Hey guys, my main IG account got compromised and disabled, so if you wanna show some love and check out my new main account @hallofbirds, that would be awesome. Thanks for all the support here on YT and over on Instagram, it really means a lot.
I'm glad I pulled the trigger several months ago. This is the finest 35mm glass that I've ever owned in 35 years as a pro. It replaces the 70-200 (who really needs the missing 70 to 100mm range?), and, because it can focus so close, it can replace a macro lens too! I traded in (2) 70-200's and my Tamron 150-600 (G1) and have absolutely no regrets. Just got back from a Bucket List trip to Alaska and this lens (and the R5) were amazing!! By the way, it's not too shabby with the 1.4 teleconverter either.
Oh man, that sounds awesome! I can't wait to get back up to Alaska! I've been thinking about running another wildlife and landscape tour up there at some point. Glad you're enjoying the lens!
@@meibing4912 Yes, 2.8 is nice to have at times (I kept one of my 70-200's for that reason), but with the high ISO capabilities of the R5 & R6, 2.8 is really only needed for shallow depth of field.
I have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II that I got used. I was thinking that maybe I'd eventually upgrade to the RF version, but the only real thing it would give me over the EF version is the weight and size reduction. Now that I have the 100-500, I don't seem to use the 70-200. I probably wouldn't reach for it for anything other than the f/2.8 aperture. But I use my RF 28-70 f/2.0 for just about everything else. The only other lens I might get is something like an 11-24 or 12-24, and then I can say my lens collection is basically 'complete'.
Owning this lens myself, I was all eyes and ears during your presentation of same. I just love the wealth of hands on, practical information you always provide in your videos. Furthermore, I always come away from your reviews, feeling like I just left a fireside chat with an old friend. Look forward to your next video content creation, Brent, whatever it might be. Bring it on.
I splurged this year on RF lenses. I now have the 15-35, the 28-70 F2 and the 100-500mm. I could leave for a vacation/photo trip and have all my needs covered right there. The 100-500 has really been impressive. I sat on a hill overlooking the Salt River rafters this summer and could read labels on the beer cans without much trouble (probably a distance of 100-160 ft, but I'm also terrible at estimating distance). It's been great for landscape as well. Also good for certain macro shots. The compression will do some wonderful things, as mentioned. I happily traded away the EF 100-400mm for this and feel there was a bump up in quality.
I also really love my R6 coupled with my RF100-500mm. It's the best combination I've ever owned (and I've had a few since about 1986). The RF1.4 teleconverter also is great with this system.
Great review, Brent. You made some excellent points. I don't understand why every company doesn't integrate Arca dovetails into their tripod collar designs. It seems like a no brainer. There is zero downside. And, despite being newer than your copy, the little sliding door on my lens hood is always open and never because I intentionally opened it. Drives me nuts. This was never the case with my Fuji XF100-400 so it is possible to make the concept work. I think your best point is the one about subject distance. This is so true but is not intuitive. Most people think of using telephoto lenses to capture far away subjects-which is fine, but don't then judge IQ against other lenses shooting closer subjects. Same with teleconverters. A person will take a photo of a subject without the teleconverter at one distance and then take another shot of a different subject at a 40% greater distance and blame the teleconverter for IQ loss.
Brent, really enjoyed this review. Your honesty and real life experience means a lot. Besides the fact that you crack me up with the bears and the bugs! Thank you so much for taking the time to share your knowledge.
Great video, Brent. I would love to see an IQ comparison between the RF 800 and the RF 100-500 @ 500 and cropped to the equivalent magnification on the R5 and R6.
I've seen a lot of lens/camera reviews and this was the best yet. Very down to earth and the first one I have seen where someone talked about physics. Great job!
Starting at about the 21:45 mark, the “you need to get closer” and “you can’t beat physics” portion should be run in a loupe available on your channel. Well done.
Dude, you are my new favorite photographer on YT. I really appreciate the rants and info. I even shoot Sony so the technical doesn't apply, I just appreciate the knowledge and you've earned a sub
Thanks Brent. Been waiting for this since you said you bought one. I love my 100-500/R5 combination but it also works great on my RP. I use a 2x converter with it all the time and the image quality is still great. Glad you talked me into it.
I’m commenting two years later and everything that Brent said about this lens is true, including ruggedness and being built like a tank. I bought mine in December with an R6ii. But I drop it in January on concrete from about 2 feet. Just scratched and it works perfectly still. I’ve given up trying to compare my shots with my friend who uses the biggest prime. Excellent videos Brent. 🇬🇧🙋🇺🇸
Good video, and great point about expectations and distance to subject. Most people are disappointed in their long lenses for exactly that reason. Keep hammering the point home.
Thank you for this wonderful balanced review. I love mine and the 1.4 TC lives on the lens permanently. Looking forward to more of your videos. Keep up the good work. I hope you are going well.
Amazing review. I just brought that same lens home today and willl be pairing it with my R5. I was using my 70-200mm with the adapter so that i can use it on my R5 and it gave me some amazing pictures. But this new R series lens is just amazing. Keep up the great work.
Thanks, Brent: In addition to helpful commentary, I loved your images; thanks for sharing. I recently purchased the RF 100-500 to replace my Sigma 150-600 C and Tamron 100-400 Di VC, along with an R7 body. As an amateur/enthusiast, I used and enjoyed both of these lenses for birds/ wildlife, and I hesitated over whether I should replace them, particularly given the price. But the improvements in image quality, sharpness, and focus response times more than justify the price difference if you can swing it. The images are breathtaking.
Hi Brent.. Got my RF100-500 2 days ago and it is great. I am really glad that you took the time to explain about distance and subject. I no longer even bother to shoot if I can't get close enough. You can sort out some of the issues to a limited extent with DXO and Topaz, but I have to agree if it isn't close enough just enjoy the subject to look at and save your shutter wear and tear.
@@OhhhhhhhBugger Sadly, the EF lenses really don't take advantage of the new bodies like the R6 II for wildlife. The 40 FPS you paid for becomes 15-20 FPS with the 500 II (or 300 II/III, or 400 II/III).
@@OldMister Meh, I have never needed more than about 15FPS, even with hummingbirds. When I used to work on the R5, I'd always find myself scaling back due to image redundancy. At the end of the day, it's worth it. I had the 100-500 and it just never sat well with me. For a nearly $3000 lens, it ought to feel a lot less cheap than it did.
@@OhhhhhhhBugger Meh, if I was happy with 10-15 FPS I'd just use Sony! The only reason for me to switch to Canon was first the 20 FPS of the R6 and now the 40 FPS of the latest R6 II that Sony can't match for the price in either case. I'd rather have the exact perfect pose from the bird than slightly more blurred backgrounds. But whatever works for you, works for you! I do agree that a 400mm (or longer) prime works much better with teleconverters than a zoom, but the RF 800/11 is $899 new these days and sharper than my EF 400/4 II with teleconverter. Not to mention, it gets the full 40 FPS too! But gain, whatever works for you works for you, and each photographer has their own gear and style that suits them best. Cheers.
@@OldMister XD Yeah, I guess if you want 20 shots of your favorite pose, then the R6II is perfect for you! For me, I am much more concerned about the amount of light I will get, because these newer sensors have a real hard time with low light. With the 800mm and the 100-500, the aperture is a real problem for me. I shoot a lot of woodland birds. Like you said though, if that works for you, then great!
Seriously good video - not just the review of the lens but also the discussion of what affects image quality when shooting wildlife with any camera/lens system. Made me rethink my dissatisfaction with my current kit (I'm a Fuji shooter using the X-T4, XF100-400 and XF 200) which is making me look at other systems. Thanks again, without sounding ingratiating you are one of the best presenters in this field on TH-cam.
Wow, thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate that! I'm just glad I can help people by bringing up things they might not have considered before. :)
Awesome video Brent, thank you for taking the time to review it. I have an R6 and also own this lens and it seldom comes off my camera body. I also have the 800 F11 and enjoy it as well (given it's limitations)
Thank for this video. I shoot with Sony and my favorite lens is the 100-400GM. The lenses are similar and I appreciate your words about expectations and applications using a lens of this size. Understanding the physics is definitely a must.
@@BrentHall just to let you know I have been using the 1-4 GM in anger for about a year. I shoot running events on the West Coast of England (Sea, Salt and Wind). I have had to stop using it because fungus is growing in the barrel. I knew something was wrong it just was not focusing as it should after six months. It is most definitely not water resistant. I am in the process of moving to the Canon R3 and the L lenses just because of this.
That lens was amazing on my safari in Tanzania. I was blown away by the quality. Flexibility with zoom beats any prime in those conditions. For far-reaching shots and trying to pinpoint tiny birds, the 1.4x worked great.
@@melissavarelas7554 For me, the photo subjects were all over the place. You'll be shooting something far away, then there is suddenly something close. Being able to zoom is priceless.
I think the R5/100-500 is the best bang for the buck right now. Maybe the asaonyA7-4/200-600 might give it a run for the money, but??? I think it has that slow processor slanted photo thing going for it while taking panning photos. Great review.
Anyone that wants this lens, I recommend ordering it straight from Canon. It was back ordered for two days then was back in stock. I ended up receiving it a week after ordering it. I love B&H and all, but if you really want this lens go to Canon! Oh and great review Brent. My only complaint is the lens throw. Zooming from 100 to 500 takes a while lol
28:36 - I've noticed on the 100-400II you can go as slow as 1/13 hand held if you're at the right angle (bird at / near same height at lens) and as slow as 1/40th (if it's say in that 20-40 deg range up in a tree).... Obviously taking multiple shots being a requirement, but you can get that "one" shot among a few in these cases. Cannot wait to get the R5 + 100-500 combo!
I have only very recently bought into the mirrorless systems and I'm still on the EF lenses with the adaptor route. In this respect I regularly use the 100-400 mkii and find it works extremely well. One thing that I do sometimes use are the Canon extension tubes (not the extenders) to enhance its close up capability so for me it doesn't yet make sense for me to change over. However, I am painfully aware that from now on the value of my EF lenses is going to depreciate rapidly and it is only a matter of time before I will have to sell them in order to recoup as much of my original costs as I possibly can. An excellent video review and I am 100% with you on photographic limitations. I often feel that a lot of the newer generation of 'photographers' expect the kit to do ALL the work for them. They want massive magnification, fast apertures in tiny and inexpensive lenses plus huge resolution bodies so they can crop the hell out of an image. And all to basically make up for their general lack of skill and unwillingness to put in the extra effort.
