Great video and super images taken with both lenses. I too had the Canon 500mm mkii and it was a stunning lens, however, I am not getting any younger so I traded it in for the R7 and the RF100-500 combo and I am finding it to be outstandingly sharp and quick. Miss my big lens but my arms at the end of the day don't ache. Keep on taking photos. 🙂
Hi Ken. Thanks for the work involved in producing this video, I’m at a crossroads at present with a similar predicament. I’m not as young as I was, and with a back issue ( which is with me for life ), and for the last 2 years, a problem with my knees ( for which an operation will hopefully resolve if I ever get to the top of the NHS waiting list). I have an R6, and my dream lens the 500/4. The weight definitely makes it difficult, that’s for sure, but it seems almost impossible to take a bad photo with that lens. I came from a 7D with the Mk1 100-400, so I’m used to the flexibility of a zoom, I used the 500/4 on my crop body ( very often with a 1.4x TC ) and the one thing I thought was essential for me was reach. Amazingly I never missed the reach of the crop, maybe because the 500/4 hit focus better, giving me more keepers which offset the difference. I mainly use the 500/4 with a Black Rapid strap as my walk around set up, the IBIS on the R6 now allowed me to ditch the tripod/monopod and shoot without having to rely on a support to steady my arms. However, is the focus on the 100-500 better, not necessarily faster, but better to attain focus especially using eye detect which is what I bought the R6 for in the first place. Again, can a set-up with a more accurate focus negate the difference between the prime and zoom giving better results, and as a bonus be easier to carry around too. Years ago I used to carry my whole set up as a walk around, steel tripod, 7D body, 100-400, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 10-20 UWA, sometimes if out walking with the kids in their prams/buggies I’d never take the backpack off my shoulders because it was so heavy to use. So, I bought the Fuji X-Pro1 and a few small prime lens to use as my family days out which transformed my photography. So I’m aware that the R6 c/w the 100-500 could do the same, but as with my previous worries about loss of reach, now I’m concerned about loss of aperture, and the ability to shoot wide open at F4 instead of F7.1 How do you feel about the loss in aperture here in the UK, and the challenges of a lack of light the UK gives us now you’ve had the chance to compare. Sorry for the long winded question, I just wanted to give you the background of my experience so far 😊
Sorry for the late reply. Somehow your post did not flag up and I have just noticed it. To be totally honest I do very little shooting in the uk so the aperture has not been an issue in Africa and the USA. However the combination of the R3 and the 100-500 worked very well in the limited shooting I have done in the UK . Together with excellent post processing tools I have been able to shoot and process to my satisfaction to date. The lesser weight makes travel and shooting easy and I have mostly been able to work without a tripod on many occasions. The focusing is excellent but I’m not a fan of eye control. I tend to scan around looking for subjects coming near do the focus point is all over the place.
Great video thanks for posting, I have both lenses and agree mostly with what you say but the 500 f4 was my dream lens when I started out and was so thrilled when I got one I just can’t bear to part with it, also big primes now are so expensive I would never be able to afford another , so I only use it when I know I will be photographing in a hide or using my tripod , walking about I use the 100-500
Thanks Kathleen. I agree entirely but I’m basing my decision on the fact that almost all of my photography using the 500prime is outside the UK. Getting this lens all my other gear on flights is a nightmare. Once packed my flight case is 16 Kilograms and only a handful of airlines allow more than 8 Kilograms as hand luggage. It’s regrettable but I cannot justify keeping the 500 prime for just a few days of shooting in the UK. However I totally understand your reluctance to part with the lens which is still available for sale new at £9600.
Thank you for your review. Also, the location is amazing. Where I live there are no places like that. I own the RF100-500 and the lens is wonderful: Light and very versatile. I use it for birding, wildlife, sport events, hiking, portraits, landscape and sometimes even for semi macro work. It really is a great lens. Your comparison really helped me. I often wish for a better bokeh and better lowlight capabilities with this lens. While I can use software to deal with higher ISO numbers, there really is no „good“ way of faking the bokeh (yet). But like you said, is more bokeh worth 4 times the price? Not really, especially for me as someone who does this as a hobby.
The noise handling with the combination of the R3 and the 100-500 RF is remarkable and I have some incredible editing tools that uses AI to make my shots “pop”
@@ElBoyoElectronico Not at the push of a button but Photoshop has a new feature that selects your image at the touch of a button with outstanding accuracy. That means you can invert and blur the background easily using the Photoshop blur tool. I am going to do a video demonstrating how to do this soon so if you are not a subscriber you may wish to do so and you will get a notification when its posted.
