Thank you. I own the 100-400 IS II and a 1.4 III TC. I just took delivery on an R7. I plan to use that combination, along with my collection of older EF primes with the R7, at least for a while. I'm waiting on the RF/EF adapter, due today. I found your comparison of the auto focus (on the bicycle) to be very useful. I wish you had done a similar comparison on the bird in flight shots.
Very interesting to hear about the teleconverters and actual lens construction - Australian prices for the Canon mirrorless system are still too high to justify leaving my 100-400 but I appreciate your review so much!
I just rented this lenses this sunday and I'm amazed by the performance paired with the R6 high iso capabilities. One day I will definitely buy this lens instead of the 70-200.
Great review as always Gordon, but I would like you to repeat the test using the EF 100-400mm mkii with the EF 1.4x mkiii teleconverter to see how that combination works, as I own these and have ordered a R5 but will not be able to afford the RF 100-500mm as well, I can not find a review on this combination anywhere on you tube. A lot of people who are switching over to the RF mount that did not buy a EOS R or RP would have this combination of lens and teleconverter.
Check out Ken Rockwell’s reviews , according to him the EF version works flawlessly with the R5 and R6 with the 1.4x and 2x T.C and even both stacked if you have the mark ii versions
Great work Gordon . My EF 100-400 mk2 and teleconverters will stay as rightly the review shows it’s not really worth the new lens purchase . Better for owners like me to save for the R5 or R6 body as I already have the RF adapter with the additional ring. I would highly recommend viewing your R camera reviews that provide all the answers to anyone pondering on what to invest in for the future. All in all another coffee donation is well warranted as I continue to enjoy your book and your brilliant back catalogue of TH-cam work . The industry would be a lot poorer without your commitment and honesty.
Great balanced review, would it ever be possible to review a side by side comparison of the 100-500 against the Sigma 150-600 Sport ? I have found the sigma to be almost as sharp as my Canon 600 f4 IS II prime, but unlike the monster prime very practical when you're not sure what distance you will need to shoot at. Like a lot of Canon users, I have no issue swapping to the R5 as I was using the 5DSR and 7DMKII, but the thought of changing over 20k of glass is daunting, to say the least. I also have to say I'm not a fan at all of the new F11, with our weather in the UK being stuck at F11 in poor light would be a nightmare for wildlife, with either the shutter speed coming down or the ISO sky high both of which would ruin a lot of wildlife shots
No, such a shame. I so wish that Canon had started out planning for 500mm f5.6 at the long end and worked back from there. If it had to end up a trace heavier or bigger so be it. However, now the only reason to buy the 100-500 over the excellent 100-400mk II is for the last 100mm of focal length but you have to pay the penalty of it becoming a really slow lens.
@@wildcat1065Two thirds of a stop for another 100mm isn't that big a deal! Also, one reason the 100-500 is so popular is because of the (light) weight.
Gordon, you really hit home with the “it’s so easy to enjoy a video, but then move on without realizing you never subscribed.” TH-cam suggests your videos all the time, and I love them, but didn’t realize I wasn’t subscribed until today. I really appreciate the work you put in, and the depth that you go into for videos like these. Keep up the excellent work, definitely subscribed now.
Gordon, great review. I just bought the ef 100-400 L is ii. There was a brief sale on it and i still am using apsc canon dslrs. So the ability to work with that and an rf mount down the road, and use the teleconverters throughout their zoom range was what sold me on it. Craig
Super helpful review. I have the 100-400 vers ii. Based on your review, i think i’ll stick with it and just pick up the 1.4 teleconverter for a bit more reach.
If you had the choice between the canon 100-500 or the Nikon 500mm f5.6 which would you prefer? I have both the Nikon z6 ii and canon r6 so can’t decide which to invest in.
Fantastic video Gordon, loved the slo-mo videos and animal shots and in particular the dog at the beginning. I noticed some, very slight, hunting on the moon shots and some of the others, but it was very minor, the camera has it's work cut out at these focal lengths. As a combo, I have to gulp at the price though... must get a Saturday job!
Great review Gordon. I’d love to see how the IQ (and AF) holds up using the 1.4 or 2 teleconverters. And how well this lens works on an R. I know it isn’t always practical to test new lenses on older bodies, but I also don’t have $5500 to drop on a R5. As for 100-500/100-400, I rarely shoot below 400 on my 100-400 - I really just don’t have $10-11k to drop on a 400 prime...so for good IQ this is the only option. But need that 1.4/2 TC to get 600+ either way.
A very useful review that tells me what I need to know, especially as I've owned the 100-400mm mkII lens for four years. One thing you might not be aware of is that the 100-400mm mkII has an undocumented close focus feature at mid-range. I've never actually measured this, but somewhere between 200mm+ to just over 300mm, it will actually focus to around 75cm instead of 98cm. I'm wondering if the 100-500mm might be similar. You can test it out for yourself, and maybe establish the exact figures.
@@cameralabs - I'd had mine for nearly a year and I only discovered because I read about it on a forum. Actually it makes it easier to handhold and it's very useful as I often use my 100-400mm mkII for photographing dragonflies and damselflies. I've not tested whether the reproduction ratio is higher, but at the very least it seems similar to that at 400mm.
What I want from Canon is a 500mm F5.6 sharp prime for $3,999. Nikon makes one of these for their F mount and it's always back ordered. F5.6 will work. F11 is ridiculous and zooms...I don't like zooms. I want maximum sharp.