I checked KEH recently - $1200 is about what they pay for a 100-400 II; you might be able to get a little more playing the fb/cl game if you have a ton of time on your hands.
I do the same, the 100-400 ii is an amazing lens. Bought it used for less than half of the price of a new 100-500 so at least for now its a much better value. The main advantage with the 100-500 that see is lower weight and built in 1.25 teleconverter :) I dont know what camera you use but another alternative which I consider is to upgrade my r6 to an r5 and get the extra reach that way :)
Great review! I have had both the R5 and the 100-500 since they were first available and agree with you assessment completely. My 500 F4 stays at home except when I need the 2x TE. The close focus ability has changed my (tiny critter) hummingbird/dragonfly type photography completely. Before the 100-500 was released I had been using the 100-400 and the added 100mm has made a significant difference, especially with the 1.4 TE added. I've been working for 50 years as a pro wildlife/scenic photographer so weight is getting more important as the years go by...the 500 F4 was getting to be too much for hand holding and this is a wonderful change...after all it is the images you are able to make rather than the tiny percentage of IQ you gain with the big glass F4s! Really like your, in the field, down to earth, videos! Will be waiting for the 1.4 or 2x TE update......
Hey thanks man, I appreciate the kind words! I definitely agree about weight becoming more important as the years go by, lol. Considering I'm only 37 and I'm already feeling it, I'm not looking forward to carrying big lenses as time goes on, lol. the military was not kind to my body. This 1-5 has been so great for portability for me.
the other thing about the smaller lenses = less attention = less of this: "are you a professional?!" "What kind of lens is that" "How much did that cost" "what settings are you using?"... sometimes it's just REALLY nice to NOT socialize and just enjoy the moment. There are places where it's more sociable and places where you just want peace/quiet; I've observed a lot of these guys with the larger canon whites / nikon glass that get people crowding around them because - SURELY there MUST be something to photograph with them!? I get enough attention just with a 100-400 on a tripod roadside at Arches...
Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I’m on the fence between getting the 100-500 f7 or either of the primes, 400mm or 600mm. Let’s forget the cost difference as it is not a factor for me. So, you said something alongs the lines as you cannot compare the 100-500 to those two. Can you explain what you mean? I think you were hinting towards that the primes are considerably better. That said, zooms are more versatile yet primes are considerably faster so …. well … I don’t know. I’d like your thoughts on this, please.
The primes are just better in general. Better image quality and rendering, faster apertures, better dof, etc. It's just hard to compare big primes to anything else because they're usually so much bigger and more expensive than most everything else that's just not a fair comparison. If you're interested in why I recently switched from this to a big prime, I made a rather long video talking about my thought process. Also, I just filmed a video about the best primes for wildlife this morning, so that should go live hopefully by tomorrow morning. In the meantime, here's the other video I mentioned: th-cam.com/video/1v6E0uWJltU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=8tltdb-9tZrtqeNW
Well, I finally ordered this lens and now have to decide if I keep the 70-200mm. I'm very similar to you in that I do both landscape and wildlife. I'm moving g towards selling the 70-200 as once I have the 100-500, I don't think ill use it. I have a headache now thinking about it. Cheers
I really appreciated this video and showing off what it could do. This is one of those lenses that I really want but with the price tag I want to ensure it is a good fit. I appreciate you talking about the good vs good for you. A great approach vs others just saying how perfect or not perfect it is. Great great content. First video I have seen of yours and I am now a subscriber.
Yeah, that mounting foot not being Arca compatible is a bit of a bummer, but not a deal breaker. I'm still thinking of getting this lens. Edit: That said, you can get a third party mount ring with an integral Arca compatible foot plate.
The term "slow" is referring to an aperture with a smaller maximum value; whereas a "fast" lens will have a larger maximum opening (e.g. f/2.8 is fast, but an f/1.2 lens is much faster, etc.) I have a whole video on aperture if you want to learn more about it: th-cam.com/video/55InKfpubsA/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=BrentHall
Hi Brent I know this is not a new video, but I have only just stumbled upon it. I recently bought the Canon RF100-500 along with the R5. I am really happy with the setup ,,,,, BUT,, I was feeling a bit dissapointed with image quality when shooting birds and birds in flight. However after watching the video, I am now at ease with the perceived issue, as I was not taking into account the stuff you talked about like distance etc. All I ever hear on TH-cam reviews is how fantastic this lens is, so I was expecting a bit much. Thank you for being so honest with youir review, I am so glad that someone has finaly explained that we must manage our expectations. Thank you. Andy Jersey UK
I have the RF 800 which is perfect for certain situations. I also, love my Tamron 150-600mm G2. But! I just got my RF100-500mm L Friday and MAN IT's AWESOME !!!!!!!!!!! There is nothing like it. Wow !!!! It's worth the wait. Thank you for you input.
I also find the " hood window" to be too small to allow easy and precise adjustments of the polarizing filter... with only the tip of one finger... You can only turn it a very small step at the time... Maybe it would work if there would be 2 windows, and that they would be positioned on each side of the hood ( instead of only one at the bottom) ... so you can also use your thumb to turn the filter 🤔
Thanks for the 100-500 lens review! I love mine. I will adjust my stabilization modes. I been in mode 2 most of the time but after listening to you, my birding images would benefit from setting 1 or 3. Speaking of videos with the R5 with the 100-500 lens, which stabilizing mode do you use. My videos have not been very impressive in mode #2. Thanks Brent! Happy birding.😊
Thanks Laura, I'm glad the video helped! I usually leave my stabilizer in mode 1. Mostly because either I forget to change it, or I know I'll forget to change it back when I'm done.
Thanks for this video Brent, which I have found so helpful as I'm considering purchasing this lens. You made really helpful points and made me think in a different way about what I actually need. I'm wondering if I might sell my RF70-200 f4 for this. Is that wise do you think?
That's a tough call. I don't know how much you use the 70-200, or would keep using it if you had this too. I have both, and while they do overlap a bit, there's a lot of pros an cons. The 70-200 isn't nearly as versatile, but it's way smaller, lighter, and a bit faster with the f4. I still tend to use the 1-5 more, but a big part of that is because my wife (camera lady) usually takes the 70-200 when we're out together. Plus I never know when a birding or wildlife opportunity will come up, so I'm kind of always prepared for it with the 1-5, at the expense of the extra size and weight. But, I also care about and prioritize wildlife photography. It just so happens that this lens is perfect for both. On the other hand, I do also really love the 70-200 for astro. It's one of my favorite lenses to use for light, tracked deep space astro stuff. So I would never get rid of mine for that alone. Well that and technically it's my wife's...lol.
@@BrentHall Thanks for that feedback - so much appreciated. I'm using the 70-200 a lot more now and these last two weeks A LOT. I've been in Greenland and Iceland and particularly in Greenland (photographing icebergs from a boat), 200mm just wasn't enough. I was with a group of photographers and two of them had that lens so I've had one in my hands. One was with an R6 and the other an R5 like mine. I take your point about weight so maybe I'm tempted to get the 100-500 then only sell the 70-200 is I end up not using it. I do astro too, and haven't used the 70-200 on the SA yet. Maybe I should try it. Have you trued the 100-500 or is it a bit too big?
@@rob-cowell I think it's probably a little too heavy for my star adventurer, but my friend has a bigger version that can handle like 40 lbs, so I might it on that one.
Hi Brent, Thanks for the thorough review. You brought up some very good points -- IMHO the most important of which were managing expectations and the importance of making judgements about a piece of equipment relative to yourself and your needs rather than the needs or opinions of other people. Every person is different and they really do need to take this into consideration when making purchasing decisions. One thing I'd like to mention that I've not seen any reviewer say is that background blur and bokeh isn't just about the lens design, aperture and your distance to the subject. It's also a function of the distance between the subject and the background. Like you, I'm a wildlife photographer. My most used lenses are a 200-400mm f/4 and a 500mm f/4. I've photographed many animals in the distance range you mention in this video -- 20 to 40 feet -- filling the frame with the subject and shooting with the widest possible aperture. Sometimes I'm even closer to my subjects. Although both of these lenses are known to producing smooth backgrounds, that's not what I always end up with. This was because sometimes my subjects were very close to things in the background such as grass, small bushes or other natural elements. I don't view this as a problem or a reason to condemn a lens. Like you said, you have to manage your expectations and I certainly can't expect to get a perfectly smooth background if the items in the background are only a few feet behind my subject -- even if I'm extremely close, use a long lens and a wide aperture. On the other hand, I've produced pictures with extremely smooth backgrounds with short lenses -- like the 135mm lens f/2.8 lens I started with in 1986 -- stopped down at f/32, because the next closest thing behind the subjects was something like 100 yards away. Anyway, thanks again for sharing. Ken
Hey thanks for the awesome comment Ken, I appreciate it! I definitely agree too about background blur, that distance between the subject and the background is a very key part. I've actually done videos about that in the past. Again, it's just physics, but a lot of people don't tend to think about it as much, and most people probably don't have as much training in physics and optics as I do, lol. I tend to nerd out a lot, but try not to put it in my videos too much, and keep it laymen's and relatable.