Is there really THAT much differce in bokeh at f4 than 7.1 (@ 500mm)? Also, when shoot with 500mm I am more often wishing for MORE depth of field than less! Male and female songbirds sitting one just in front of the other, four fox kits playing! Etc.
@@alansach8437 you are quite right that sometimes narrow dof can be challenging when photographing subjects on different planes but I can’t say it has been a huge problem to me personally, However the side by side comparison from both lenses show a distinctly better bokeh with the 500f/4 which is expected. With the new tools in Photoshop Beta ( a subject for one of my next videos) blurring manually is now a couple of clicks away thus saving me hauling the heavy 500 prime on my travels. The bokeh with the 100-500 RF even at f/10 is quite remarkable.
Is the EF 500mm f4 the Mk1 version or the Mk2 : I have the RF 100-500 lens and find it really good and also lightweight also have the EF 300 f2.8 Mk2 which is really sharp and regularly use with 1.4 converter so have wondered weather the EF 500 f4 Mk2 is similar in sharpness. If your lens is the EF f4 Mk2 version this probably answers my question in not wanting to add another heavier prime. Many thanks for your informative video and look forward to more.
Hi Mark Thanks for your kind comments. Its mk2 but still incredibly heavy when attached to a 1DX or even my new R3 camera. No doubt the 500f4 is razor sharp but I have no regrets changing to 100-500. I also have a 70-200 f2.8 which I use with extenders if needed for back up. This is the sharpest telephoto lens I have ever used and has worked extremely well for me in both my wildlife and wedding photography.
I'm thinking about buying the RF100-500, for the size of the f number 7.1, which I think is too small. but with a small size and light weight But the image quality is still acceptable, so I'm confident that the RF100-500 f7.1 will handle my usage very well. Thank you for the good things you said. I hope it will be useful in the decision of many people.
Thanks for the comparison. I have the RF 100-500 and you have convinced me to continue with that and not use a lot of money on an RF600/F4 that costs like a car. Great photos by you both. Greetings from Denmark. / Per
Thank you Per… I also decided against future huge investment for a noticeable but minor gain. The prices for everything involved in photography is scandalous. I found that a replacement plastic lens hood for my 500f/4 lens costs over £600.00. How on earth they can justify that price for a circle of plastic with a metal fastener on the top is a mystery to me. The more I use my 100-500 with my R3 the more convinced I am that I have made the right decision. Now I cannot wait for my month in Africa in October shooting every day with the prospect of stills and video for a channel travel series on my return.
I wanted to compare like for like at a setting I use most when overseas where distance is often an issue so both lenses used 1.4 extenders therefore shooting at 700mm. I should have mentioned the images are cropped for detail comparison. With the 100-500 at 700mm the lowest f stop is f/10. I have shot other shots with lower aperture and distance and this lens will change my life. Getting the 500 f/4 to my overseas shoots is a constant nightmare. Regarding aperture on the 500mm I rarely shoot wide open as very often there is a problem with focus. Unless the subject is sideways to the camera very often the tail / head is out of focus. To be safe I usually shoot at f/7.1 or f/8 without problems. Not for everyone but it works for me. These settings gave me a comparison by shooting each camera at the optimal settings I would normally use in the field. Thanks for the comment. I should have made this clear in the video.
Nice video. Hopefully I'll be a 100-500 RF owner very soon. Just one minor complaint: the shutter noise preceding every image is annoying. Lots of other TH-camrs use it, but in my opinion it's an unnecessary distraction.
Totally agree with you....Using the R5 and the 100-500 is an amazing lens for the money. You can stop down to 7.1 and get great shots...no need for f9 or 10. I enjoyed the video !
Yes. My wife shot the comparison shots with exactly that combination. She is holding on to her 500f/4….at least until after our upcoming month in Africa.
I enjoyed your video and images. Big primes are hard to beat but so is portability. I'm sure you'll get images with your 100-500mm zoom that might have gone untaken because the weight of a big prime put you off on an outing that you might have otherwise taken. From everything I've seen the Canon 100-500mm is one of the best zoom lenses out there these days.
