Even as a hobbyist with an R5 and the 100-500mm, I have to take upmost care and caution with it in the field. Yes I realize they are built for extensive field use, but when I’m holding nearly $5,000 in my hands at all times when photographing wildlife, I usually take the time to baby my gear. Just imaging dropping this setup makes my heart rate jump.
Thanks for the comment. I'm also very careful with my gear. I hate seeing cameras and lenses all beaten up. I know they are just tools at the end of the day but they're a bit more expensive than a hammer or a screwdriver.
@@UKFR hi thanks for the comment. I can’t recommend the 15-35 enough. I only realised while making this video that’s it’s been the lens I’ve used the most over the last 4 years. The 100-500 is probably the second most used lens. Both absolute work horses. Best of luck for the future. 👍
@@JosephRossPhotography hi Joseph. Thanks so much for viewing the video and for the humbling comment. I surprised myself when looking back over some of those shots! Good luck for the future. I hope everything goes well for you.
I have the 200-800. Its basically like having the TC on the 100-500 all the time. Very sharp lens, despite not being L. Great value considering the price.
I have 3 X 1DXll, an EF 400mm 2.8 L IS MKll, an EF 70-200mm L IS MKll, and an EF 17-40mm 4.0-and I don't even want to upgrade. That was a great video, though.
Thanks for this great review! Clean and concise! How are you traveling internationally with the 400 2.8? I just purchased it myself and have been wondering how to make sure I buy the right backpack that it would fit in and keep it safe while at the same time make sure that backpack stays with me when boarding an international flight. Given you have such an amazing kit, a backpack review if possible would be quite helpful.
Thanks so much for the comment. The 400 sure is a big lump when travelling. You’ll need to allocate at least 3kg juts for one lens. I have another video coming out soon just about the 400mm and how I transport it. Will be out soon.
The RF70-200/2.8 doesn’t accept tele converters either which is why I have kept my EF version although now I have the 100-400L ii. I would say the RF100-500 is a pro lens, it’s seriously sharp and of you can use it for sports then others can. I guess Canon are developing their xxx-600/4 zoom
@@mvp_kryptonite thanks for the comment. The frustrating thing about the RF mount if the lack of use of teleconverters. I think canon rushed some lenses out during the development phase. Maybe they will make some changes to their MKII versions to include the use of teleconverters. So far it hasn’t really bothered me too much as I used the R5 quite a lot and the 45mp sensor makes up for it.
@@mstarling79 I agree about the tele converter limitation so far. I think their plan is to essentially replace fast primes aka big whites with zoom variants. Not sure what that means for the 800&1200 offerings however. But EF you could almost add the tele converter to anything as long as it was say 100mm long as a minimum focal length. Personally having used the RF70-200 with its collapsing design, I dislike it a lot. Think a Z version is in the pipeline too
🤣I know what you’re saying. I used M43 for quite a while and loved it. I still have the G9 and the Leica 100-400 and have taken them with me on many trips. The size, weight and overall costs are massive and understandably a deal breaker for many but for professional sports the M43 gear cannot compete with full frame.
Thank you for your video. I shoot both Canon RF and Sony. I have the f/2.8 RF L holy trinity and the RF 100-500mm plus RF L primes at 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 100/2.8 Macro, and 135/1.8. as and they are great. Have been using an R5 but will consider the new R5 II since I don’t really shoot sports anymore except maybe some runners in road racing. Do wish the longer telephotos were more affordable but I really should trim down my systems before I complain. Take care.
Fantastic! Thanks for the comment. The 135 1.8 is a definite considering for me as I don’t really have anything at that focal range and lower light performance. I think we all wish the same for those big whites. 👍
Canon chose to make the 100-500 short. If they wanted to make it accept the RF 1.4X at 100mm the lens would have had to be 2.5cm longer. Most photographers won't use a teleconverter so they won't be burdened with a lens that is 2.5cm longer than it needs to be.
Excellent review! I'm still fully invested in the 5D and EF series. I'm sure you were at one point. What was the motivating factor to switch fully to the RF line? Fantastic photos here! From sports, wildlife, landscapes, and timelapses! Thank you for your reply.
Thanks for the comment. I started with a 20D then used a 5D MKIII at the place i was working. That was a great camera! After moving jobs i switched to Lumix micro 4/3 then switched back to Canon once they started to take mirrorless more seriously. Now i'm fully invested in Canon RF. I'm not likely to switch regardless of how many FPS, megapixels or dynamic range other brands produce because i think Canon has the best glass available, and for me that makes the difference.
Hello im not a canon shooter but in conjunction with the r5 the rf 100-300 f2.8 could replace the 100-500 70-200 and the 400mmf2.8 ? One lens to rule em all ?
Thanks for the comment. For me this is a 20 year investment. Camera bodies will come and go but the lenses if looked after will last for years to come.
Even as a hobbyist with an R5 and the 100-500mm, I have to take upmost care and caution with it in the field. Yes I realize they are built for extensive field use, but when I’m holding nearly $5,000 in my hands at all times when photographing wildlife, I usually take the time to baby my gear. Just imaging dropping this setup makes my heart rate jump.
Thanks for the comment. I'm also very careful with my gear. I hate seeing cameras and lenses all beaten up. I know they are just tools at the end of the day but they're a bit more expensive than a hammer or a screwdriver.