@@BrentHall It's great to bear back from you. I suspected that you might reply -- just not so quickly. I don't see that nerding out is such a bad thing. As I went into computers when I left my photography career behind, I tend not to do it with my photography. I'd rather put all my energy into improving my photography. I've come to realize that people tend to put too emphasis on lens "sharpness" and agree with another online photography reviewer who said, "Sharpness is the most overrated aspect of lens performance." What most people don’t realize is that if you do your job as a photographer and produce a strong image, no one’s going to come back and say that the picture stinks because you didn’t use a “better," “newer” or “sharper” version of a lens. It really doesn’t matter what you use - only what you do with it - because cameras and lenses don’t take pictures. People do. I’ve been following families of red foxes at a den in my home town since 2017. In that time, I’ve made pictures using the Nikon 500mm f/4G VR II, 200-400mm f/4G VR, 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II and 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E. I shot most of the images using these lenses at their widest apertures. Many of the pictures were made with a 1.4x teleconverter. I recently made some 13”x19” prints of the pictures. The image quality between them was indistinguishable. In other words, without a scientific, head-to-head test, there is no way to see the quality difference between these lenses. Even in a scientifically-controlled test, you’d literally go blind trying to distinguish between them. Are there differences? Sure. Do I care? Should anyone else care? IMHO, absolutely not. Anyway, thanks again for the thorough review. Keep up the good work. Ken
Hello, Just come across your channel and I was super interested in this review. Currently using the canon r6 and tamron 150-600 mark 11. Still miss a lot of opportunities with the lens hunting ( particularly with busy backgrounds) despite having dual back button focus. ( one button single shot auto focus and one for eye tracking) . Was seriously considering this lens for slight weight reduction, no need for an adaptor and superior image quality but your comments regarding distance to subject and physics has given me pause for thought. It would be super helpful if I could figure out if it was me or my equipment, I tend to shoot wide open at 1/800-1/1000 and move upwards depending on subject. ( plus auto iso) Is there anything else you could suggest I do to improve my capture rate? Or is it a matter of just practising more? Keep up the great work thank you!
Totally agree! I bought this lens about a year ago when you told me two things: that this lens is “sharper than sharp”and “watch the price”. I decided the price is not a problem, so I am very happy with it. Thank you VERY MUCH for your input. Much appreciated!!!
Great review! Never care too much about all the scientific analysis of camera gears. How do you mostly use the focus limiter and stabilizer modes for bird photography? For example, how do you set them for perched birds and birds in flight?
I am very new to the Canon world coming from Pentax. I have recently purchased the R5 and this lens. One question for you and it is about whether or not to put camouflage on it. I see you are dressed all in camo, but nothing on the lens. Is this an issue?
Thanks man, I'm glad you liked it! I got that shirt in the clearance bin at Wal-Mart, for like $4, lol. Unless you were talking about the hood, in which case I got that on amazon for like $20 or something.
Thanks! That's the Peak Design Capture Clip V3. I should have a link for it in the video description. I also did a video about it too. I love that thing.
Just now getting my start in the mirrorless world, so I have been making my way through these review videos (even though the trigger has already been pulled on this lens and some other gear that is in shipment as I type this). I have to ask--with the Red-faced Warblers and Painted Redstarts, are you on the Arizona or the New Mexico side of their range? Photos from southeast Arizona inspired me to do my first destination birding trip, and I am always looking forward to going back after the two trips I have done there. I definitely love the Southwest and all the diversity of wildlife there!
Oh nice, hopefully you get the lens soon! I'm in Silver City, NM. I do go to the Chiricahua mountains and SE AZ often. It's such a great area for wildlife and landscape photography.
Could not agree more about getting closer and not blaming your equipment. I was a bit lucky a few years ago to get some fantastic osprey pictures with a Canon T6 and the Canon 400mm f5.6 L. I have learned a few things since then. Glass over camera, same settings, same equipment, different location and weather can provide different results. Once had an eagle in front of me in a light mist, now with a 6Dmmii. Not usable photos.
Great review Brent and a really refreshing insight into the lens. I have a bit of a different question in that I currently shoot with an R5 using my trusty Canon 200-400mm f/4 lens. I'm very interested in the 100-500mm if not purely for the weight reduction. I would be interested to hear if you have ever shot with the 200-400mm to see if you think the newer 100-500mm is a worthy substitute. I definitely know it's not an 'apples for apples' comparison and the main thing that worries me is the jump form f/4 to f/7.1.
Yeah I get it. And that really goes along with my whole thing about good vs good for you. The 200-400 is one of the sharpest and most amazing lenses ever, but good grief is it heavy! I have used it, and I love it, but I could neither afford it in the first place, nor could my broken body (thanks navy) handle carrying it around all the time, so while that lens is technically amazing, it's not good for me personally. I would subjectively say that as far as image quality, the 1-5 is 99% that of the 200-400, and it's much cheaper, smaller, and lighter. The fact that you already have the 2-4 means that you overcame the price issue, so now you just need to weigh the other issues. I'd suggest renting the 1-5 for a while and going out with it multiple times and see how you like it. Like I said in the video, coming from an f/4, you'll probably notice the higher isos, but you'd need to try it out to see if that ends up being an issue for you or not. The aperture is a compromise to me personally, but I'd rather have a shot at f7.1 because I was able to bring the lens with me and wield it well enough to get the shot, than to have not gotten the shot at all. That's just my 2 cents though. A lot of people are more physically capable than me, lol, so if you don't mind carrying the 2-4 and are getting great shots with it, then none of that might matter to you.
I have used my 200-400L for several years with 70D, 7D mk ii, 1DX mk ii and now R5 (and R6). It is a great lens, but heavy and expensive. It was a joy to use it with the R5 as I finally could get consistent results with an external extender, both x1.4 and x2. I have always found it heavy and slow to swing for BIF. I got the RF 100-500 with an x1.4 in late spring 2021. I was shocked at my first trip with the 100-500 where I guided a group of photographers to a peregrine nest. I first took some shots with the 200-400 at 100 meters (300 ft) and later with the 100-500 + x1.4 (700mm @ f/10). I was shocked to see the 100-500 got much better results (though an hour later with less heat waves). I almost haven't used the 200-400L since and I wonder when I will use it again. I know it is 400mm f/4 (or 560 f/5.6) vs. 500mm f/7.1 so ISO tends to get a little higher. But DXO PureRAW / DeNoise AI handles that.
When comparing RF 100-500 to EF 100-400 II on the long end, it makes more sense when you add TC 1.4x to the 100-400, which gives 560mm f/8, which you still preferably step down to f/9 or f/10 to get better sharpness. From that perspective, sharp 500mm f7/.1 doesn't look that bad anymore. On the other hand, on a high res body like Canon R5, you can crop the 100-400mm by 25% to get 500mm and still get good results (not as much on something like Canon R6 though). 100-500 is f/6.3 at 400mm so only 1/3 EV compared to the 100-400's f/5.6 at 400mm. Either way, I think RF 100-500 is manageable.
Thanks for your great practical info. A video of yours steered me right in upgrading from RP to R6 for the jump on AF for wildlife. Just acquired a used RF 100-500l to replace my trusty Sigma 150-600c. I would love to find your R6 setup for autofocus for this lens. Do you have a link to a video or tutorial? Thanks again.
Great review and I agree with everything you said. Love my 100-500mm. The newer mirrorless cameras and sensors let you push the limits beyond what DSLRs can do. I loved my 100-400mm but traded it in to get the 100-500 and no regrets. If I want crazy shots ill haul out my 500mm f4 ver1 and extenders. Speaking of extenders, what are your thoughts with them on the 100-500mm? Thanks for the great content!
Hey Brent, I just got this lens for my R7. I'm going to test this out and see how it is. Great review as always. I tried the Sigma and Tamron with my R7 and the focus just would not lock well at all.
@@BrentHall It is! I have both tele converters as well, but most likely will only really use the 1.4. I wish canon would make a 500 or 600 5.6 or 6.3. that would be more affordable. in stead of 13k lol.
I really appreciated this video. Your comments about not being close enough is bang on. I'm actually a student of photography. I recently purchased this lense and use it with R6. The one thing I'm struggling with is shooting video without a tripod. Perhaps I need to get to the gym!!!? I'm still not satisfied with my videos, is this something that comes with experience?
Thanks Dale, I appreciate the kind words! Shooting without a tripod definitely benefits from experience, but it's also always hard, lol. A good bit of my shots usually don't turn out, and most still need to be stabilized in post. It's just a sacrifice I'm usually willing to make because I don't want to deal with a tripod.
Do I have to? No...but I usually do when shooting small birds and far away stuff, just to get a bit more DOF. That said, I've been totally happy with the IQ wide open.
Totally agree with your comments about physics. It reminded me to be realistic and explains why some of my recent shots of an Osprey weren't as good as I'd hoped. On another point, this has totally come at a great moment as I've just started shooting wildlife, using the RF70-200MM F2.8L but find I'm always wanting a little more reach so have been considering trading it in for the 100-500. I love the 2.8 but the cost is prohibitive to keep it and buy the 100-500. Decisions decisions. I need to sit down and do some head scratching but thanks for the video.
I'm picking your brains to help me make my decision. Like you I shoot Landscapes and recently started shooting wildlife. as I said, I have been using the RF 70-200 F2.8L but also use the RF 24-105 F4L. Can I ask, apart from the RF 100-500 f45.71L, what other lens do you use. I'm loathed to part with the 70-200 f2.8 but am wondering if I can get used to having the 24-105, alongside the 100-500 and live without having a F2.8 lol?
Great video, Brent. I completely agree with your assessment. The 100-500 pretty much 'lives' on my R5. One question regarding the stabilizer: Does it need to be turned off when shooting from a tripod? Thanks.
Many thanks! That's a pretty debatable topic. I don't really ever turn it off. Mostly because I know I'll forget to turn it back on after I'm done. Also, I think there's really any super definitive proof that it helps to any certain degree.
Brent, Thanks for the details and onsite use of the 100-500mm. Do you consider this lens a dust/water collector as you slide in and out? Hope you will be posting a video on the Canon 600mm f/11 and the 800mm f/11 soon.
Well, it is technically weather-sealed inside the zoom part, but so was my 1-4 mk2 and it definitely got dust in it over time (but I also live in a desert...). I've never had a problem with water getting in though, so hopefully it won't be too much of an issue. Even when dust got into my 1-4 though, I didn't really care because it just focuses right past it anyway. When it comes to it though, it's not a deciding factor for me personally, because the usefulness of the lens overall will always outweigh the possibility of getting a little dust in the lens, and for the most part, it will never affect my image quality or ability to get great images.
@@BrentHall Brent, Thanks for your specifics about the potential for the 100-500mm being a dust collector. The fact that you have not encountered many problems with dust is a testament on your trust in the lens.
Us mere mortals who aren't pro photographers can only dream of a lens/body combo like this 😂😂😂 on a more serious note, great review and I think your images are amazing. Just subscribed.