I would of killed for this to have a max of F5.6. Would of been worth the extra $2000 or less $3000. But I could see a 500-800 coming out for 8 grand or something. I know cannon claims they dont weaken their gear to keep other stuff selling, but if a 500mm ,800mm 5.6 or 2.8 even we will have our answer. Even if this was 500mm max at the old EF 100-400 F 5.6 it would risk cutting into the lenses I think they plan to sell for 6k+ I would love it... and I think they should of done that.
I love the idea behind this lens, which in my opinion was mostly it's portability for traveling. The compact design simply screams "take me to Iceland/ safari!". If I had to choose between this and a 70-200 I wouldn't hesitate one second and grab the larger lens and have the opportunity to photograph Puffins and have them nicely filling the frame without the need of cropping 300% and loosing a lot of the details. The teleconverters compatibility is a big bonus as well, regardless of the need to zoom in to 300mm to fit the extender tube withing the lens.
Excellent review although I would have liked to see the 100-400 with a 1.4TC attached vs the 100-500 naked. Using the RF 1.4TC is a bit of a no no really as it certainly restricts the range and field of view so if a subject is coming towards you you need to remove the TC. The 100-400 meanwhile is happy down to 140mm. I'd have like a comparison in AF acquisition between the the naked 100-500 and the 100-400mm plus 1.4TC. and is the latter faster on an R5 than on a body such as the 5D4?
Just got it used after i lost my ef-100-400 ii to water. I can agree 100% with the review: no discernable difference in image quality on 20mpix r6(mk i). Handling is better though with less weight, faster af and better image stabilizatiön
First, thank you for the video. Curious why you never compared the EF 100-400mm to the RF with a 1.4X III converter on the EF lens so they both reached out to 500mm? That would have been nice to see . With the greatly reduced price of readily available used 100-400 that would be a strong consideration I would have thought. Take care.
I was some what apprehensive about purchasing this lens. Your thorough review makes me feel so much better about my purchase. My pre-order is on the way.
I am definitely going to get this lens based upon your very detailed and helpful review. Thank you for such wonderful detail. One really important detail to me was the fact that 7.1 only kicks in after 472mm. This is a VERY important detail
Just changed from Nikon D850 to a Canon R5, i went for the 100-400 but thought about changing till you pointed out the f stop difference, great review, one of the best I've seen so I've subscribed. Thank you
I have the RF 70-200 2.8 and am honestly speaking guttered the converter does not work for it. I think I would probably go to the f11 for bigger zoom as I disagree on the f7.1 in this one considering the cost.
Amazing review as always, please make a review on the RF 15-35mm vs the RF 24-70mm, they overlap in focal lengths but do they perform the same within the overlap??
I was very surprised to learn that the tele-converter is a hard stop for the zoom at 300mm. Maybe Canon does not expect zoomers to use extenders. And I wonder if Canon can possibly defend the price tag : for the Canon RF 100-500 (lens only) you can get a Sony A73 camera plus the 200-600 lens.
@@cameralabs In Switzerland the preorder price for the RF 100-500 ist CHF 3099,- . I have spotted the FE 200-600 today for 1529,- (mediamarkt.ch) at 15% discount. The remaining 1600,- gets you pretty close to a discounted A73. I remember having seen the camera retailing at 1700,- recently.
@@poudrieres I think you're looking at some grey imports there for those cheaper prices, so check them for the 100-500 when it's been on sale for a while.
@@poudrieres I'd not heard of them. But either way you're comparing the price of gear that's a year to a few years old vs a pre-order at full retail. Give the 100-500 a while on-sale and it'll get discounted too. Obviously if you want or need to buy today though, go for the Sony if price is the biggest concern.
Another great video, Gordon. Thank you! Maybe one of these days my R5 will finally arrive. Until then, I won’t be ordering any RF lenses. Good to know what’s available, though, and by now Canon have released just about every type of lens I’d ever use. Perhaps the only thing missing is a native pancake lens.
Excellent review. I found your descriptions of the autofocus modes that you chose to be especially useful to be able to judge the merits of the lens. I've watched several other reviews of this lens and yours was the best! I shoot a lot of star fields and have noticed that the 100-400 mm has slightly uneven and out-of-round images just away from the optimum focus at wide open aperture - a good test of optics. Ultimately, this limits the magnitude that you can reach for a given exposure/aperture/ISO. Have you tried this with the 100-500 lens?
Excellent review on a very interesting lens. I do agree that more affordable 200-600mm would be very interesting as well. Thank you very much for your great work !
For those who are complaining about f7.1; Canon does have alternatives. The RF 500 f4 prime for $13k USD. OR Sigma /Tamron 150-600 for about $1k. You get what you pay for.
Thank you for this, I have the R5, already had ef100-400 II and bought the RF 70-200 and rf800. I’m an old guy and find myself doing local hummingbirds.. I LOVE the RF 800 with the 2X, thx for that video too!!
I'm just about to receive the 600 and 800 for testing, albeit 'only' with the 1.4x TC. How are you enjoying the 800 with the 2x? PS - if you're ever ordering online, please consider using some of my links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!
Gordon Laing I love it, minimum focus distance is a pain, but getting used to it! My hummingbirds are mostly in shrubs and hard to focus at f22, f11 works well at noon. Took som moon shots either the converter and pleasantly surprised! Sorry about not using your links for purchase will do next time. Thx again
Already got the 100-400mm mk2 good to see it works well on the R5 not going update it when I get the R5. Just waiting for good prices on grey HK imports. UK pricing has gone bonkers good that you mentioned both prices. It used to be we'd get ripped off in the UK same numbers dollars to pounds nowadays it's actually more £ than $. Americans have got it good.