Thanks Bruce Everything you say is correct. One bonus is that I have a choice of shooting from 100-500mm thus whilst in Africa I am likely to get great shots nearer to the vehicle as I don’t need to change cameras as subjects come closer to the vehicle.
Interesting. I felt sure going into the video that you'd either keep the 500mm f4 or keep both. The 100-500mm is a great lens for sure, but those "big whites" make images that have a unique quality in my opinion. I use a 600mm f4 a lot of the time and I really hate carrying it around - but when I get home and review my images, it feels worth it! I totally understand your reasons for the decision you've made, especially as you travel abroad a lot. However, I couldn't give up having a large prime in my kit. They are an absolute nightmare to move around with and I'd never try to fly with one though! I'll soon be replacing my EF100-400ii with the RF100-500 for my walk-around sessions and it's good to see from your video that it's a very capable lens as well. Good luck.
Thanks Mike…as I approach 70 years old I’m built for comfort nowadays. One other worry for me is just how conspicuous the 500 prime is when I’m out and about…especially in South Africa. I worry constantly about security and find it hard not to have my kit where I can see it 24 hrs a day restricting me severely socially. As I do little wildlife in the UK it was a no brainier for me. I am about to make another video showcasing the fantastic blur effects possible in photoshop beta. I’ve been able to reproduce the bokeh from the 500f/4 successfully on chosen images.
@@BETTERPHOTOGRAPHYCHANNEL It certainly seems to make sense for you to make the change. I'm pushing 60 so I'm still able (just!) to manage the 600 prime and I only use it within the UK, so different circumstances. I think that when I eventually have to give up the prime, I'll move to OM. Their 150-400mm seems like the ideal portable lens with f4.5 through the range. Backgrounds will be more of a problem on M4/3 because I do like my backgrounds to be smooth "out of camera" but I guess I could fake it when needed 😂
Hi I have the same combination as you, with the same results. The Rf 100-500 is razor sharp, even with the extender on the lens. my big objection to this combination is, the high F number, and the high weight that hangs on your shoulder (2.8 kg). I'm considering next to the canon combi. to buy an OM system camera. I am very curious how I will like it.😂❤
Good luck with the new system. Despite the high F number the results are incredibly with much less noise than you would expect. Also I use an incredibly photo processing tool ( Topaz Photo AI ) which takes care of noise and sharpness at the click of a button . Check out my recent video demonstrating this remarkable tool.
Fair enough! But as the vast majority of my wildlife photography is done abroad and trying to get 15 Kilograms of photo luggage on a flight as hand luggage is getting harder and harder keeping my 500 f4 is a luxury. Also likely that second hand prices may tank when new long lenses are brought to market for mirrorless cameras.
Hello what a great place Washington looks, I am a member of the WWT but this reserve is over 3 hours drive, might do a weekend up there sometime. I have owned the R3 since release and I have the R5, I used to have the 500mm like you have but I swapped it for the 600mm F4 MK2 a few years ago, as I shoot mostly birds in the UK my 1.4 extender lives on my 600mm, I also have the RF100-500 and as you say it's a fantastic lens, but no way would I choose that lens over the 600mm prime. If money is not a problem I would keep the 500mm F4, but for travel that's a different matter, last time I went on safari I used my 100-400 MK2 more than my 500mm prime and it was a big lump to travel with. You are 100% right for travel the 100-500 is a lot easier to travel with, and can't wait to take it on my next safari. I have also purchased the RF 800mm F11 this lens gets a lot of stick, but if you know what you are doing this lens is brilliant and so sharp, but needs a ton of light, again will be used more for travel especially in the American national parks.
Thanks Tony. Pushing 70 now and the weight and stress getting the 500 f/4 overshadows on each trip. I don’t do a lot in the UK and tend to go mostly long haul for wildlife. I have had several run ins with flight boarding crew and always managed to get the gear on as hand luggage but its so stressful and only a matter of time before i get a stubborn staff member who will ruin my day! Of course I would prefer the capabilities of the 500f/4 but the 100-500 has other advantages. We self drive in Kruger Park ( roll on October 4th) and shooting out of the car window rules out nearer shots. I have to retract the 500, stow in passenger footwell and pick up my 70-200 f2.8 on my 5D mk 4 during which the shot is gone. With the 100-500 i can shoot near and far. PLUS silent shooting with the R3 will be a huge bonus as my wife shoots from the rear seats and if she starts shooting before I get my camera up then most times the bird takes off on the first shutter click.