Nice video! I always find your reviews to be more useful than most because they seem more based in reality than some. Maybe I missed it but I didn’t hear you talk about size, weight and handling? I am currently using an R6 with the Sigma Contemporary 150-600. It’s perfectly fine but the eye AF in servo mode seems to bounce around a lot and the stabilization isn’t very good. My primary complaint is the size and weight. The Sigma is something like 4.5 lbs and the adapter moves the weight even more forward so it gets kind of old. I have a chronically sore right shoulder so any reduction in weight is a definite positive. I really have no issue with the IQ of the Sigma but the functionality and size and weight leave something to be desired. The specs on the Canon lens show it to be 3lbs. How noticeable is that to you? I have had the lens back ordered for a while.
Hey thanks Rod, I appreciate the kind words! Yeah size and weight are definitely key features to me. It's just a hair bigger than the 1-4 mk2 but it's also just a bit lighter as well. It fits very well in all of my photo bags, and I can comfortably carry it all day without too much wear and tear on my shoulders and neck. When you compare it to the Sigma and Tamron 150-600s, it's quite a bit lighter, and me personally, it's very noticeable, and I'm super thankful for it.
That stupid door thing on my 100-400 II after 5-6 years of use went to rattle trap status long ago... used a clear piece of tape on top of it, so can still slide it, just takes more effort and it eliminated the stupid sound coming from it. Sadly, my b+w polarizer I paid and arm/leg for years ago is now much more difficult to rotate, so I have to have the hood off now just to get it where I want to... not sure if it can be fixed or if it's replacement time?
another great review, and very timely as I'm looking to invest in this lens, however I need to part ex to afford it, so do I ditch my RF800 f11 or my EF 70-200 L11 or both as this 100-500 seems to cover my needs ! your thoughts would be much appreciated
Oh thanks, I'm glad it helped! That's a tough choice. You could always put it in crop mode or ad a TC for more reach to make up for the 800, but the 800 is a lot lighter. Most of the 70-200 range is redundant with the 1-5, though the 70-200 is faster on the aperture. I guess you'd just have to look at how much you use the 70-200 wide open, and also figure out if you feel like carrying both around, because the 70-200 2.8 is heavy too. tough choices.
Thank you for the review. I am now in th market for such a lens and the info you provided is helpful. I have just one question and that is about the ring furthest to the back of the lens which you can program to do nearly anything, do you use this feature and if so what have you programmed the ring to do? Again, thank you for the review! Jim
Sure thing Jim, I'm glad the video helped! Personally, I've never used the RF ring, though it could certainly be useful for certain camera bodies that don't have a good control layout. You could use it for controlling iso or exposure comp, or aperture, stuff like that.
Well, the short version of my 2 cents on that is that the 1-5 is technically better in just about every way, except for price and weight. I do still like my 800 but I find myself reaching for it way less now.
IMHO the R5 is probably the best choice overall for both landscape and wildlife, though the R6II has better AF, and ever so slightly better high iso performance. You really can't go wrong with either of them. If you do video, it's also a toss up. The R5 has 8K, better codecs, and 4K 120p, whereas the R6II has unlimited time recording (R5 tops out at 30 min continuous), slightly better low light, but less codecs and no 8K or 4K 120.
Thanks Allen! That definitely sucks about the wait time over there, I hope you get yours soon. I don't usually use a TC, but I will be doing a video about it here in the coming weeks.
Thanks for a very interesting video. I currently use the EF 100-400 (v2) with my R5. I am trying to decide whether it's worth upgrading. Have you compared the 100-500 with the 100-400?
That's a hard choice, especially without knowing anything about you or your situation. For most people, I'd say it's probably not worth the price to upgrade, at least right away. Like I said in the video, the difference between good and good for you is what you need to consider. Yes the 1-5 is technically better in just about every way (except price obviously), but how much better? Not much, at all. So is that huge price increase worth the minor performance and slight convenience upgrades for you? I don't know. That being said, if you have the money, and know it won't be a burden, then yeah, I'd upgrade, but only if it won't hurt your situation or you don't have anything else super important to do with that extra cash. Just my 2 cents though.
Hi Brent, thank you for all your extensive videos. I have a question though. I have a R6 and don't plan on upgrading that. But I do want to upgrade my EF sigma 150-600mm to something with better focus capabilities. Would you go for a EF 400mm f2.8 mark 1 or 2? Or would you prefer the RF 100-500mm? What would be better focus wise for bif and common wildlife? Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Simon
Idk, I think that would really depend on your needs and your willingness to compromise. The primes are great, they're fast and sharp, but they're expensive and very heavy, and less versatile than a zoom. The 1-5 is amazing (as I've said many times before, it is my overall favorite lens). It's sharp, light, and very versatile, but it's a bit slower, and still a bit expensive. So there's compromises whichever way you go, you just have to figure out what will work best for you. I can also say that the focusing on the 1-5 is very very capable, and better than just about anything I've ever used, so I wouldn't worry about that.
@@BrentHall thank you for your reply! I'm leaning towards the 1-5 because of it's weight and the versatility is a nice plus. The price is a big one, but the 150-600 sigma I have now has real issues with focussing, so I have to make a change. Again thank you.
thanks 4 the reminder about distance and physics, I've had my share of disappointments there. When larger wildlife are distance which focus limiter setting is best: the "full" or the 3 meter to infinity w this lens? thanks!
Well, technically in that scenario, the latter would be better. I personally never take it off full though, because it's usually good enough for me, but also because I know I'll forget to put it back to full when I'm done and I will...and have...missed shots because of it not focusing, lol.
Not very often lately. The 1-5 has just been so incredible, I find myself picking up the 800 less and less. The times where I'll take the 800 first are usually for water fowl in bright daylight, and also for moon and some nebulae stuff when I don't want to bother with lugging out my big telescope.
Hi Brent, firstly thanks for the fab review of the 100-500. Really useful. I got my own just two weeks ago. I use it with the R5 body. I am shooting birds on the wing and primarily swifts. I am still playing with the camera settings as I need the AF to respond in a split of a second. Yet I am getting quite a few blurred frames even if the bird is in the middle of the viewfinder. I am using the eye tracking which works better than any conventional methods I used with my DSLRs. My feeling is that I am not tapping into the full capabilities of this gear. I know it can do amazing things e.g. I was able to lock on a bird in flight an keep it in focus on a very busy backdrop and behind bushes. It is pretty much trail and error, but perhaps you have some tips and tricks to share. That would be great. Many thanks, Piotr
Thanks, I'm glad you liked it! I do have a couple of other videos about my R5 AF set up that might help. Just check out my Wildlife videos playlist, they should both be in there.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey guys, my main IG account got compromised and disabled, so if you wanna show some love and check out my new main account @hallofbirds, that would be awesome. Thanks for all the support here on YT and over on Instagram, it really means a lot.
I'm glad I pulled the trigger several months ago. This is the finest 35mm glass that I've ever owned in 35 years as a pro. It replaces the 70-200 (who really needs the missing 70 to 100mm range?), and, because it can focus so close, it can replace a macro lens too! I traded in (2) 70-200's and my Tamron 150-600 (G1) and have absolutely no regrets. Just got back from a Bucket List trip to Alaska and this lens (and the R5) were amazing!! By the way, it's not too shabby with the 1.4 teleconverter either.
Oh man, that sounds awesome! I can't wait to get back up to Alaska! I've been thinking about running another wildlife and landscape tour up there at some point. Glad you're enjoying the lens!
Nice! I was considering getting the 1.4x extender or the 2x extender. I use mine for Whale watching, Birds but also sports photography.
Probably not many will miss the 70-100mm range, but many will miss the f/2.8.
@@meibing4912 Yes, 2.8 is nice to have at times (I kept one of my 70-200's for that reason), but with the high ISO capabilities of the R5 & R6, 2.8 is really only needed for shallow depth of field.
I have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II that I got used.
I was thinking that maybe I'd eventually upgrade to the RF version, but the only real thing it would give me over the EF version is the weight and size reduction.
Now that I have the 100-500, I don't seem to use the 70-200. I probably wouldn't reach for it for anything other than the f/2.8 aperture.
But I use my RF 28-70 f/2.0 for just about everything else. The only other lens I might get is something like an 11-24 or 12-24, and then I can say my lens collection is basically 'complete'.
Owning this lens myself, I was all eyes and ears during your presentation of same. I just love the wealth of hands on, practical information you always provide in your videos. Furthermore, I always come away from your reviews, feeling like I just left a fireside chat with an old friend. Look forward to your next video content creation, Brent, whatever it might be. Bring it on.
Hey thanks Mike, that means a lot to me! I'm glad you're enjoying the videos.
This is a wholesome comment. Great community Brent man 👌🏽
Thanks! Yeah, we definitely have a bunch of awesome people in this community. 😁🙌🙏
I splurged this year on RF lenses. I now have the 15-35, the 28-70 F2 and the 100-500mm. I could leave for a vacation/photo trip and have all my needs covered right there. The 100-500 has really been impressive. I sat on a hill overlooking the Salt River rafters this summer and could read labels on the beer cans without much trouble (probably a distance of 100-160 ft, but I'm also terrible at estimating distance). It's been great for landscape as well. Also good for certain macro shots. The compression will do some wonderful things, as mentioned. I happily traded away the EF 100-400mm for this and feel there was a bump up in quality.
I also really love my R6 coupled with my RF100-500mm. It's the best combination I've ever owned (and I've had a few since about 1986). The RF1.4 teleconverter also is great with this system.
That's definitely an awesome combo! I'll be messing around with the TC on the 1-5 for another video or two here in the near future.
Great review, Brent. You made some excellent points. I don't understand why every company doesn't integrate Arca dovetails into their tripod collar designs. It seems like a no brainer. There is zero downside. And, despite being newer than your copy, the little sliding door on my lens hood is always open and never because I intentionally opened it. Drives me nuts. This was never the case with my Fuji XF100-400 so it is possible to make the concept work.
I think your best point is the one about subject distance. This is so true but is not intuitive. Most people think of using telephoto lenses to capture far away subjects-which is fine, but don't then judge IQ against other lenses shooting closer subjects. Same with teleconverters. A person will take a photo of a subject without the teleconverter at one distance and then take another shot of a different subject at a 40% greater distance and blame the teleconverter for IQ loss.