@@RichardLaurence yes I agree they also give you 3 years warranty which might come in handy considering the price of the R5, e-infin is also another one I keep a close eye on prices tend to be cheaper but only 1 year warranty. I will probably wait till after xmas when the prices are stable. I've got some decent cam gear anyway while I wait.
tax is done differently between the UK and US - our prices already include 20% VAT, whereas theirs do not include state tax. Plus they typically pay a lot more for healthcare and education than we do.
Great review. Perhaps because I was using the lower refresh rate in eco mode, but I found the EVF of the R5 very difficult to track kiteboarders in mid air vs a 5D body. I also found the subject detection was locking onto waves instead of people when the distances were greater than what you're showing in the video.
Yes, it needs to identify the subject in order to track it, but I still had good success with the surfers when they were further than I showed here. If it's prioritising the waves, I help it along with a zoned area instead, but wide with face detect does work amazingly well for me. Make sure you have human selected too.
The greatest RF glass salesman ever! Now you’re tempting glass and that R3, you are truly providing temptation. Gotten your hands on a Ninja V+ that will record 8K ProRes Raw from the R5?
Wow, I really loved this review ! ! I’m currently carefully investigating each lens on my wish list in order to make a choice of going with the Canon R5 platform vs the Sony a1 with GM lenses. That Sony 200-600 looks really, really sweet, but video stabilization is more stable on the Canon with the 100-500. Decisions, Decisions …
Great review thank you. Considering the majority of these lenses are used for photographing wildlife, I wish Canon would make a green or preferably camo version, I know that lens covers are available but they don't cover the bright white lens barrel when it is extended. I understand Canon claim it is to reflect heat but other manufacturers are able to overcome this issue so presumably it is just a marketing ploy which is ironic when I would be more inclined to purchase a non white lens.
@@cameralabs yes sir!! 😀 This one is the Sigma 150-600 "Sport" version. There is another lower priced version called Sigma 150-600mm "contemporary" version. Compare any one of those two with RF 100-500mm. And, if possible, compare Sony 200-600mm G lens with them too.. That'll be a great telephoto comparison video. CANON rf 100-500mm vs Sigma 150-600mm vs Sony 200-600mm...🔥🔥
RF 100-500mm is a great lens but its slightly expensive for its class. This is 70-75mm aperture lens, while people were expecting from canon some kind of this new popular lenses which are between 70-75mm class and expensive big monsters of 100mm+ class. Like tamron/sigma 150-600 6.3 or Nikon 200-500 5.6. I mean even sony now have 200-600 5.6-6.3 for less money. I know that Nikon is from "amateur" line up and does not have weather resistant, and sony is just "G", not G master, so maybe canon 100-500 is build to higher standarts, however, they give oportunity to get more glass and more light for less money. I'm really waiting for canon to join the game of this "light heavyweight" telefoto lenses.
Dima 135 I’ve been a Canon shooter since 1981. Have used virtually every brand , but my personal cameras have always been Canon or Pentax . I bought the EOS R on pre-order and loved it, using my existing EF-L series lenses and I purchased the RF 35 & the Rf 24-105. I kept hearing and seeing so many reviews about Sony that I bought the A7Riii , 24-105 and the 200-600 lens. The images were great, but I struggled to get the focusing and hit rates that so many reviewers talked about with the Sony . I did a few eagle hunting photo days and on both days I got really good shots with the Sony 200-600 , but it hunted and missed far too many shots as compared to my EF 100-400 adapted to my R . I now have the R5, sold all my Sony gear, and it fits me better. I have the RF15-35, and 70-200 now, to go with the earlier RF glass, and am waiting for the 100-500 . Just my experience as sharp photos on the Sony were excellent, but I just didn’t ever get comfortable with the menus, focusing , focus breathing and it made it easy for me to decide to sell it off and stay 100% with Canon once again . Even filming , I liked the colors from my R vs the Sony . I do notice a color shift with the R5 as compared to the R ... that caught me a little bit . I would love for the prices to be less, but the results are worth it for me .
@@view23015 It's always good to read a real user's review, but nevertheless, it will be even better if Canon joins to this trend, and produce some analog to this lenses.
The choice is clear If you still shoot with a Canon dslr...even if you don't, why limit your your reach. Canon 100-400mm 5.6 II would be a wise choice if you want a low cost highly durable lens which can be used on ef dslr and rf mirrorless mount, plus extended reach with Tele extenders farther than the rf 100-500mm lens can reach. With the ef 100-400mm you can use both the 1.4 iii and 2x III Tele extenders simultaneously for extreme reach. With all zoom ranges. The 100-500mm rf lens is limited to 300 to 500mm range with a Tele extender. So if you're planning on using Tele extenders you might consider other lens options. The 100-400mm ef ii is a rock solid all metal durable lens while the 100-500mm rf is although a lighter weight lens. It has a plastic exterior less durable plastic filter threads, it does have some metal on the inside and the mount of is metal. The 100-400mm ef II lens has instant one touch manual focus mechanical override. The 100-400mm ef II and the 100-500mm rf lens both are very sharp. The rf has a electronic focus override that is difficult to use. Three steps to do what the 100-400mm II accomplishes in one touch. The i.s. for both lenses are excellent. The 100-400mm ef ii has a little lower cost but you have to factor in the cost and slight extra weight of the ef/rf adaptor. You can save cost buying a used Canon ef 100-400mm i.s. ii they have been around for quite some time and are readily available.
Fantastic review their Gordon did a great job I love it . I'm on the verge of moving into the RF system myself I borrowed a friend of mine's R5 to try it I was very confused and the look in the viewfinder ( I didn't like it ) I still do love my 7D Mark II I'm not quite ready to move into the R5 yet but when I do I probably will get the 100 to 500 like what you have used here the only question I have is why can't you use that 100-500 with 1.4 at all focal length's .