@@BETTERPHOTOGRAPHYCHANNEL Ken I couldn't agree more about the travel side, no way will I be travelling with my 600mm, I am 56 and know all about the weight lugged on my shoulders, but when I get home and see the results my 600mm gives me it's very hard to give it up. I have been shooting Canon since the 300D when I switched over from my Minolta film cameras, as much as I love my R3 and R5 I think Canon are lagging behind the lenses, as much as the 100-500 is amazing why couldn't they make a 200-600mm F6.3 like everybody else? I love Nikon's new Z800mm F6.3 prime, with that lens and the new 180-600mm they have coming that would be perfect, and Nikon's pricing, Canon lenses are ridiculously priced, that new 200-500mm F4 coming soon at 16k is stupid money. I know all about shooting from cars with big primes it's almost impossible 🤣🤣 and same as you I love the quietness of the R3 I am getting so much closer to wildlife, I didn't realise how loud my DX2 and 3 really were. I have subscribed looking forward to the safari video.
@@tonyesposito9602 Thanks for your support. I’m looking to make a daily diary showing everything we experience including accommodation, food and facilities in the camps over 24 days. Been travelling to Kruger annually for 10 years so we know enough locations to hopefully inform and entertain.
Hi. Found the channel and subscribed …also to the Facebook group. Up for a chat about the livestream perhaps. How do you feel about my sharing some of my channel content on the group pages?
It was a matter of practicality for me after difficulties with weight on airlines plus a move to more video production which is almost impossible with a 500mm prime.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video and super images taken with both lenses. I too had the Canon 500mm mkii and it was a stunning lens, however, I am not getting any younger so I traded it in for the R7 and the RF100-500 combo and I am finding it to be outstandingly sharp and quick. Miss my big lens but my arms at the end of the day don't ache. Keep on taking photos. 🙂
Thank you… keep on snapping!
Hi Ken.
Thanks for the work involved in producing this video, I’m at a crossroads at present with a similar predicament. I’m not as young as I was, and with a back issue ( which is with me for life ), and for the last 2 years, a problem with my knees ( for which an operation will hopefully resolve if I ever get to the top of the NHS waiting list). I have an R6, and my dream lens the 500/4. The weight definitely makes it difficult, that’s for sure, but it seems almost impossible to take a bad photo with that lens.
I came from a 7D with the Mk1 100-400, so I’m used to the flexibility of a zoom, I used the 500/4 on my crop body ( very often with a 1.4x TC ) and the one thing I thought was essential for me was reach. Amazingly I never missed the reach of the crop, maybe because the 500/4 hit focus better, giving me more keepers which offset the difference. I mainly use the 500/4 with a Black Rapid strap as my walk around set up, the IBIS on the R6 now allowed me to ditch the tripod/monopod and shoot without having to rely on a support to steady my arms.
However, is the focus on the 100-500 better, not necessarily faster, but better to attain focus especially using eye detect which is what I bought the R6 for in the first place. Again, can a set-up with a more accurate focus negate the difference between the prime and zoom giving better results, and as a bonus be easier to carry around too.
Years ago I used to carry my whole set up as a walk around, steel tripod, 7D body, 100-400, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 10-20 UWA, sometimes if out walking with the kids in their prams/buggies I’d never take the backpack off my shoulders because it was so heavy to use. So, I bought the Fuji X-Pro1 and a few small prime lens to use as my family days out which transformed my photography. So I’m aware that the R6 c/w the 100-500 could do the same, but as with my previous worries about loss of reach, now I’m concerned about loss of aperture, and the ability to shoot wide open at F4 instead of F7.1
How do you feel about the loss in aperture here in the UK, and the challenges of a lack of light the UK gives us now you’ve had the chance to compare.
Sorry for the long winded question, I just wanted to give you the background of my experience so far 😊
Sorry for the late reply. Somehow your post did not flag up and I have just noticed it.
To be totally honest I do very little shooting in the uk so the aperture has not been an issue in Africa and the USA. However the combination of the R3 and the 100-500 worked very well in the limited shooting I have done in the UK . Together with excellent post processing tools I have been able to shoot and process to my satisfaction to date. The lesser weight makes travel and shooting easy and I have mostly been able to work without a tripod on many occasions. The focusing is excellent but I’m not a fan of eye control. I tend to scan around looking for subjects coming near do the focus point is all over the place.
