I have the Canon R5 and I have replaced my both EF400 F/5.6L and EF70-200 F/2.8L II USM with the Canon RF100-500mm - its been excellent as as you said I don't think I would have used the other two lenses any more that's how good this new RF lens is - Excellent Lens
I'm really enjoying my 100-500 while shooting birds. Planning to use it for some flower closeups soon. The con regarding the extenders isn't a big issue; I'm only interested in the long end if I put on an extender.
Here’s my review of the Canon RF100-500mm f4.5-f7.1 telephoto zoom lens. took a while longer to get done than I'd hoped but hopefully you enjoy. Is this a lens you would purchase? What other Canon lenses would you like me to review? As always thank you for watching.
Thanks for the review, good stuff. Personally, I think this lens is a bit of a dogs dinner. It's a decent enough naked lens but the only real advantage over the excellent and much cheaper ef 100-400 L II is an extra 100mm reach. When you bring extenders into the equation the 100-500 starts to become much less attractive with it's clunky restricted focal length and slow f/11 at the long end. The EF100-400 on the other hand behaves well with a 1.4 extender taking you to 560mm at a much more useable f/8. with no restrictions on focal range zoom. I just can't see the value to performance ratio in the RF 100-500 when comparing it to the EF 100-400 MKII. I'm really hoping and waiting for Canon to make a RF200-600 L with a reasonable max aperture . If they got it right it would be a killer lens and probably a best seller for them. I live in hope lol
@@frostybe3r Well, its performing also in literally everything worse... Sry, not just worse... A LOT WORSE! I searched the last months a lot for telezooms, prime teles.... how i can get the most performance and focal distance for a reasonable price without cutting too much on image quality and wildlife usability. I nearly bought a 3rd party 150-600 2nd hand, but the more i watched the focus breathing issues on mirrorless cameras, the more i understood why so many 150-600s are sold for reasonable good prices! moving wildlife without usable AF is a pain in the ass (tried it for years with 75-300 IS USM), and a usable AF-C is preffered in that case. Since i had already a EOS RP - there was no other option (for reasonable prices) than RF 800 F11. I though about the 100-500L, but without TC its not long enough and with a TC its performing not anywhere that great anymore, especially with the 2x TC. Too much downsides for such a high priced lens, let alone the overpriced Teleconverters!
Excellent review. In particular, the comments on practical use with the TC were previously unknown to me. Limiting of the focal length range by usigng the TC is an important aspect and must always be taken into account.
I am looking to switch to cannon and your video was helpful to know what the options are on the zoom. Thanks! Some of the other reviews compared the 100-400 and 100-500 and found the newer one (100-500) does have sharper and crisper pictures with the extender on. Just FYI
Did you find that the internal lens component to be noticeably wobbly while in standby/off? I've noticed this with mine, and assume it has to do with the super-duper image stabilization in this lens - but damn if it doesn't seem like a longer term failure point.
@@cameracravings3216 - Yes, mostly noticeable while walking. I got this primarily as a hiking+wildlife lens, and although i don't regret it for its form factor and wonderful optics the internal movements (dare I say "rattle") are concerning. If you leave the camera on it's not a problem as the IS holds the front element in place. If off, and hung around your neck in front of you....you'll feel it knock back and forth with each stride.
A good review. I totally agree with the cons and pros. When shooting wildlife the subjects are most of the time on a distance and then the extender is good. I then leave the extender on for the entire shoot. No problem. When I go out and want to photograph more diverse subjects, I experience it as something negative. Especially if your subject is close and you can't take the distance to get it right in the picture. Then you have to change more often with or without an extender. But beyond that minor negative, it's a great lens.
In my opinion its a great lens WITHOUT teleconverter (if you can afford it) As soon you add a teleconverter... you better just do it because you want more reach without getting a supertele lens additionally, anything else would be a bad decision. I was going then the RF 800 F11 way... much cheaper, more reach and i can handle the big focal range plus i barely need anything between 200 and 600 mm anyways (and therefor i just have a 75-300mm on 1,6x crop with 120-480mm)
Nice review. i like it with the 1.4x as it allows 700mm. i mostly use the copy zoomed out so no issue foe me to get too 140 mm or so. and if i want to do landscape, just take it off. the only time i put the tc on is to get to 700 mm on a good light day.
I tested it with 2x TC I really loved the 1000mm, but in the end i realized 1000mm are sure a nice advantage for wildlife, but im also fine with a better aperture on the RF 800 F11. The 100-500 standalone is very nice, especially as universal lens when the 100mm are wide enough, but as long there is no option like a 100-500 (or 400) with a integrated teleconverter, its still too expensive.