Brent, really enjoyed this review. Your honesty and real life experience means a lot. Besides the fact that you crack me up with the bears and the bugs! Thank you so much for taking the time to share your knowledge.
Hey thank you so much for the kind words, I really appreciate that!
This lens also allows to do Focus bracketing handheld in combination with the R6, and probably also the R5. Very good for Butterfly and Libel.
Great video, Brent. I would love to see an IQ comparison between the RF 800 and the RF 100-500 @ 500 and cropped to the equivalent magnification on the R5 and R6.
Agreed!
I've seen a lot of lens/camera reviews and this was the best yet. Very down to earth and the first one I have seen where someone talked about physics. Great job!
Hey thank you so much for the kind words Randy, I really appreciate that! I do love my physics. :P
Starting at about the 21:45 mark, the “you need to get closer” and “you can’t beat physics” portion should be run in a loupe available on your channel. Well done.
lol, thanks Jim. I agree, people would do well to think on that a bit more often. :P
That's STRAIGHT UP THE TRUTH...just most people don't want to hear it after dropping 6K on a rig 😉
you're right, but my one quibble is this: loop is the word you meant, whereas "loupe" is a jeweler's magnifying glass.
Dude, you are my new favorite photographer on YT. I really appreciate the rants and info. I even shoot Sony so the technical doesn't apply, I just appreciate the knowledge and you've earned a sub
Wow, thanks man, I really appreciate that!🙏
Thanks Brent. Been waiting for this since you said you bought one. I love my 100-500/R5 combination but it also works great on my RP. I use a 2x converter with it all the time and the image quality is still great. Glad you talked me into it.
That's awesome, I'm glad you're liking it!
I’m commenting two years later and everything that Brent said about this lens is true, including ruggedness and being built like a tank. I bought mine in December with an R6ii. But I drop it in January on concrete from about 2 feet. Just scratched and it works perfectly still. I’ve given up trying to compare my shots with my friend who uses the biggest prime. Excellent videos Brent. 🇬🇧🙋🇺🇸
Good video, and great point about expectations and distance to subject. Most people are disappointed in their long lenses for exactly that reason. Keep hammering the point home.
Thank you for this wonderful balanced review. I love mine and the 1.4 TC lives on the lens permanently. Looking forward to more of your videos. Keep up the good work. I hope you are going well.
Hey thanks for the kind words, I appreciate that!
Amazing review. I just brought that same lens home today and willl be pairing it with my R5. I was using my 70-200mm with the adapter so that i can use it on my R5 and it gave me some amazing pictures. But this new R series lens is just amazing. Keep up the great work.
Thanks, Brent: In addition to helpful commentary, I loved your images; thanks for sharing. I recently purchased the RF 100-500 to replace my Sigma 150-600 C and Tamron 100-400 Di VC, along with an R7 body. As an amateur/enthusiast, I used and enjoyed both of these lenses for birds/ wildlife, and I hesitated over whether I should replace them, particularly given the price. But the improvements in image quality, sharpness, and focus response times more than justify the price difference if you can swing it. The images are breathtaking.
It really is impressive how good the 1-5 is!
Hi Brent.. Got my RF100-500 2 days ago and it is great. I am really glad that you took the time to explain about distance and subject. I no longer even bother to shoot if I can't get close enough. You can sort out some of the issues to a limited extent with DXO and Topaz, but I have to agree if it isn't close enough just enjoy the subject to look at and save your shutter wear and tear.
That's why I prefer the 500mm mkii. I can just put the 2x on it, and I lose very little IQ.
@@OhhhhhhhBugger Sadly, the EF lenses really don't take advantage of the new bodies like the R6 II for wildlife. The 40 FPS you paid for becomes 15-20 FPS with the 500 II (or 300 II/III, or 400 II/III).
@@OldMister Meh, I have never needed more than about 15FPS, even with hummingbirds. When I used to work on the R5, I'd always find myself scaling back due to image redundancy. At the end of the day, it's worth it. I had the 100-500 and it just never sat well with me. For a nearly $3000 lens, it ought to feel a lot less cheap than it did.
@@OhhhhhhhBugger Meh, if I was happy with 10-15 FPS I'd just use Sony! The only reason for me to switch to Canon was first the 20 FPS of the R6 and now the 40 FPS of the latest R6 II that Sony can't match for the price in either case. I'd rather have the exact perfect pose from the bird than slightly more blurred backgrounds. But whatever works for you, works for you! I do agree that a 400mm (or longer) prime works much better with teleconverters than a zoom, but the RF 800/11 is $899 new these days and sharper than my EF 400/4 II with teleconverter. Not to mention, it gets the full 40 FPS too! But gain, whatever works for you works for you, and each photographer has their own gear and style that suits them best. Cheers.
@@OldMister XD Yeah, I guess if you want 20 shots of your favorite pose, then the R6II is perfect for you! For me, I am much more concerned about the amount of light I will get, because these newer sensors have a real hard time with low light. With the 800mm and the 100-500, the aperture is a real problem for me. I shoot a lot of woodland birds.
Like you said though, if that works for you, then great!
Thanks great video. I also upgraded from the 100-400 and absolutely don't regret.
Thanks for mention the aperture. It made impact on my reservation. Great review
Seriously good video - not just the review of the lens but also the discussion of what affects image quality when shooting wildlife with any camera/lens system. Made me rethink my dissatisfaction with my current kit (I'm a Fuji shooter using the X-T4, XF100-400 and XF 200) which is making me look at other systems. Thanks again, without sounding ingratiating you are one of the best presenters in this field on TH-cam.
Wow, thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate that! I'm just glad I can help people by bringing up things they might not have considered before. :)
Excellent Brent.....I am very pleased with the information you parted with.
Thanks man, I'm glad you liked it!
Awesome video Brent, thank you for taking the time to review it. I have an R6 and also own this lens and it seldom comes off my camera body. I also have the 800 F11 and enjoy it as well (given it's limitations)
Thanks, I'm glad you liked the video! I feel the same. The 800 is great...within its limits.
I agree both lenses are great. I have the R6. Was gonna get the R5 but I’m pretty happy with the R6 for wildlife and air shows.
Brent, this to me is one of the best review of the RF 100-500 lens. Thank you for sharing your experience using this lens. I've subbed btw. Cheers.
Hey thanks man, I appreciate that, and I'm glad you liked it!
Thank for this video. I shoot with Sony and my favorite lens is the 100-400GM. The lenses are similar and I appreciate your words about expectations and applications using a lens of this size. Understanding the physics is definitely a must.
Thanks for the kind words Karen, I appreciate it! That Sony 1-4 GM is an incredible lens!
@@BrentHall just to let you know I have been using the 1-4 GM in anger for about a year. I shoot running events on the West Coast of England (Sea, Salt and Wind). I have had to stop using it because fungus is growing in the barrel. I knew something was wrong it just was not focusing as it should after six months. It is most definitely not water resistant. I am in the process of moving to the Canon R3 and the L lenses just because of this.
That lens was amazing on my safari in Tanzania. I was blown away by the quality. Flexibility with zoom beats any prime in those conditions. For far-reaching shots and trying to pinpoint tiny birds, the 1.4x worked great.
That sounds awesome! Definitely on my bucket list.
I’m thinking about renting this for Kenya. Was going to rent a 400 but want to be able to zoom and out. Did you find your shooting close often?
@@melissavarelas7554 For me, the photo subjects were all over the place. You'll be shooting something far away, then there is suddenly something close. Being able to zoom is priceless.
Thanks so much!!!
@@john1701a Thank you so much!!! I hope you got some great shots!
Just bought the lens. Thanks for the video! I learned a lot!
Best from Brazil!
You're welcome, enjoy the new lens!
I think the R5/100-500 is the best bang for the buck right now. Maybe the asaonyA7-4/200-600 might give it a run for the money, but??? I think it has that slow processor slanted photo thing going for it while taking panning photos. Great review.
Thanks for the review on this lens. It was really helpful to know about the softness at a distance.
Excellent review again. Thank you. I have the same set-up and I can say that it is the best camera I ever have.
Thank you for doing this honest review of the 100-500mm. Looking forward to getting one in the near future.
You bet Steve, thanks for watching!
Awesome... thank you for your amazing and honest review of this Canon 100-500mm lens.. cheers Brent
Would this lens be good for sports or action photography enjoy your videos 😊
Anyone that wants this lens, I recommend ordering it straight from Canon. It was back ordered for two days then was back in stock. I ended up receiving it a week after ordering it. I love B&H and all, but if you really want this lens go to Canon! Oh and great review Brent. My only complaint is the lens throw. Zooming from 100 to 500 takes a while lol
Hi. Why do you recommend ordering it from Canon & not B&H?
@@claudiab9943 only because B&H was back ordered and Canon had them in stock
28:36 - I've noticed on the 100-400II you can go as slow as 1/13 hand held if you're at the right angle (bird at / near same height at lens) and as slow as 1/40th (if it's say in that 20-40 deg range up in a tree).... Obviously taking multiple shots being a requirement, but you can get that "one" shot among a few in these cases. Cannot wait to get the R5 + 100-500 combo!
I have only very recently bought into the mirrorless systems and I'm still on the EF lenses with the adaptor route.
In this respect I regularly use the 100-400 mkii and find it works extremely well. One thing that I do sometimes use are the Canon extension tubes (not the extenders) to enhance its close up capability so for me it doesn't yet make sense for me to change over.
However, I am painfully aware that from now on the value of my EF lenses is going to depreciate rapidly and it is only a matter of time before I will have to sell them in order to recoup as much of my original costs as I possibly can.
An excellent video review and I am 100% with you on photographic limitations. I often feel that a lot of the newer generation of 'photographers' expect the kit to do ALL the work for them. They want massive magnification, fast apertures in tiny and inexpensive lenses plus huge resolution bodies so they can crop the hell out of an image. And all to basically make up for their general lack of skill and unwillingness to put in the extra effort.
I checked KEH recently - $1200 is about what they pay for a 100-400 II; you might be able to get a little more playing the fb/cl game if you have a ton of time on your hands.