Great video thanks for posting, I have both lenses and agree mostly with what you say but the 500 f4 was my dream lens when I started out and was so thrilled when I got one I just can’t bear to part with it, also big primes now are so expensive I would never be able to afford another , so I only use it when I know I will be photographing in a hide or using my tripod , walking about I use the 100-500
Thanks Kathleen. I agree entirely but I’m basing my decision on the fact that almost all of my photography using the 500prime is outside the UK. Getting this lens all my other gear on flights is a nightmare. Once packed my flight case is 16 Kilograms and only a handful of airlines allow more than 8 Kilograms as hand luggage. It’s regrettable but I cannot justify keeping the 500 prime for just a few days of shooting in the UK. However I totally understand your reluctance to part with the lens which is still available for sale new at £9600.
Thank you for your review. Also, the location is amazing. Where I live there are no places like that. I own the RF100-500 and the lens is wonderful: Light and very versatile. I use it for birding, wildlife, sport events, hiking, portraits, landscape and sometimes even for semi macro work. It really is a great lens. Your comparison really helped me. I often wish for a better bokeh and better lowlight capabilities with this lens. While I can use software to deal with higher ISO numbers, there really is no „good“ way of faking the bokeh (yet). But like you said, is more bokeh worth 4 times the price? Not really, especially for me as someone who does this as a hobby.
The noise handling with the combination of the R3 and the 100-500 RF is remarkable and I have some incredible editing tools that uses AI to make my shots “pop”
@@BETTERPHOTOGRAPHYCHANNEL I know, the R5 also does a pretty good job. But does your software also produce more bokeh?
@@ElBoyoElectronico Not at the push of a button but Photoshop has a new feature that selects your image at the touch of a button with outstanding accuracy. That means you can invert and blur the background easily using the Photoshop blur tool. I am going to do a video demonstrating how to do this soon so if you are not a subscriber you may wish to do so and you will get a notification when its posted.
Is there really THAT much differce in bokeh at f4 than 7.1 (@ 500mm)? Also, when shoot with 500mm I am more often wishing for MORE depth of field than less! Male and female songbirds sitting one just in front of the other, four fox kits playing! Etc.
@@alansach8437 you are quite right that sometimes narrow dof can be challenging when photographing subjects on different planes but I can’t say it has been a huge problem to me personally, However the side by side comparison from both lenses show a distinctly better bokeh with the 500f/4 which is expected. With the new tools in Photoshop Beta ( a subject for one of my next videos) blurring manually is now a couple of clicks away thus saving me hauling the heavy 500 prime on my travels. The bokeh with the 100-500 RF even at f/10 is quite remarkable.
Is the EF 500mm f4 the Mk1 version or the Mk2 : I have the RF 100-500 lens and find it really good and also lightweight also have the EF 300 f2.8 Mk2 which is really sharp and regularly use with 1.4 converter so have wondered weather the EF 500 f4 Mk2 is similar in sharpness. If your lens is the EF f4 Mk2 version this probably answers my question in not wanting to add another heavier prime. Many thanks for your informative video and look forward to more.
Hi Mark
Thanks for your kind comments. Its mk2 but still incredibly heavy when attached to a 1DX or even my new R3 camera. No doubt the 500f4 is razor sharp but I have no regrets changing to 100-500. I also have a 70-200 f2.8 which I use with extenders if needed for back up. This is the sharpest telephoto lens I have ever used and has worked extremely well for me in both my wildlife and wedding photography.
This clip really helped me a lot.
I'm thinking about buying the RF100-500, for the size of the f number 7.1, which I think is too small.
but with a small size and light weight But the image quality is still acceptable, so I'm confident that the RF100-500 f7.1 will handle my usage very well.
Thank you for the good things you said. I hope it will be useful in the decision of many people.
Thanks for your kind words. This lens has not disappointed me and I am looking forward to using it in my travels to Africa in a few weeks time.
Thanks for the comparison. I have the RF 100-500 and you have convinced me to continue with that and not use a lot of money on an RF600/F4 that costs like a car. Great photos by you both. Greetings from Denmark. / Per
Thank you Per… I also decided against future huge investment for a noticeable but minor gain. The prices for everything involved in photography is scandalous. I found that a replacement plastic lens hood for my 500f/4 lens costs over £600.00. How on earth they can justify that price for a circle of plastic with a metal fastener on the top is a mystery to me. The more I use my 100-500 with my R3 the more convinced I am that I have made the right decision. Now I cannot wait for my month in Africa in October shooting every day with the prospect of stills and video for a channel travel series on my return.