I cant wait until Sigma and Tamron start making RF lenses. I own the 150-600 from Sigma but... i noticed some focussing quirks when adapting it to my R6 and trying to lock on to moving subjects. There was like... a guey delay lag between me telling the camera to start focussing and it actually starting to work.
ughhhh, the Tamron 150-600 G2 has ta similar problem. It works great with fast-moving subjects but for anything that is more stationary the AF twitches in and out instead of locking on.
Good morning Gordon, thanks for another informative and interesting video. I just received my 800 f/11 with the RF 1.4x and weather permitting will photograph the moon 🌝 using a Fornax LighTrack II tracker. Thanks again! ☕️
Thanks for your review. I bought the 100-500 and love it! I'm now thinking of getting the 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. Aside from the issue of not being able to close the lens down below 300mm, is there a preference? Do they both autofocus? What are the minimum F stop on each. Anything else I should know? Thanks in advance!
As always an excellent review. I currently use a 6D and 5Ds and own a few L lenses but it's the new RF L lenses that make me want to pick up an R5. The R5 comnined with the new RF lenses seem so much sharper with the added benefit of IBIS and lens IS.
![[TH] RNT vs SPG - VCT Ascension Pacific - Day 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RUTkf8Detj8/mqdefault.jpg)
In-depth Canon RF 100-500mm review vs EF 100-400mm. Best RF telephoto zoom!
Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/3fgPW11 // WEX: bit.ly/3iNkAkX
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Sample images: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-100-500mm-f4-5-7-1l-is-usm-review/
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
#canon #rf #telephoto
I don’t use PayPal had bad problems with them and no trust with their customer service.
instablaster
Thank you. I own the 100-400 IS II and a 1.4 III TC. I just took delivery on an R7. I plan to use that combination, along with my collection of older EF primes with the R7, at least for a while. I'm waiting on the RF/EF adapter, due today. I found your comparison of the auto focus (on the bicycle) to be very useful. I wish you had done a similar comparison on the bird in flight shots.
Very interesting to hear about the teleconverters and actual lens construction - Australian prices for the Canon mirrorless system are still too high to justify leaving my 100-400 but I appreciate your review so much!
Give it time, hopefully!
I just rented this lenses this sunday and I'm amazed by the performance paired with the R6 high iso capabilities. One day I will definitely buy this lens instead of the 70-200.
Great review as always Gordon, but I would like you to repeat the test using the EF 100-400mm mkii with the EF 1.4x mkiii teleconverter to see how that combination works, as I own these and have ordered a R5 but will not be able to afford the RF 100-500mm as well, I can not find a review on this combination anywhere on you tube. A lot of people who are switching over to the RF mount that did not buy a EOS R or RP would have this combination of lens and teleconverter.
Check out Ken Rockwell’s reviews , according to him the EF version works flawlessly with the R5 and R6 with the 1.4x and 2x T.C and even both stacked if you have the mark ii versions
perfect comparison.
i love too use the 100-400 verion 2 because of the perfect quality with both extenders.
thank you, Gordon.
Nice review. After watching this I've decided to stay with my 100-400II. It's still a stellar lens and also works flawlessly with the 1.4x
Do the ef teleconverters work when paired with an ef to rf adapter? Or what combination are you using?
@@jakegreen9482 yes, they work perfectly
justin holding Thank you!
Loving the slow motion b-roll Gordon! Plus the fact that my EF 100-400 is still competing with the new version.
Thanks Ben! And thanks also for suggesting David Cutter music!
Great work Gordon . My EF 100-400 mk2 and teleconverters will stay as rightly the review shows it’s not really worth the new lens purchase . Better for owners like me to save for the R5 or R6 body as I already have the RF adapter with the additional ring. I would highly recommend viewing your R camera reviews that provide all the answers to anyone pondering on what to invest in for the future. All in all another coffee donation is well warranted as I continue to enjoy your book and your brilliant back catalogue of TH-cam work . The industry would be a lot poorer without your commitment and honesty.
Thanks Ken, your kind words - and coffee! - are always appreciated! And I agree, the R5 makes more sense to your future upgrades.
Great balanced review, would it ever be possible to review a side by side comparison of the 100-500 against the Sigma 150-600 Sport ? I have found the sigma to be almost as sharp as my Canon 600 f4 IS II prime, but unlike the monster prime very practical when you're not sure what distance you will need to shoot at. Like a lot of Canon users, I have no issue swapping to the R5 as I was using the 5DSR and 7DMKII, but the thought of changing over 20k of glass is daunting, to say the least. I also have to say I'm not a fan at all of the new F11, with our weather in the UK being stuck at F11 in poor light would be a nightmare for wildlife, with either the shutter speed coming down or the ISO sky high both of which would ruin a lot of wildlife shots
Then it’s something wrong with your prime. The Sigma is crap.
Another really helpful and detailed review Gordon. Thanks and enjoy your coffee ☕️:-)
I have been waiting for this one. Clear, objective and in-depth. Thanks for sharing!
Thankyou!
First class review as usual, Gordon. Thank you!
Glad you found it useful!
I wasn’t quite expecting f7.1 on the long end! 😱
No, such a shame. I so wish that Canon had started out planning for 500mm f5.6 at the long end and worked back from there. If it had to end up a trace heavier or bigger so be it. However, now the only reason to buy the 100-500 over the excellent 100-400mk II is for the last 100mm of focal length but you have to pay the penalty of it becoming a really slow lens.