Your photography is sensational! Your TH-cam channel is so helpful ☺️🙌🏼
Thanks so much!!
Very useful, thanks. I have the 100-500 and very pleased. Now looking at wide options such as the 15-35.
@@UKFR hi thanks for the comment. I can’t recommend the 15-35 enough. I only realised while making this video that’s it’s been the lens I’ve used the most over the last 4 years. The 100-500 is probably the second most used lens. Both absolute work horses. Best of luck for the future. 👍
Man you have some beautiful shots on this video your work is amazing!
@@JosephRossPhotography hi Joseph. Thanks so much for viewing the video and for the humbling comment. I surprised myself when looking back over some of those shots! Good luck for the future. I hope everything goes well for you.
I have the 200-800. Its basically like having the TC on the 100-500 all the time. Very sharp lens, despite not being L. Great value considering the price.
Thanks for the comment
I have 3 X 1DXll, an EF 400mm 2.8 L IS MKll, an EF 70-200mm L IS MKll, and an EF 17-40mm 4.0-and I don't even want to upgrade. That was a great video, though.
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for this great review! Clean and concise! How are you traveling internationally with the 400 2.8? I just purchased it myself and have been wondering how to make sure I buy the right backpack that it would fit in and keep it safe while at the same time make sure that backpack stays with me when boarding an international flight. Given you have such an amazing kit, a backpack review if possible would be quite helpful.
Thanks so much for the comment. The 400 sure is a big lump when travelling. You’ll need to allocate at least 3kg juts for one lens. I have another video coming out soon just about the 400mm and how I transport it. Will be out soon.
@@mstarling79 Thanks for responding! Looking forward to the next video!
The RF70-200/2.8 doesn’t accept tele converters either which is why I have kept my EF version although now I have the 100-400L ii. I would say the RF100-500 is a pro lens, it’s seriously sharp and of you can use it for sports then others can. I guess Canon are developing their xxx-600/4 zoom
@@mvp_kryptonite thanks for the comment. The frustrating thing about the RF mount if the lack of use of teleconverters. I think canon rushed some lenses out during the development phase. Maybe they will make some changes to their MKII versions to include the use of teleconverters. So far it hasn’t really bothered me too much as I used the R5 quite a lot and the 45mp sensor makes up for it.
@@mstarling79 I agree about the tele converter limitation so far. I think their plan is to essentially replace fast primes aka big whites with zoom
variants. Not sure what that means for the 800&1200 offerings however. But EF you could almost add the tele converter to anything as long as it was say 100mm long as a minimum focal length. Personally having used the RF70-200 with its collapsing design, I dislike it a lot. Think a Z version is in the pipeline too
As a M43 shooter I was horrified at the size of those lenses! I mean I know FF lenses were large but these are massive haha!
🤣I know what you’re saying. I used M43 for quite a while and loved it. I still have the G9 and the Leica 100-400 and have taken them with me on many trips. The size, weight and overall costs are massive and understandably a deal breaker for many but for professional sports the M43 gear cannot compete with full frame.
@mstarling79 I've never shot sports so I'll have to trust your judgement there! :)
Very useful to view as both a Canon R3 and concur with your analysis. I also use Nikon Z9 Camera with a mix of F and Z mount lenses
Thanks for the comment.
Thank you for your video. I shoot both Canon RF and Sony. I have the f/2.8 RF L holy trinity and the RF 100-500mm plus RF L primes at 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 100/2.8 Macro, and 135/1.8. as and they are great. Have been using an R5 but will consider the new R5 II since I don’t really shoot sports anymore except maybe some runners in road racing. Do wish the longer telephotos were more affordable but I really should trim down my systems before I complain. Take care.
Fantastic! Thanks for the comment. The 135 1.8 is a definite considering for me as I don’t really have anything at that focal range and lower light performance. I think we all wish the same for those big whites. 👍
Canon chose to make the 100-500 short. If they wanted to make it accept the RF 1.4X at 100mm the lens would have had to be 2.5cm longer. Most photographers won't use a teleconverter so they won't be burdened with a lens that is 2.5cm longer than it needs to be.
Thanks for the comment. You made some good points.
Excellent review! I'm still fully invested in the 5D and EF series. I'm sure you were at one point. What was the motivating factor to switch fully to the RF line?
Fantastic photos here! From sports, wildlife, landscapes, and timelapses!
Thank you for your reply.
Thanks for the comment. I started with a 20D then used a 5D MKIII at the place i was working. That was a great camera! After moving jobs i switched to Lumix micro 4/3 then switched back to Canon once they started to take mirrorless more seriously. Now i'm fully invested in Canon RF. I'm not likely to switch regardless of how many FPS, megapixels or dynamic range other brands produce because i think Canon has the best glass available, and for me that makes the difference.
Hello im not a canon shooter but in conjunction with the r5 the rf 100-300 f2.8 could replace the 100-500 70-200 and the 400mmf2.8 ? One lens to rule em all ?
Thanks for the comment. The 100-300 is shaping up to be very popular with sports shooters.
Wow, that is a lot of $$$$$ all these f2.8 lenses
Thanks for the comment. For me this is a 20 year investment. Camera bodies will come and go but the lenses if looked after will last for years to come.