at 100mm then whack it up to 300.
Can't imagine using a prime for birds, no matter how sharp they are.
It's more difficult and specialised for sure
Heavy f4 lens is no option for me any more due to problems with shoulders and back, and to carrie around with heavy tripod. As you say, the drawback is the bg and 500mm is also a little bit short. I use the no zoom Nikon 500mm pf. It works quite well with the 1,4 tc. I also have the Nikon 200-500mm and the bg is neraly the same as on the prime 500mm pf. If Sony and Canon could make a similar lens as the Nikon pf it really would be something for you Sony/Canon folks.
Yes, that lens is so nice and small!
It’s insane how the jump in price is from $1.8k-2.8k all the way to >$10k to go for one of these prime telephotos.
Yes, a lot more involved with the big glass and the big glass elements themselves as well.
Those peregrine photos (outstanding) are every reason why primes rule (if you can afford them of course).
Yes, there it really helps
The answer is easy for me. There is zero chance I will devote the necessary funds for a big prime. Not in the cards. Even the good zoom and a converter is a tough pill to swallow. But, its doable.
One day a prime. I’ve started saving and am about 3 years away. Having said that I do enjoy my RF 100-500.
it sure is
If I owned both, I’d probably bring the wrong lens on the day. Did that ever happen to you?
In the end it comes down to … budget. So for me the choice is super easy.
Yes, usually I leave the 600 behind cause it so heavy and then regret it
Hi, seems everyone is fixated on extenders so can you please tell me?
Would I be better using an extender on my 2 lenses (Sony 70-200 F4 & 200-600 6.3) or buying a Sony crop camera? Would the crop camera still give F4 on the 70-200 but a FOV around 350mm where an extender 1.4 would give I think F5.6 on the 70-200mm. Thanks.
It depends. Generally a lot of the full frame cameras are more advanced than their crop counterparts. So you are not just getting more reach, but potentially lose in AF ability etc. So it's always a bit of a trade off. SO I would much rather have an A1 and 200-600 + extender than a crop body and 200-600. The 200-600 in particular die very well with extender. So I think it would do great on most bodies with it
I’ve got the same setup as you do. The 100-500 is a great lens in so many ways but I still prefer to use the 600 most of the time. I think the two together is a great set up and I often will take both out because the 100-500 is so lightweight having it on a shoulder strap hanging at my hip.
I’ve always thought about trying the 200-400 F4, have you used it and how does images quality compare to the 100-500?
Yes, both gives you great options.
I have never used the 200-400. I would imagine it to be somewhere between 100-500 and 600 in IQ, if it wasn't better than 100-500 it would be quite disappointing.
👍👍 Happy 👍👍
good commonsense talk here ....but a thought..... birds dont live in the world of creamy blurred backgrounds they live in environments that we should be able to see and appreciate .I feel technology and optics allows us to create creamy backgrounds but this doesnt mean they are aesthetically better,. If great art all had blurred backgrounds perhaps you could argue this was the pinnacle of aesthetics,but they dont and it isnt. Lets bring back composition and interest in photography and reduce cliched formats and techniques that many view as the pinnacle of great photography. As a nature lover the photographs which include the background are far more.... real ....interesting ....ecologically educational.....its what YOUR eyes experience...birds flitting through trees ...seeking cover ....foraging... and it enforces the importance of our fighting for these environments.
Each to their own but just a thought
I started out with a prime but I found that I was missing shots and clipping wings. Since I have been using a zoom I have been more successful.
Yes, for many that's the best way to go
just because you are a Canon user you seem to have resigned to Canon's don't care attitude towards customer, at this day & age why can't canon produce a decent f/5.6 500mm lens ? others have done it.......... and the price is not as outragous as Canon's.... photographer's/customers should not encourage copany/products that undermine them.... the 100-500 lens to me seems 100-400 MK II with a 1.25x TC slapped on it, thus the focal length, the aperture & the bloated price for a less than consumer grade lens in term of Aperture... normal mortals also deserve a decent aperture lens (f/4 or f/5.6) if not a 2.8 for decent price, don't you think ?
I think Canon should make a 5.6/500 or 600 and I also think that the 100-500 is an excellent lens
Normally I find your videos pretty good. This one, not so much.
You are comparing apples to oranges and you are not the first RUclipsr doing this, actually I have not seen one single video comparing apples to apples so far.
Having Sid that, comparing a 4-600 fixed lens to a 100-400/100-500 is a joke. Please compare the 200-400 ext 1.4 as the zoom lens to get even close to being compatible. That lens, EF200-400 ext 1.4 is still way more productive on the RF camera then any other shit out there.
That lens is big, heavy and expensive, so in my opinion all advantages of a normal zoom lens except for the flexibility disappear
@@jan_wegener image quality is on par with a fixed lens.