@@wildcat1065Two thirds of a stop for another 100mm isn't that big a deal! Also, one reason the 100-500 is so popular is because of the (light) weight.
Gordon, you really hit home with the “it’s so easy to enjoy a video, but then move on without realizing you never subscribed.” TH-cam suggests your videos all the time, and I love them, but didn’t realize I wasn’t subscribed until today. I really appreciate the work you put in, and the depth that you go into for videos like these. Keep up the excellent work, definitely subscribed now.
Thanks Jacob, much appreciated!
Gordon, great review. I just bought the ef 100-400 L is ii. There was a brief sale on it and i still am using apsc canon dslrs. So the ability to work with that and an rf mount down the road, and use the teleconverters throughout their zoom range was what sold me on it. Craig
I was really impressed with the 100-400 II
Super helpful review. I have the 100-400 vers ii. Based on your review, i think i’ll stick with it and just pick up the 1.4 teleconverter for a bit more reach.
Thanks for your video and i will got the RF100-500mm lens tomorrow. Lon Huang from Taiwan.
Thanks for this review!
So, this lens is a great follow up to an already brilliant EF version.
Exactly!
If you had the choice between the canon 100-500 or the Nikon 500mm f5.6 which would you prefer? I have both the Nikon z6 ii and canon r6 so can’t decide which to invest in.
Do you want a zoom or a prime? Which camera better focuses on the subjects you take? I think it would be Canon for both for me.
Wow those moon shots at the end!!! I'm sure you'll be able to see all kinds of interesting things filming like that!
As always a superb review and comparison Gordon thanks for the hard work you have put in to do it for everyone 👍👌😉
Thankyou!
Have you used the 100-500 RF on the EOS R7?
Fantastic video Gordon, loved the slo-mo videos and animal shots and in particular the dog at the beginning. I noticed some, very slight, hunting on the moon shots and some of the others, but it was very minor, the camera has it's work cut out at these focal lengths. As a combo, I have to gulp at the price though... must get a Saturday job!
Thanks Bob, and also for mentioning all the slomo clips - I did put most of them towards the end, but I'm proud of that little sequence!
Great review Gordon. I’d love to see how the IQ (and AF) holds up using the 1.4 or 2 teleconverters. And how well this lens works on an R. I know it isn’t always practical to test new lenses on older bodies, but I also don’t have $5500 to drop on a R5. As for 100-500/100-400, I rarely shoot below 400 on my 100-400 - I really just don’t have $10-11k to drop on a 400 prime...so for good IQ this is the only option. But need that 1.4/2 TC to get 600+ either way.
YES! The EOS-R is a great deal these days which MANY people are picking up
A very useful review that tells me what I need to know, especially as I've owned the 100-400mm mkII lens for four years. One thing you might not be aware of is that the 100-400mm mkII has an undocumented close focus feature at mid-range. I've never actually measured this, but somewhere between 200mm+ to just over 300mm, it will actually focus to around 75cm instead of 98cm. I'm wondering if the 100-500mm might be similar. You can test it out for yourself, and maybe establish the exact figures.
That's a good tip! I only tested them at the longest and shortest ends...
@@cameralabs - I'd had mine for nearly a year and I only discovered because I read about it on a forum. Actually it makes it easier to handhold and it's very useful as I often use my 100-400mm mkII for photographing dragonflies and damselflies. I've not tested whether the reproduction ratio is higher, but at the very least it seems similar to that at 400mm.
What I want from Canon is a 500mm F5.6 sharp prime for $3,999. Nikon makes one of these for their F mount and it's always back ordered. F5.6 will work. F11 is ridiculous and zooms...I don't like zooms. I want maximum sharp.
I would of killed for this to have a max of F5.6. Would of been worth the extra $2000 or less $3000. But I could see a 500-800 coming out for 8 grand or something. I know cannon claims they dont weaken their gear to keep other stuff selling, but if a 500mm ,800mm 5.6 or 2.8 even we will have our answer. Even if this was 500mm max at the old EF 100-400 F 5.6 it would risk cutting into the lenses I think they plan to sell for 6k+
I would love it... and I think they should of done that.
I really like that you do this at 10:50. I wish more people has this kind of information available on their reviews
It's all about putting in extra effort!
I love the idea behind this lens, which in my opinion was mostly it's portability for traveling. The compact design simply screams "take me to Iceland/ safari!". If I had to choose between this and a 70-200 I wouldn't hesitate one second and grab the larger lens and have the opportunity to photograph Puffins and have them nicely filling the frame without the need of cropping 300% and loosing a lot of the details. The teleconverters compatibility is a big bonus as well, regardless of the need to zoom in to 300mm to fit the extender tube withing the lens.
Excellent review although I would have liked to see the 100-400 with a 1.4TC attached vs the 100-500 naked. Using the RF 1.4TC is a bit of a no no really as it certainly restricts the range and field of view so if a subject is coming towards you you need to remove the TC. The 100-400 meanwhile is happy down to 140mm. I'd have like a comparison in AF acquisition between the the naked 100-500 and the 100-400mm plus 1.4TC. and is the latter faster on an R5 than on a body such as the 5D4?
that would be interesting, yes.
All your videos are so informative... great work! Thank you!
That chart at 10:00 is exactly what I needed to see, thank you for this!
You're welcome!
does it mean EF lens wins because of longer range F5?
Probably the best channel for in depth lens reviews. Thanks
Thankyou!
Thank you! I wish all reviews and comparisons were just like this. Subscribed.
Thanks, all of mine are!