This is the lens I would like to use with my new R6 (when it arrives) as well as a 2X extender (despite limiting the range from 600-1000). But it is nowhere near to being in the budget at the moment. I'm hoping the R6 works well enough with my Sigma 150-600. Even with that lens though I'm not getting close enough to my subjects (high-flying bald eagles or birds that fly away when I'm too close). So an affordable solution would be a 2X extender attached to the Sigma and then to the ES-R basic adapter. How well do you think that could work for me? Or do you think lighting or AF might be too much of an issue? Thanks if you can comment.
I tried the 100-500 with 2x TC. Its "ok"-ish, but in my opinion the RF 100-500 shines the most on a R5 so you can crop more and its sharp enough for that, but only without 2x TC. With 2x TC it gets already (front) heavy and annoying to carry, not so much on 100mm without teleconverter. Therefor its a superb 100-500 lens. Also, the aperture gets a problem with 2x TC in not so perfect light conditions, tested with R6 and RP. Beside the reduced sharpness with 2x TC, the camera has to deal with high ISO too then. If you mainly want 100-500 and probably also a supertele... you better think about the 1,4x converter where the 100-500 is still sharp enough and you got 800mm at least which is already much. Since the 100-500, especially with a 1,4 or 2x converter was too expensive and too unpractical in my opinion and i mainly wanted just good reach for wildlife, i got a RF 800 F11. performing even better than 100-500+2x converter. Sadly no chance of testing it with 1,4x TC, but i guess with a 1,4x TC they are pretty much on par (in image quality)
The problem with R6 and 100-500 combo: It "just" got 20 MP, pretty huge pixel size, the RF 100-500 is MUCH SHARPER than it needs to be for most cameras, which is somehow a good thing, but to get the most out of it, it means you better have a 30MP+ camera. With enough MP i guess you can even forget the TC and just crop in post processing! My RF 800s F11 is already annoying, the F14 (smaller AF area than the RF 800!!!!) of the 100-500+2xTC is even more annoying, just said! Thats why i would definately say: 1,4x TC instead of 2x.
It’s a peak design quick release arca swiss compatible plate - use them on cameras and larger lenses to swap between, tripod or camera clip on bag/belt for quick carrying. They are super useful (may do a video on them soon as it’s something I’ve used loads over the years. Other brands like Ulanzi now do similar things at a cheaper price point, but peak design were the og manufacturer and very good quality.
I am saving up for the 600mm contemporary thats how far my budget can stretch to and i am in the DSLR system over the mirrorless at the moment i am saving for the one with out the converter i do like to look at the mirrorless system like the rf 100-500 i will move on to the mirrorless system one day but will stay with the cheaper option keep my old lenses and get and adapter so i can still use my 18-55 50mm prime 55-250mm 75-300mm and the future 150-600mm i am currently using and old 135-400 from sigma at the moment
Stay at DSLRs as long as you can if you love your EF glasses! I got a EOS RP.... as my EF 50mm 1.4 broke... i replaced it with a RF 50mm 1.8 because it was easier and faster replaced than looking for a good 2nd hand deal on EF 50mms. Just after i got a Meike EF RF Filter adapter.... i began to replace more and more EF glass with RF glass, lol. Only the filter adapter with its clear, ND and polarizer inserts made me hold on to the most usable EF glasses i had, but especially "garbage" stuff like a 18-55, 55-250 (EF-S, APS-C lenses, ouch!) and 75-300 was thrown out very fast (and financed midclass RF glass like RF 800 F11)
Also, especially with the 3rd party 150-600mm telezooms, you have to be careful - all of them have focus breathing, literally fking up more than 50% of your wildlife shots on mirrorless Canons! In my opinion, for basic zoom lenses, macro stuff, prime lenses and so, older EF lenses are just fine on mirrorless. In fact i love them because of the filter adapter making every EF lens usable with the same filter insert. But there are sadly problems with some 3rd party lenses which make them for the one or the other usecase very problematic or limited (like the 150-600 with unusable AF-C!)
@@cameracravings3216 tnx that would be great. Looking forward to it. I already have the 100-400 MII and an 1.4x on a 7DII. So I know AF speed is an issue plus I'm at f/8 which only allows single point focusing on the DSLR so even when I move to an R5 , I will certainly keep the 7DII (for a bit longer due to the crop benefits) so I'm looking at options that don't cost the earth and can be used across both the EF and RF mounts. So really looking forward to this.