I do the same, the 100-400 ii is an amazing lens. Bought it used for less than half of the price of a new 100-500 so at least for now its a much better value. The main advantage with the 100-500 that see is lower weight and built in 1.25 teleconverter :) I dont know what camera you use but another alternative which I consider is to upgrade my r6 to an r5 and get the extra reach that way :)
Thanks, Brent for this video, its very helpful as I am considering this lens
You're welcome, I'm glad it was helpful!
Great review! I have had both the R5 and the 100-500 since they were first available and agree with you assessment completely. My 500 F4 stays at home except when I need the 2x TE. The close focus ability has changed my (tiny critter) hummingbird/dragonfly type photography completely. Before the 100-500 was released I had been using the 100-400 and the added 100mm has made a significant difference, especially with the 1.4 TE added. I've been working for 50 years as a pro wildlife/scenic photographer so weight is getting more important as the years go by...the 500 F4 was getting to be too much for hand holding and this is a wonderful change...after all it is the images you are able to make rather than the tiny percentage of IQ you gain with the big glass F4s! Really like your, in the field, down to earth, videos! Will be waiting for the 1.4 or 2x TE update......
Hey thanks man, I appreciate the kind words! I definitely agree about weight becoming more important as the years go by, lol. Considering I'm only 37 and I'm already feeling it, I'm not looking forward to carrying big lenses as time goes on, lol. the military was not kind to my body. This 1-5 has been so great for portability for me.
the other thing about the smaller lenses = less attention = less of this: "are you a professional?!" "What kind of lens is that" "How much did that cost" "what settings are you using?"... sometimes it's just REALLY nice to NOT socialize and just enjoy the moment. There are places where it's more sociable and places where you just want peace/quiet; I've observed a lot of these guys with the larger canon whites / nikon glass that get people crowding around them because - SURELY there MUST be something to photograph with them!? I get enough attention just with a 100-400 on a tripod roadside at Arches...
Thanks for taking the time to make this video. I’m on the fence between getting the 100-500 f7 or either of the primes, 400mm or 600mm. Let’s forget the cost difference as it is not a factor for me. So, you said something alongs the lines as you cannot compare the 100-500 to those two. Can you explain what you mean? I think you were hinting towards that the primes are considerably better.
That said, zooms are more versatile yet primes are considerably faster so …. well … I don’t know. I’d like your thoughts on this, please.
The primes are just better in general. Better image quality and rendering, faster apertures, better dof, etc. It's just hard to compare big primes to anything else because they're usually so much bigger and more expensive than most everything else that's just not a fair comparison. If you're interested in why I recently switched from this to a big prime, I made a rather long video talking about my thought process. Also, I just filmed a video about the best primes for wildlife this morning, so that should go live hopefully by tomorrow morning. In the meantime, here's the other video I mentioned:
th-cam.com/video/1v6E0uWJltU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=8tltdb-9tZrtqeNW
Good review, thinking of getting one to use on my R3
Nice, that's an awesome combo! Super fast af with R3.
YOU are amazing..too! Love all the technical data you explained ...and i learned a lot! Thankyou!
I hope you did not get wet by the on coming storm...
Well, I finally ordered this lens and now have to decide if I keep the 70-200mm. I'm very similar to you in that I do both landscape and wildlife.
I'm moving g towards selling the 70-200 as once I have the 100-500, I don't think ill use it. I have a headache now thinking about it. Cheers
I really appreciated this video and showing off what it could do. This is one of those lenses that I really want but with the price tag I want to ensure it is a good fit. I appreciate you talking about the good vs good for you. A great approach vs others just saying how perfect or not perfect it is. Great great content. First video I have seen of yours and I am now a subscriber.
Hey thanks Josh, I really appreciate the kind words, and I'm glad my video helped!
Yeah, that mounting foot not being Arca compatible is a bit of a bummer, but not a deal breaker. I'm still thinking of getting this lens.
Edit:
That said, you can get a third party mount ring with an integral Arca compatible foot plate.
At 30:00 in the video (aperture) your saying: "...sometimes it's to slow....". What do you mean with that (the expression "slow" in photography)?
The term "slow" is referring to an aperture with a smaller maximum value; whereas a "fast" lens will have a larger maximum opening (e.g. f/2.8 is fast, but an f/1.2 lens is much faster, etc.) I have a whole video on aperture if you want to learn more about it:
th-cam.com/video/55InKfpubsA/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=BrentHall
@@BrentHall Great!! Thx. Nice and instructive video's. Keep on going!!👌👍
Hi Brent I know this is not a new video, but I have only just stumbled upon it. I recently bought the Canon RF100-500 along with the R5. I am really happy with the setup ,,,,, BUT,, I was feeling a bit dissapointed with image quality when shooting birds and birds in flight. However after watching the video, I am now at ease with the perceived issue, as I was not taking into account the stuff you talked about like distance etc. All I ever hear on TH-cam reviews is how fantastic this lens is, so I was expecting a bit much. Thank you for being so honest with youir review, I am so glad that someone has finaly explained that we must manage our expectations. Thank you.
Andy Jersey UK
Hey thanks for the kind words Andy, I really appreciate it, and I'm glad the video helped!
Great video! Very helpful. I have the R7 - any thoughts on this lens with the R7?
I haven't tried an R7 yet, so I couldn't say, but I would assume it would be a great combo. That lens is great on any body.
Fabulous Video !!
Excellent information regarding expectations.
Hey thanks for the kind words, I'm glad you liked it!
Great review Brent. Thx.
I have the RF 800 which is perfect for certain situations. I also, love my Tamron 150-600mm G2. But! I just got my RF100-500mm L Friday and MAN IT's AWESOME !!!!!!!!!!! There is nothing like it. Wow !!!! It's worth the wait. Thank you for you input.
Oh that's awesome! Yeah, the 1-5 is by far my favorite. Have fun with it!
I also find the " hood window" to be too small to allow easy and precise adjustments of the polarizing filter... with only the tip of one finger... You can only turn it a very small step at the time... Maybe it would work if there would be 2 windows, and that they would be positioned on each side of the hood ( instead of only one at the bottom) ... so you can also use your thumb to turn the filter 🤔
Really nice review!
Many thanks!
Thanks for the 100-500 lens review! I love mine. I will adjust my stabilization modes. I been in mode 2 most of the time but after listening to you, my birding images would benefit from setting 1 or 3. Speaking of videos with the R5 with the 100-500 lens, which stabilizing mode do you use. My videos have not been very impressive in mode #2.
Thanks Brent! Happy birding.😊
Thanks Laura, I'm glad the video helped! I usually leave my stabilizer in mode 1. Mostly because either I forget to change it, or I know I'll forget to change it back when I'm done.
Thanks for this video Brent, which I have found so helpful as I'm considering purchasing this lens. You made really helpful points and made me think in a different way about what I actually need. I'm wondering if I might sell my RF70-200 f4 for this. Is that wise do you think?
That's a tough call. I don't know how much you use the 70-200, or would keep using it if you had this too. I have both, and while they do overlap a bit, there's a lot of pros an cons. The 70-200 isn't nearly as versatile, but it's way smaller, lighter, and a bit faster with the f4. I still tend to use the 1-5 more, but a big part of that is because my wife (camera lady) usually takes the 70-200 when we're out together. Plus I never know when a birding or wildlife opportunity will come up, so I'm kind of always prepared for it with the 1-5, at the expense of the extra size and weight. But, I also care about and prioritize wildlife photography. It just so happens that this lens is perfect for both.
On the other hand, I do also really love the 70-200 for astro. It's one of my favorite lenses to use for light, tracked deep space astro stuff. So I would never get rid of mine for that alone. Well that and technically it's my wife's...lol.
@@BrentHall Thanks for that feedback - so much appreciated. I'm using the 70-200 a lot more now and these last two weeks A LOT. I've been in Greenland and Iceland and particularly in Greenland (photographing icebergs from a boat), 200mm just wasn't enough. I was with a group of photographers and two of them had that lens so I've had one in my hands. One was with an R6 and the other an R5 like mine. I take your point about weight so maybe I'm tempted to get the 100-500 then only sell the 70-200 is I end up not using it. I do astro too, and haven't used the 70-200 on the SA yet. Maybe I should try it. Have you trued the 100-500 or is it a bit too big?
@@rob-cowell I think it's probably a little too heavy for my star adventurer, but my friend has a bigger version that can handle like 40 lbs, so I might it on that one.
Hi Brent,
Thanks for the thorough review.
You brought up some very good points -- IMHO the most important of which were managing expectations and the importance of making judgements about a piece of equipment relative to yourself and your needs rather than the needs or opinions of other people. Every person is different and they really do need to take this into consideration when making purchasing decisions.
One thing I'd like to mention that I've not seen any reviewer say is that background blur and bokeh isn't just about the lens design, aperture and your distance to the subject. It's also a function of the distance between the subject and the background.
Like you, I'm a wildlife photographer. My most used lenses are a 200-400mm f/4 and a 500mm f/4. I've photographed many animals in the distance range you mention in this video -- 20 to 40 feet -- filling the frame with the subject and shooting with the widest possible aperture. Sometimes I'm even closer to my subjects. Although both of these lenses are known to producing smooth backgrounds, that's not what I always end up with. This was because sometimes my subjects were very close to things in the background such as grass, small bushes or other natural elements.
I don't view this as a problem or a reason to condemn a lens. Like you said, you have to manage your expectations and I certainly can't expect to get a perfectly smooth background if the items in the background are only a few feet behind my subject -- even if I'm extremely close, use a long lens and a wide aperture. On the other hand, I've produced pictures with extremely smooth backgrounds with short lenses -- like the 135mm lens f/2.8 lens I started with in 1986 -- stopped down at f/32, because the next closest thing behind the subjects was something like 100 yards away.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing.
Ken
Hey thanks for the awesome comment Ken, I appreciate it! I definitely agree too about background blur, that distance between the subject and the background is a very key part. I've actually done videos about that in the past. Again, it's just physics, but a lot of people don't tend to think about it as much, and most people probably don't have as much training in physics and optics as I do, lol. I tend to nerd out a lot, but try not to put it in my videos too much, and keep it laymen's and relatable.
@@BrentHall It's great to bear back from you. I suspected that you might reply -- just not so quickly.