Well there are a lot of scenarios only 600/4 can do the job
I agree but my situation is needing to reduce weight and bulk for travelling long haul to photo destinations
Great comparison, thanks! Just wondering why you shot most of the shots at f10 with the zoom lens? And presumably you shot the prime lens wide open?
I wanted to compare like for like at a setting I use most when overseas where distance is often an issue so both lenses used 1.4 extenders therefore shooting at 700mm. I should have mentioned the images are cropped for detail comparison. With the 100-500 at 700mm the lowest f stop is f/10. I have shot other shots with lower aperture and distance and this lens will change my life. Getting the 500 f/4 to my overseas shoots is a constant nightmare. Regarding aperture on the 500mm I rarely shoot wide open as very often there is a problem with focus. Unless the subject is sideways to the camera very often the tail / head is out of focus. To be safe I usually shoot at f/7.1 or f/8 without problems. Not for everyone but it works for me. These settings gave me a comparison by shooting each camera at the optimal settings I would normally use in the field. Thanks for the comment. I should have made this clear in the video.
Nice video. Hopefully I'll be a 100-500 RF owner very soon. Just one minor complaint: the shutter noise preceding every image is annoying. Lots of other TH-camrs use it, but in my opinion it's an unnecessary distraction.
Thanks for the compliment and your complaint is noted for future videos.
Totally agree with you....Using the R5 and the 100-500 is an amazing lens for the money. You can stop down to 7.1 and get great shots...no need for f9 or 10. I enjoyed the video !
Thanks for sharing
Were you shooting with the 500 F4 using the R3 body using a Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R?
Yes. My wife shot the comparison shots with exactly that combination. She is holding on to her 500f/4….at least until after our upcoming month in Africa.
Thank you. You just convinced me which way to go.
No problem . Good luck with your choice.
I enjoyed your video and images. Big primes are hard to beat but so is portability. I'm sure you'll get images with your 100-500mm zoom that might have gone untaken because the weight of a big prime put you off on an outing that you might have otherwise taken. From everything I've seen the Canon 100-500mm is one of the best zoom lenses out there these days.
Thanks Bruce
Everything you say is correct. One bonus is that I have a choice of shooting from 100-500mm thus whilst in Africa I am likely to get great shots nearer to the vehicle as I don’t need to change cameras as subjects come closer to the vehicle.
Interesting. I felt sure going into the video that you'd either keep the 500mm f4 or keep both. The 100-500mm is a great lens for sure, but those "big whites" make images that have a unique quality in my opinion. I use a 600mm f4 a lot of the time and I really hate carrying it around - but when I get home and review my images, it feels worth it! I totally understand your reasons for the decision you've made, especially as you travel abroad a lot. However, I couldn't give up having a large prime in my kit. They are an absolute nightmare to move around with and I'd never try to fly with one though! I'll soon be replacing my EF100-400ii with the RF100-500 for my walk-around sessions and it's good to see from your video that it's a very capable lens as well. Good luck.
Thanks Mike…as I approach 70 years old I’m built for comfort nowadays. One other worry for me is just how conspicuous the 500 prime is when I’m out and about…especially in South Africa. I worry constantly about security and find it hard not to have my kit where I can see it 24 hrs a day restricting me severely socially. As I do little wildlife in the UK it was a no brainier for me. I am about to make another video showcasing the fantastic blur effects possible in photoshop beta. I’ve been able to reproduce the bokeh from the 500f/4 successfully on chosen images.
@@BETTERPHOTOGRAPHYCHANNEL It certainly seems to make sense for you to make the change. I'm pushing 60 so I'm still able (just!) to manage the 600 prime and I only use it within the UK, so different circumstances. I think that when I eventually have to give up the prime, I'll move to OM. Their 150-400mm seems like the ideal portable lens with f4.5 through the range. Backgrounds will be more of a problem on M4/3 because I do like my backgrounds to be smooth "out of camera" but I guess I could fake it when needed 😂
Hi
I have the same combination as you, with the same results. The Rf 100-500 is razor sharp, even with the extender on the lens. my big objection to this combination is, the high F number, and the high weight that hangs on your shoulder (2.8 kg). I'm considering next to the canon combi. to buy an OM system camera. I am very curious how I will like it.😂❤
Good luck with the new system. Despite the high F number the results are incredibly with much less noise than you would expect. Also I use an incredibly photo processing tool ( Topaz Photo AI ) which takes care of noise and sharpness at the click of a button . Check out my recent video demonstrating this remarkable tool.