Just got it used after i lost my ef-100-400 ii to water. I can agree 100% with the review: no discernable difference in image quality on 20mpix r6(mk i). Handling is better though with less weight, faster af and better image stabilizatiön
First, thank you for the video. Curious why you never compared the EF 100-400mm to the RF with a 1.4X III converter on the EF lens so they both reached out to 500mm? That would have been nice to see . With the greatly reduced price of readily available used 100-400 that would be a strong consideration I would have thought. Take care.
hmmm, 100-500 and 600-1000 with 2x, I'd like to see that combination reviewed
Me too!
Gordon Laing your the man I’d trust to do it 👍
I was some what apprehensive about purchasing this lens. Your thorough review makes me feel so much better about my purchase. My pre-order is on the way.
Glad to have helped - and bonus points if you pre-ordered via one of my links!
I am definitely going to get this lens based upon your very detailed and helpful review. Thank you for such wonderful detail. One really important detail to me was the fact that 7.1 only kicks in after 472mm. This is a VERY important detail
You're very welcome!
Thanks so much for this review. Very helpful in filling in some of the blanks I had concerning AF and shutter modes!
Just changed from Nikon D850 to a Canon R5, i went for the 100-400 but thought about changing till you pointed out the f stop difference, great review, one of the best I've seen so I've subscribed. Thank you
Thanks, hope you get a chance to check out some of my other reviews too!
@Gordon Laing certainly will, yours are clear, in depth and very precise
Gordon, I love your reviews. Thank you for the time and effort you put into them. Only if I had the money to buy an EOS R5 + RF 100-500.
Thanks! This one took ages.
After 2 years since you posted your review I still benefit from it! I'm about to buy a 100-500!
Glad you're finding it useful!
I have the RF 70-200 2.8 and am honestly speaking guttered the converter does not work for it. I think I would probably go to the f11 for bigger zoom as I disagree on the f7.1 in this one considering the cost.
Yes, I think the 600 and 800 will be popular for this reason.
Thanks for the complete review on this new lens.
You're very welcome!
Great video and great explanation as well!!!
Thanks!
Adding Sigma 60-600 and 150-600 Sport will be interesting too..
That was the video, which I was serching for. Thank you. I own the 100-400 II (+ 1.4 Konverter) and I will keep it for my R5.
Can the lens be locked at 472mm?
Amazing review as always, please make a review on the RF 15-35mm vs the RF 24-70mm, they overlap in focal lengths but do they perform the same within the overlap??
Well, looks like Canon did not lose its mind with those f/11 primes. This lens looks beastly!
Sigh, I guess I need to start saving.
I was very surprised to learn that the tele-converter is a hard stop for the zoom at 300mm. Maybe Canon does not expect zoomers to use extenders.
And I wonder if Canon can possibly defend the price tag : for the Canon RF 100-500 (lens only) you can get a Sony A73 camera plus the 200-600 lens.
Where can you get an A7 III and 200-600 for $2699 USD?
@@cameralabs In Switzerland the preorder price for the RF 100-500 ist CHF 3099,- . I have spotted the FE 200-600 today for 1529,- (mediamarkt.ch) at 15% discount. The remaining 1600,- gets you pretty close to a discounted A73. I remember having seen the camera retailing at 1700,- recently.
@@poudrieres I think you're looking at some grey imports there for those cheaper prices, so check them for the 100-500 when it's been on sale for a while.
@@cameralabs Sorry Gordon - Mediamarkt is chain of stores owned by Ceconomy, one of Europe's biggest retailers.
@@poudrieres I'd not heard of them. But either way you're comparing the price of gear that's a year to a few years old vs a pre-order at full retail. Give the 100-500 a while on-sale and it'll get discounted too. Obviously if you want or need to buy today though, go for the Sony if price is the biggest concern.
Another excellent, thorough and intelligently presented review, thanks Gordon.
Thanks!
Another great video, Gordon. Thank you! Maybe one of these days my R5 will finally arrive. Until then, I won’t be ordering any RF lenses. Good to know what’s available, though, and by now Canon have released just about every type of lens I’d ever use. Perhaps the only thing missing is a native pancake lens.
Yes, some really small lenses would be nice - that's why I like the RF 35mm
Thank you, Gordon! Your reviews are 👍
Thanks!
Great video! Gotta say, I love that tune in the slow mo b-roll, it worked perfectly!
Thanks!
Excellent review. I found your descriptions of the autofocus modes that you chose to be especially useful to be able to judge the merits of the lens. I've watched several other reviews of this lens and yours was the best! I shoot a lot of star fields and have noticed that the 100-400 mm has slightly uneven and out-of-round images just away from the optimum focus at wide open aperture - a good test of optics. Ultimately, this limits the magnitude that you can reach for a given exposure/aperture/ISO. Have you tried this with the 100-500 lens?
Thanks Mark. No, I've not tried it with star fields, I find extending lenses aren't really ideal with potential creep.
Thank you for the very thorough in-depth review. Liked and subscribed.
Glad you enjoyed it! Do check out my other RF lens reviews too!
Excellent review on a very interesting lens. I do agree that more affordable 200-600mm would be very interesting as well.
Thank you very much for your great work !
You're very welcome!
I’m a fairly new follower, but this video is the best I’ve seen from you so far! Great review!
Thanks for following!
For those who are complaining about f7.1; Canon does have alternatives. The RF 500 f4 prime for $13k USD. OR Sigma /Tamron 150-600 for about $1k. You get what you pay for.
fantastic, comprehensive video... thanks Gordon!
You're welcome!
Your a devil Laing , you keep tempting us with all this lovely RF glass....
You know you want it...
Thank you for this, I have the R5, already had ef100-400 II and bought the RF 70-200 and rf800. I’m an old guy and find myself doing local hummingbirds.. I LOVE the RF 800 with the 2X, thx for that video too!!