I don't see that nerding out is such a bad thing. As I went into computers when I left my photography career behind, I tend not to do it with my photography. I'd rather put all my energy into improving my photography.
I've come to realize that people tend to put too emphasis on lens "sharpness" and agree with another online photography reviewer who said, "Sharpness is the most overrated aspect of lens performance."
What most people don’t realize is that if you do your job as a photographer and produce a strong image, no one’s going to come back and say that the picture stinks because you didn’t use a “better," “newer” or “sharper” version of a lens. It really doesn’t matter what you use - only what you do with it - because cameras and lenses don’t take pictures. People do.
I’ve been following families of red foxes at a den in my home town since 2017. In that time, I’ve made pictures using the Nikon 500mm f/4G VR II, 200-400mm f/4G VR, 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II and 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E. I shot most of the images using these lenses at their widest apertures. Many of the pictures were made with a 1.4x teleconverter. I recently made some 13”x19” prints of the pictures. The image quality between them was indistinguishable. In other words, without a scientific, head-to-head test, there is no way to see the quality difference between these lenses. Even in a scientifically-controlled test, you’d literally go blind trying to distinguish between them.
Are there differences? Sure. Do I care? Should anyone else care? IMHO, absolutely not.
Anyway, thanks again for the thorough review. Keep up the good work.
Ken
Hello, Just come across your channel and I was super interested in this review. Currently using the canon r6 and tamron 150-600 mark 11. Still miss a lot of opportunities with the lens hunting ( particularly with busy backgrounds) despite having dual back button focus. ( one button single shot auto focus and one for eye tracking) . Was seriously considering this lens for slight weight reduction, no need for an adaptor and superior image quality but your comments regarding distance to subject and physics has given me pause for thought. It would be super helpful if I could figure out if it was me or my equipment, I tend to shoot wide open at 1/800-1/1000 and move upwards depending on subject. ( plus auto iso) Is there anything else you could suggest I do to improve my capture rate? Or is it a matter of just practising more?
Keep up the great work thank you!
Totally agree! I bought this lens about a year ago when you told me two things: that this lens is “sharper than sharp”and “watch the price”. I decided the price is not a problem, so I am very happy with it. Thank
you VERY MUCH for your input. Much appreciated!!!
Hey thanks Ray, I'm glad you liked it!
Great review! Never care too much about all the scientific analysis of camera gears. How do you mostly use the focus limiter and stabilizer modes for bird photography? For example, how do you set them for perched birds and birds in flight?
Thanks man, I appreciate it! I usually leave it on full and mode 1.
Very good info and backed by amazing photos! Thank you.
Many thanks!
I am very new to the Canon world coming from Pentax. I have recently purchased the R5 and this lens. One question for you and it is about whether or not to put camouflage on it. I see you are dressed all in camo, but nothing on the lens. Is this an issue?
Great review, love the format and location. The location was perfect imo. Q: where did you buy tyat camo top ? Looks like Realtree ?
Thanks man, I'm glad you liked it! I got that shirt in the clearance bin at Wal-Mart, for like $4, lol. Unless you were talking about the hood, in which case I got that on amazon for like $20 or something.
Great video, Brent. I am curious how you carry this heavy lens at 8:03. Were you wearing a hand-free camera harness? Thanks!
Thanks! That's the Peak Design Capture Clip V3. I should have a link for it in the video description. I also did a video about it too. I love that thing.
@@BrentHall perfect. Just watched that one. Thank you!
Just now getting my start in the mirrorless world, so I have been making my way through these review videos (even though the trigger has already been pulled on this lens and some other gear that is in shipment as I type this). I have to ask--with the Red-faced Warblers and Painted Redstarts, are you on the Arizona or the New Mexico side of their range? Photos from southeast Arizona inspired me to do my first destination birding trip, and I am always looking forward to going back after the two trips I have done there. I definitely love the Southwest and all the diversity of wildlife there!
Oh nice, hopefully you get the lens soon! I'm in Silver City, NM. I do go to the Chiricahua mountains and SE AZ often. It's such a great area for wildlife and landscape photography.
Great video. Bought this lens 3 or 4 months ago. It's amazing.. Good review and information. Thanks very much.
Thanks Mark, I'm glad you liked the video!
Totally agree with you! Getting close is key. I stumbled across some mule deer on Monday. The detail I got was insane!
Oh nice, I hope you got some decent shots!
My experience with birds in the sky is that it constantly lost focus. Which AF settings did you use for it?
Could not agree more about getting closer and not blaming your equipment. I was a bit lucky a few years ago to get some fantastic osprey pictures with a Canon T6 and the Canon 400mm f5.6 L. I have learned a few things since then. Glass over camera, same settings, same equipment, different location and weather can provide different results. Once had an eagle in front of me in a light mist, now with a 6Dmmii. Not usable photos.
Great review Brent and a really refreshing insight into the lens. I have a bit of a different question in that I currently shoot with an R5 using my trusty Canon 200-400mm f/4 lens. I'm very interested in the 100-500mm if not purely for the weight reduction. I would be interested to hear if you have ever shot with the 200-400mm to see if you think the newer 100-500mm is a worthy substitute. I definitely know it's not an 'apples for apples' comparison and the main thing that worries me is the jump form f/4 to f/7.1.
Yeah I get it. And that really goes along with my whole thing about good vs good for you. The 200-400 is one of the sharpest and most amazing lenses ever, but good grief is it heavy! I have used it, and I love it, but I could neither afford it in the first place, nor could my broken body (thanks navy) handle carrying it around all the time, so while that lens is technically amazing, it's not good for me personally. I would subjectively say that as far as image quality, the 1-5 is 99% that of the 200-400, and it's much cheaper, smaller, and lighter. The fact that you already have the 2-4 means that you overcame the price issue, so now you just need to weigh the other issues. I'd suggest renting the 1-5 for a while and going out with it multiple times and see how you like it. Like I said in the video, coming from an f/4, you'll probably notice the higher isos, but you'd need to try it out to see if that ends up being an issue for you or not. The aperture is a compromise to me personally, but I'd rather have a shot at f7.1 because I was able to bring the lens with me and wield it well enough to get the shot, than to have not gotten the shot at all. That's just my 2 cents though. A lot of people are more physically capable than me, lol, so if you don't mind carrying the 2-4 and are getting great shots with it, then none of that might matter to you.
I have used my 200-400L for several years with 70D, 7D mk ii, 1DX mk ii and now R5 (and R6). It is a great lens, but heavy and expensive. It was a joy to use it with the R5 as I finally could get consistent results with an external extender, both x1.4 and x2. I have always found it heavy and slow to swing for BIF. I got the RF 100-500 with an x1.4 in late spring 2021. I was shocked at my first trip with the 100-500 where I guided a group of photographers to a peregrine nest. I first took some shots with the 200-400 at 100 meters (300 ft) and later with the 100-500 + x1.4 (700mm @ f/10). I was shocked to see the 100-500 got much better results (though an hour later with less heat waves). I almost haven't used the 200-400L since and I wonder when I will use it again. I know it is 400mm f/4 (or 560 f/5.6) vs. 500mm f/7.1 so ISO tends to get a little higher. But DXO PureRAW / DeNoise AI handles that.
When comparing RF 100-500 to EF 100-400 II on the long end, it makes more sense when you add TC 1.4x to the 100-400, which gives 560mm f/8, which you still preferably step down to f/9 or f/10 to get better sharpness. From that perspective, sharp 500mm f7/.1 doesn't look that bad anymore. On the other hand, on a high res body like Canon R5, you can crop the 100-400mm by 25% to get 500mm and still get good results (not as much on something like Canon R6 though). 100-500 is f/6.3 at 400mm so only 1/3 EV compared to the 100-400's f/5.6 at 400mm. Either way, I think RF 100-500 is manageable.
Thanks for your great practical info. A video of yours steered me right in upgrading from RP to R6 for the jump on AF for wildlife. Just acquired a used RF 100-500l to replace my trusty Sigma 150-600c. I would love to find your R6 setup for autofocus for this lens. Do you have a link to a video or tutorial? Thanks again.
I have y R6 setup the same as my r5 for wildlife. This video shows how I have it set:
th-cam.com/video/5l5feoIUmdI/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=BrentHall
Great review and I agree with everything you said. Love my 100-500mm. The newer mirrorless cameras and sensors let you push the limits beyond what DSLRs can do. I loved my 100-400mm but traded it in to get the 100-500 and no regrets. If I want crazy shots ill haul out my 500mm f4 ver1 and extenders. Speaking of extenders, what are your thoughts with them on the 100-500mm? Thanks for the great content!
Hey thanks man, I'm glad you're liking the lens! I'm actually gonna do a video about the 1-5 with the 1.4x TC here pretty soon. 😁
That hood filter door is made pretty crappy lol. Mine on the 70-200 is loose. Good idea on the taping.
Even those pictures that are too far away are still good. There's more context. No pixel peeping allowed, just enjoy the scene! 😄
Hey Brent,
I just got this lens for my R7. I'm going to test this out and see how it is. Great review as always. I tried the Sigma and Tamron with my R7 and the focus just would not lock well at all.
Oh nice, the 1-5 and R7 is a great combo!
@@BrentHall It is! I have both tele converters as well, but most likely will only really use the 1.4.
I wish canon would make a 500 or 600 5.6 or 6.3. that would be more affordable. in stead of 13k lol.
Comparison of the RF 100-500 vs the 800?? Yes, Please.
That bald eagle shot is awesome
Many thanks!
Great video. I just love this lens as well.
Hi, excellent video, do you have a video of bird photography with R5 & RF 100-500?
thanks man, I'm glad you liked it! Yeah, I have quite a few birding videos with that setup. I have a whole wildlife playlist you can check out.
I really appreciated this video. Your comments about not being close enough is bang on. I'm actually a student of photography. I recently purchased this lense and use it with R6. The one thing I'm struggling with is shooting video without a tripod. Perhaps I need to get to the gym!!!? I'm still not satisfied with my videos, is this something that comes with experience?
Thanks Dale, I appreciate the kind words! Shooting without a tripod definitely benefits from experience, but it's also always hard, lol. A good bit of my shots usually don't turn out, and most still need to be stabilized in post. It's just a sacrifice I'm usually willing to make because I don't want to deal with a tripod.