You will live to regret selling the 500mm f4
I use both the same lenses on the R3 and R5
Much prefer the results I get from the f4
Keep both 😎
Fair enough! But as the vast majority of my wildlife photography is done abroad and trying to get 15 Kilograms of photo luggage on a flight as hand luggage is getting harder and harder keeping my 500 f4 is a luxury. Also likely that second hand prices may tank when new long lenses are brought to market for mirrorless cameras.
Hello what a great place Washington looks, I am a member of the WWT but this reserve is over 3 hours drive, might do a weekend up there sometime.
I have owned the R3 since release and I have the R5, I used to have the 500mm like you have but I swapped it for the 600mm F4 MK2 a few years ago, as I shoot mostly birds in the UK my 1.4 extender lives on my 600mm, I also have the RF100-500 and as you say it's a fantastic lens, but no way would I choose that lens over the 600mm prime.
If money is not a problem I would keep the 500mm F4, but for travel that's a different matter, last time I went on safari I used my 100-400 MK2 more than my 500mm prime and it was a big lump to travel with.
You are 100% right for travel the 100-500 is a lot easier to travel with, and can't wait to take it on my next safari.
I have also purchased the RF 800mm F11 this lens gets a lot of stick, but if you know what you are doing this lens is brilliant and so sharp, but needs a ton of light, again will be used more for travel especially in the American national parks.
Thanks Tony. Pushing 70 now and the weight and stress getting the 500 f/4 overshadows on each trip. I don’t do a lot in the UK and tend to go mostly long haul for wildlife. I have had several run ins with flight boarding crew and always managed to get the gear on as hand luggage but its so stressful and only a matter of time before i get a stubborn staff member who will ruin my day! Of course I would prefer the capabilities of the 500f/4 but the 100-500 has other advantages. We self drive in Kruger Park ( roll on October 4th) and shooting out of the car window rules out nearer shots. I have to retract the 500, stow in passenger footwell and pick up my 70-200 f2.8 on my 5D mk 4 during which the shot is gone. With the 100-500 i can shoot near and far. PLUS silent shooting with the R3 will be a huge bonus as my wife shoots from the rear seats and if she starts shooting before I get my camera up then most times the bird takes off on the first shutter click.
@@BETTERPHOTOGRAPHYCHANNEL Ken I couldn't agree more about the travel side, no way will I be travelling with my 600mm, I am 56 and know all about the weight lugged on my shoulders, but when I get home and see the results my 600mm gives me it's very hard to give it up.
I have been shooting Canon since the 300D when I switched over from my Minolta film cameras, as much as I love my R3 and R5 I think Canon are lagging behind the lenses, as much as the 100-500 is amazing why couldn't they make a 200-600mm F6.3 like everybody else? I love Nikon's new Z800mm F6.3 prime, with that lens and the new 180-600mm they have coming that would be perfect, and Nikon's pricing, Canon lenses are ridiculously priced, that new 200-500mm F4 coming soon at 16k is stupid money.
I know all about shooting from cars with big primes it's almost impossible 🤣🤣 and same as you I love the quietness of the R3 I am getting so much closer to wildlife, I didn't realise how loud my DX2 and 3 really were.
I have subscribed looking forward to the safari video.
@@tonyesposito9602 Thanks for your support. I’m looking to make a daily diary showing everything we experience including accommodation, food and facilities in the camps over 24 days. Been travelling to Kruger annually for 10 years so we know enough locations to hopefully inform and entertain.
Ameging
I love birdwatching and photography
Me too… any time spent with those that deserve the earth more than mankind is time well spent in my opinion.
would you like to appear in one of my livestreams ?
Hi. Found the channel and subscribed …also to the Facebook group. Up for a chat about the livestream perhaps. How do you feel about my sharing some of my channel content on the group pages?
I own the Canon 500mm F4 IS version 2 and I can tell you.....I will never part with her !!!!
It was a matter of practicality for me after difficulties with weight on airlines plus a move to more video production which is almost impossible with a 500mm prime.