I'm just about to receive the 600 and 800 for testing, albeit 'only' with the 1.4x TC. How are you enjoying the 800 with the 2x? PS - if you're ever ordering online, please consider using some of my links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!
Gordon Laing I love it, minimum focus distance is a pain, but getting used to it! My hummingbirds are mostly in shrubs and hard to focus at f22, f11 works well at noon. Took som moon shots either the converter and pleasantly surprised! Sorry about not using your links for purchase will do next time. Thx again
Another stellar review Gordon. Thank you!
Thanks@ Do check out my other Rf lens reviews!
Hi, this is a great review like R5, thank you so much. Apparently new rf 100-500 beter than the old ef 100-400 is II. I will buy it now :)
You're welcome! PS - if you're ever ordering online, please consider using some of my links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!
Great review, just bought this lens at a tax-free Boxing day sale, around USD 2,300. Looking forward getting out and shooting some photos now
Nice price! It's a great lens.
Awesome review. Thank you ! I think I will stay with my 100-400 lenses
Again an outstanding thorough review Gordon 👍
Hope to see one of the RF24-70 f2,8 performing on the R5
I've actually used this lens on the R5 a lot and really liked it. Much better than the 24-105.
Already got the 100-400mm mk2 good to see it works well on the R5 not going update it when I get the R5. Just waiting for good prices on grey HK imports. UK pricing has gone bonkers good that you mentioned both prices. It used to be we'd get ripped off in the UK same numbers dollars to pounds nowadays it's actually more £ than $. Americans have got it good.
Panamoz has been excellent for me
@@RichardLaurence yes I agree they also give you 3 years warranty which might come in handy considering the price of the R5, e-infin is also another one I keep a close eye on prices tend to be cheaper but only 1 year warranty. I will probably wait till after xmas when the prices are stable. I've got some decent cam gear anyway while I wait.
Here in New Zealand we really get ripped off with the R5 costing NZD 7,500 which is USD 4,900 , however we get a full 5 year warranty
@@noelchignell1048 In the UK the official price from a lot of the main cam companies is £4200 that is US $5400 :-(
tax is done differently between the UK and US - our prices already include 20% VAT, whereas theirs do not include state tax. Plus they typically pay a lot more for healthcare and education than we do.
Price difference is even bigger now, you can get good quality EF lenses really cheap now.
I was either getting this for my rp or getting the r6 and 600 f11. Sold the rp and got the r6 and 600 and i don't regret it at all.
Great review. Perhaps because I was using the lower refresh rate in eco mode, but I found the EVF of the R5 very difficult to track kiteboarders in mid air vs a 5D body. I also found the subject detection was locking onto waves instead of people when the distances were greater than what you're showing in the video.
Yes, it needs to identify the subject in order to track it, but I still had good success with the surfers when they were further than I showed here. If it's prioritising the waves, I help it along with a zoned area instead, but wide with face detect does work amazingly well for me. Make sure you have human selected too.
The greatest RF glass salesman ever! Now you’re tempting glass and that R3, you are truly providing temptation. Gotten your hands on a Ninja V+ that will record 8K ProRes Raw from the R5?
The latest AF from Canon is amazing. It’s almost set it and forget it, especially for video. It’s one of the reasons I’m migrating to EF and RF.
I agree - and Sony too - I rarely have to think about manually placing AF areas anymore.
Wow, I really loved this review ! ! I’m currently carefully investigating each lens on my wish list in order to make a choice of going with the Canon R5 platform vs the Sony a1 with GM lenses. That Sony 200-600 looks really, really sweet, but video stabilization is more stable on the Canon with the 100-500. Decisions, Decisions …
Both great choices!
The Sony FE 200-600 ist not a GM Lens ist is just a G lens, but still a very good lens.
Great review thank you. Considering the majority of these lenses are used for photographing wildlife, I wish Canon would make a green or preferably camo version, I know that lens covers are available but they don't cover the bright white lens barrel when it is extended. I understand Canon claim it is to reflect heat but other manufacturers are able to overcome this issue so presumably it is just a marketing ploy which is ironic when I would be more inclined to purchase a non white lens.
you can use rp to film 4k for birds for exceptional reach.
Yes, the crop can actually be beneficial for long work!
Beast lens
Macro tubes are fun on long lenses
Sir please compare this RF 100-500mm lens with Sigma 150-600mm.. 🙏🏻🙏🏻
This one? www.cameralabs.com/sigma_150-600mm_f5-6-3_dg_os_hsm_sport/
@@cameralabs yes sir!! 😀 This one is the Sigma 150-600 "Sport" version. There is another lower priced version called Sigma 150-600mm "contemporary" version. Compare any one of those two with RF 100-500mm.
And, if possible, compare Sony 200-600mm G lens with them too.. That'll be a great telephoto comparison video.
CANON rf 100-500mm vs Sigma 150-600mm vs Sony 200-600mm...🔥🔥
Looks buttery. Sure kicks ass over my Tamron 150-600 F/5.6-6.3 G2, which is decent, and way WAY smaller and lighter.
Actually, I tried the Tamron before I bought the Canon 100-500 and it's heavier and longer plus even longer with the EF adapter on the R5.
looking at the difference, i keep my 100-400 in my bag 😊
RF 100-500mm is a great lens but its slightly expensive for its class. This is 70-75mm aperture lens, while people were expecting from canon some kind of this new popular lenses which are between 70-75mm class and expensive big monsters of 100mm+ class. Like tamron/sigma 150-600 6.3 or Nikon 200-500 5.6. I mean even sony now have 200-600 5.6-6.3 for less money. I know that Nikon is from "amateur" line up and does not have weather resistant, and sony is just "G", not G master, so maybe canon 100-500 is build to higher standarts, however, they give oportunity to get more glass and more light for less money. I'm really waiting for canon to join the game of this "light heavyweight" telefoto lenses.