Good review. One question. Do you feel that you have to stop down to find the "sweet spot" aperture? If so, what is the sweet spot aperture?
Do I have to? No...but I usually do when shooting small birds and far away stuff, just to get a bit more DOF. That said, I've been totally happy with the IQ wide open.
Totally agree with your comments about physics. It reminded me to be realistic and explains why some of my recent shots of an Osprey weren't as good as I'd hoped.
On another point, this has totally come at a great moment as I've just started shooting wildlife, using the RF70-200MM F2.8L but find I'm always wanting a little more reach so have been considering trading it in for the 100-500. I love the 2.8 but the cost is prohibitive to keep it and buy the 100-500. Decisions decisions. I need to sit down and do some head scratching but thanks for the video.
I'm picking your brains to help me make my decision. Like you I shoot Landscapes and recently started shooting wildlife. as I said, I have been using the RF 70-200 F2.8L but also use the RF 24-105 F4L. Can I ask, apart from the RF 100-500 f45.71L, what other lens do you use. I'm loathed to part with the 70-200 f2.8 but am wondering if I can get used to having the 24-105, alongside the 100-500 and live without having a F2.8 lol?
Great video, Brent. I completely agree with your assessment. The 100-500 pretty much 'lives' on my R5. One question regarding the stabilizer: Does it need to be turned off when shooting from a tripod? Thanks.
Many thanks! That's a pretty debatable topic. I don't really ever turn it off. Mostly because I know I'll forget to turn it back on after I'm done. Also, I think there's really any super definitive proof that it helps to any certain degree.
@@BrentHall Glad to hear you say that, but I'm in the same camp as you--for the same reason! Thanks.
Brent, Thanks for the details and onsite use of the 100-500mm. Do you consider this lens a dust/water collector as you slide in and out? Hope you will be posting a video on the Canon 600mm f/11 and the 800mm f/11 soon.
Well, it is technically weather-sealed inside the zoom part, but so was my 1-4 mk2 and it definitely got dust in it over time (but I also live in a desert...). I've never had a problem with water getting in though, so hopefully it won't be too much of an issue. Even when dust got into my 1-4 though, I didn't really care because it just focuses right past it anyway. When it comes to it though, it's not a deciding factor for me personally, because the usefulness of the lens overall will always outweigh the possibility of getting a little dust in the lens, and for the most part, it will never affect my image quality or ability to get great images.
@@BrentHall Brent, Thanks for your specifics about the potential for the 100-500mm being a dust collector. The fact that you have not encountered many problems with dust is a testament on your trust in the lens.
Us mere mortals who aren't pro photographers can only dream of a lens/body combo like this 😂😂😂 on a more serious note, great review and I think your images are amazing. Just subscribed.
Thanks man, I appreciate that!
Just got mine today!
Nice video! I always find your reviews to be more useful than most because they seem more based in reality than some. Maybe I missed it but I didn’t hear you talk about size, weight and handling? I am currently using an R6 with the Sigma Contemporary 150-600. It’s perfectly fine but the eye AF in servo mode seems to bounce around a lot and the stabilization isn’t very good. My primary complaint is the size and weight. The Sigma is something like 4.5 lbs and the adapter moves the weight even more forward so it gets kind of old. I have a chronically sore right shoulder so any reduction in weight is a definite positive. I really have no issue with the IQ of the Sigma but the functionality and size and weight leave something to be desired. The specs on the Canon lens show it to be 3lbs. How noticeable is that to you? I have had the lens back ordered for a while.
Hey thanks Rod, I appreciate the kind words! Yeah size and weight are definitely key features to me. It's just a hair bigger than the 1-4 mk2 but it's also just a bit lighter as well. It fits very well in all of my photo bags, and I can comfortably carry it all day without too much wear and tear on my shoulders and neck. When you compare it to the Sigma and Tamron 150-600s, it's quite a bit lighter, and me personally, it's very noticeable, and I'm super thankful for it.
Hi do you use this lens with the 1.4x or 2x and how are you finding it. Does losing the 1 or 2 stop just make the ISO so high?
I actually made a whole separate video about that.
th-cam.com/video/iRb9XfAe9_4/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=BrentHall
That stupid door thing on my 100-400 II after 5-6 years of use went to rattle trap status long ago... used a clear piece of tape on top of it, so can still slide it, just takes more effort and it eliminated the stupid sound coming from it. Sadly, my b+w polarizer I paid and arm/leg for years ago is now much more difficult to rotate, so I have to have the hood off now just to get it where I want to... not sure if it can be fixed or if it's replacement time?
another great review, and very timely as I'm looking to invest in this lens, however I need to part ex to afford it, so do I ditch my RF800 f11 or my EF 70-200 L11 or both as this 100-500 seems to cover my needs ! your thoughts would be much appreciated
Oh thanks, I'm glad it helped! That's a tough choice. You could always put it in crop mode or ad a TC for more reach to make up for the 800, but the 800 is a lot lighter. Most of the 70-200 range is redundant with the 1-5, though the 70-200 is faster on the aperture. I guess you'd just have to look at how much you use the 70-200 wide open, and also figure out if you feel like carrying both around, because the 70-200 2.8 is heavy too. tough choices.
@@BrentHall Sound words Brent thanks very much
Dave
Thank you for the review. I am now in th market for such a lens and the info you provided is helpful. I have just one question and that is about the ring furthest to the back of the lens which you can program to do nearly anything, do you use this feature and if so what have you programmed the ring to do? Again, thank you for the review! Jim
Sure thing Jim, I'm glad the video helped! Personally, I've never used the RF ring, though it could certainly be useful for certain camera bodies that don't have a good control layout. You could use it for controlling iso or exposure comp, or aperture, stuff like that.
I love to hear your opinion comparing the two lenses 800mm vs 100-500mm. I want to buy the 100-500mm but its always out of stock.
Well, the short version of my 2 cents on that is that the 1-5 is technically better in just about every way, except for price and weight. I do still like my 800 but I find myself reaching for it way less now.
Can I ask what camera you use/recommend for wildlife photography and landscape? I am currently between the r5 and the r6 markII
IMHO the R5 is probably the best choice overall for both landscape and wildlife, though the R6II has better AF, and ever so slightly better high iso performance. You really can't go wrong with either of them.
If you do video, it's also a toss up. The R5 has 8K, better codecs, and 4K 120p, whereas the R6II has unlimited time recording (R5 tops out at 30 min continuous), slightly better low light, but less codecs and no 8K or 4K 120.
I only just wish I could get mine. Been waiting for months now. Here in the UK.
Nice video thanks. Do you use a tele converter?
Thanks Allen! That definitely sucks about the wait time over there, I hope you get yours soon. I don't usually use a TC, but I will be doing a video about it here in the coming weeks.
Great review I also have this lens and everything you said is spot on.
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate that!
Thanks for a very interesting video. I currently use the EF 100-400 (v2) with my R5. I am trying to decide whether it's worth upgrading. Have you compared the 100-500 with the 100-400?
That's a hard choice, especially without knowing anything about you or your situation. For most people, I'd say it's probably not worth the price to upgrade, at least right away. Like I said in the video, the difference between good and good for you is what you need to consider. Yes the 1-5 is technically better in just about every way (except price obviously), but how much better? Not much, at all. So is that huge price increase worth the minor performance and slight convenience upgrades for you? I don't know. That being said, if you have the money, and know it won't be a burden, then yeah, I'd upgrade, but only if it won't hurt your situation or you don't have anything else super important to do with that extra cash. Just my 2 cents though.
@@BrentHall thanks - I will save my money!
Hi Brent, thank you for all your extensive videos. I have a question though. I have a R6 and don't plan on upgrading that. But I do want to upgrade my EF sigma 150-600mm to something with better focus capabilities. Would you go for a EF 400mm f2.8 mark 1 or 2? Or would you prefer the RF 100-500mm? What would be better focus wise for bif and common wildlife? Thank you in advance. Kind regards, Simon
Idk, I think that would really depend on your needs and your willingness to compromise. The primes are great, they're fast and sharp, but they're expensive and very heavy, and less versatile than a zoom. The 1-5 is amazing (as I've said many times before, it is my overall favorite lens). It's sharp, light, and very versatile, but it's a bit slower, and still a bit expensive. So there's compromises whichever way you go, you just have to figure out what will work best for you. I can also say that the focusing on the 1-5 is very very capable, and better than just about anything I've ever used, so I wouldn't worry about that.
@@BrentHall thank you for your reply! I'm leaning towards the 1-5 because of it's weight and the versatility is a nice plus. The price is a big one, but the 150-600 sigma I have now has real issues with focussing, so I have to make a change. Again thank you.
Sure thing man, glad I could help.
thanks 4 the reminder about distance and physics, I've had my share of disappointments there. When larger wildlife are distance which focus limiter setting is best: the "full" or the 3 meter to infinity w this lens? thanks!
Well, technically in that scenario, the latter would be better. I personally never take it off full though, because it's usually good enough for me, but also because I know I'll forget to put it back to full when I'm done and I will...and have...missed shots because of it not focusing, lol.
When do you find yourself preferring the 800 over the 100-500?
Not very often lately. The 1-5 has just been so incredible, I find myself picking up the 800 less and less. The times where I'll take the 800 first are usually for water fowl in bright daylight, and also for moon and some nebulae stuff when I don't want to bother with lugging out my big telescope.
Hi Brent, firstly thanks for the fab review of the 100-500. Really useful. I got my own just two weeks ago. I use it with the R5 body. I am shooting birds on the wing and primarily swifts. I am still playing with the camera settings as I need the AF to respond in a split of a second. Yet I am getting quite a few blurred frames even if the bird is in the middle of the viewfinder. I am using the eye tracking which works better than any conventional methods I used with my DSLRs. My feeling is that I am not tapping into the full capabilities of this gear. I know it can do amazing things e.g. I was able to lock on a bird in flight an keep it in focus on a very busy backdrop and behind bushes. It is pretty much trail and error, but perhaps you have some tips and tricks to share. That would be great. Many thanks, Piotr
Thanks, I'm glad you liked it! I do have a couple of other videos about my R5 AF set up that might help. Just check out my Wildlife videos playlist, they should both be in there.