Dima 135 I’ve been a Canon shooter since 1981. Have used virtually every brand , but my personal cameras have always been Canon or Pentax . I bought the EOS R on pre-order and loved it, using my existing EF-L series lenses and I purchased the RF 35 & the Rf 24-105. I kept hearing and seeing so many reviews about Sony that I bought the A7Riii , 24-105 and the 200-600 lens. The images were great, but I struggled to get the focusing and hit rates that so many reviewers talked about with the Sony . I did a few eagle hunting photo days and on both days I got really good shots with the Sony 200-600 , but it hunted and missed far too many shots as compared to my EF 100-400 adapted to my R . I now have the R5, sold all my Sony gear, and it fits me better. I have the RF15-35, and 70-200 now, to go with the earlier RF glass, and am waiting for the 100-500 .
Just my experience as sharp photos on the Sony were excellent, but I just didn’t ever get comfortable with the menus, focusing , focus breathing and it made it easy for me to decide to sell it off and stay 100% with Canon once again . Even filming , I liked the colors from my R vs the Sony . I do notice a color shift with the R5 as compared to the R ... that caught me a little bit .
I would love for the prices to be less, but the results are worth it for me .
@@view23015 It's always good to read a real user's review, but nevertheless, it will be even better if Canon joins to this trend, and produce some analog to this lenses.
Omg not being able to go below 300 with the teleconverter really messes with it's value proposition.
Thanks for the great review. I’ve been shooting for the last month using my R6 with my 100-500. Love it! Doesn’t come off my camera!
Make sure you update your firmware!
Gordon Laing yes sir! I updated it when it was available 😊
@@Hordesdaddy good man!
The choice is clear If you still shoot with a Canon dslr...even if you don't, why limit your your reach.
Canon 100-400mm 5.6 II would be a wise choice if you want a low cost highly durable lens which can be used on ef dslr and rf mirrorless mount, plus extended reach with Tele extenders farther than the rf 100-500mm lens can reach. With the ef 100-400mm you can use both the 1.4 iii and 2x III Tele extenders simultaneously for extreme reach. With all zoom ranges.
The 100-500mm rf lens is limited to 300 to 500mm range with a Tele extender. So if you're planning on using Tele extenders you might consider other lens options.
The 100-400mm ef ii is a rock solid all metal durable lens while the 100-500mm rf is although a lighter weight lens. It has a plastic exterior less durable plastic filter threads, it does have some metal on the inside and the mount of is metal.
The 100-400mm ef II lens has instant one touch manual focus mechanical override.
The 100-400mm ef II and the 100-500mm rf lens both are very sharp. The rf has a electronic focus override that is difficult to use. Three steps to do what the 100-400mm II accomplishes in one touch.
The i.s. for both lenses are excellent.
The 100-400mm ef ii has a little lower cost but you have to factor in the cost and slight extra weight of the ef/rf adaptor. You can save cost buying a used Canon ef 100-400mm i.s. ii they have been around for quite some time and are readily available.
Fantastic review their Gordon did a great job I love it .
I'm on the verge of moving into the RF system myself I borrowed a friend of mine's R5 to try it I was very confused and the look in the viewfinder ( I didn't like it ) I still do love my 7D Mark II I'm not quite ready to move into the R5 yet but when I do I probably will get the 100 to 500 like what you have used here the only question I have is why can't you use that 100-500 with 1.4 at all focal length's .
because the rear element protrudes too far and would bump up against the TC.
Exactly the review I was looking for :)
Glad you liked it!
I cant wait until Sigma and Tamron start making RF lenses. I own the 150-600 from Sigma but... i noticed some focussing quirks when adapting it to my R6 and trying to lock on to moving subjects. There was like... a guey delay lag between me telling the camera to start focussing and it actually starting to work.
ughhhh, the Tamron 150-600 G2 has ta similar problem. It works great with fast-moving subjects but for anything that is more stationary the AF twitches in and out instead of locking on.
Wonderful work. Thank you.
Thanks!
Great review thank you Gordon
You're welcome!
Thanks for the video Gordon 👍🏻
Monster Lens (for a monster price) but more impressive is the new Canon AF system performance :O
It is pretty amazing now...
Good morning Gordon, thanks for another informative and interesting video. I just received my 800 f/11 with the RF 1.4x and weather permitting will photograph the moon 🌝 using a Fornax LighTrack II tracker. Thanks again! ☕️
I will be receiving the same combo soon! Let me know what you think!
Maybe next week, the weather looks sour for at least a week in N.E Ohio USA.
@@SuperBuickregalI wish you clear skies!
AMAZING video, as usual. Thank you very much for all the time and effort you put into them, it really shows!
Thankyou! They do take a looooong time!
Thanks for your review. I bought the 100-500 and love it! I'm now thinking of getting the 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. Aside from the issue of not being able to close the lens down below 300mm, is there a preference? Do they both autofocus? What are the minimum F stop on each. Anything else I should know? Thanks in advance!
They should both autofocus, so it depends on what reach you desire.
As always an excellent review. I currently use a 6D and 5Ds and own a few L lenses but it's the new RF L lenses that make me want to pick up an R5. The R5 comnined with the new RF lenses seem so much sharper with the added benefit of IBIS and lens IS.
wow amazing lens..i love it