@@dimitristsagdis7340 I had the same. Having the 7dmk2 for the crop benefits but i must say when i got an 5dmk4 i never used the 7dmk2 any more. With the higher pixel cameras i crop in post. And now with the R5 it's even higher in pixels then the 5dmk4. So I traded in the 7d for the rf 100-500 with some of the ef-s lenses i had never used anymore. Now I had the lens at an affordable price😁.
I'm looking up date my ef 100-400 V1. I like that the sigma is 60mm vs 500mm but it;s 1.5lbs heavier. Id like to see a comparison if image quality and speed/accuracy between the sigma and 100-500
You wouldn’t specifically for that focal range, but my issue with it is two fold - 1. What if you want to carry it in your bag with lens and extender attached to camera, it takes up way more room because it has to stay extended to 300mm (one of the big selling points is how compact it is and 2. If you are tracking an animal or bird coming towards you when the extender is fitted and want to retract the zoom to keep shooting it you have less flexibility than say the EF100-400mm in the same situation.
Yeah it’s definitely a possibility to use as a replacement for the 70-200 2.8. I’ve tested and reviewed both over last few months and although I think the image quality of the 70-200 was better there wasn’t a huge difference IMHO, so if you don’t need the fast 2.8 aputure it’s a good option.
Hi sorry if I wasn’t clear in my explaining - the lens only functions with the extenders between 300mm and 500mm so you get the extra reach at the long end, but have to take the extender off to zoom it back in due to the lens barrel at the rear (between 100mm and 300mm ) meaning of you want to carry it in your bag nice and compact (one of its selling points) you have to remove the extender. Also if you are tracking an animal or bird in flight coming towards you when using the extender you’ll have less flexibility as it gets closer when compared to the ef100-400 with extender. These may be minor issues but thought it important to mention.
This lens is hugely overpriced. Quality may be good (I didn't try it) however, this can hardly be called a prosumer glass. It would have been appropriate around $ 2k.
yes, totally agree. I tested it with 2x TC and without. I would only recommend it if you really need this universal 100-500mm often and it has to be small and light, also i would only use it without, maximum with a 1,4 TC. With a 2x TC its already noticable worse than a RF 800 F11 (in aperture and sharpness!), and without TC its somehow not flexible enough for wildlife (i talk about natural wildlife, not baiting etc!), at least not on full frame. With R7/R10 its probably "ok" for wildlife with 160-800mm effectively. I got a RF 800 F11 instead and saved a lot of money so i could keep some of my universal glasses like 28-135mm and 75-300mm, with the RF 800 i have now practical focal ranges from 28-480mm in EF glasses with a EF RF Filter adapter and polarizer, V-ND and clear filter for anything and 800mm (aswell as the RF 50mm 1.8) for wildlife, astrophotography etc. What i was most impressed by the RF 800 F11... its capability in astrophotography! It can really replace a 750mm F5 newton telescope. The mount, guiding stuff etc i still use, but i just mount the 1,7kg light combo of my EOS RP and the RF 800 F11 on a sturdy equatorial mount nowadays and the RF 800 produce SO MUCH BETTER IMAGES than the newton ever could! Sure, F11 take a lot longer exposures and so more time to collect data/lights, about 5-8x as much time invested for a single image later with a lot of unusable lights due the very long exposure time, but the much better results are worth 5x the time invested (especially when you are doing it anyways automated) In fact the RF 800 makes it even easier... with my newtonian everything was automated except for the focus. Since the RF 800 is a autofocus lens, i can control the focus motor via the astrophotography/mount control app on PC/Mac ("kstars") aswell use autofocus completely automated! So the RF 800 made my astro setup literally completely automated. i basically use my newton telescope only for visual observation and sometimes bigger targets where the 800mm are just too much (my 750mm newtonian has effectively 732mm). Or very small targets where i need 2x Barlow adapter and a small astro camera for effectively 1600mm or even 3200mm. Where the RF 800 F11 just doesnt shine... wildlife in early sunrise or late sunset.
why would you need to use the extender below 300MM? the lens alone covers 100-500! 1.4x at 300mm starts at 420mm! they overlap by 80mm! there's no focal distance that isn't covered by the combo of just lens or lens plus converter! 100mm all the way to 700mm, every mm of throw is available! shut the fuck up about the lens not "letting" you use the converter from 100-299mm! you don't need it! the lens alone already has those!
Yep, 1,4x converter is the way to go if you want to pair it with 100-500L. I tried the lens with and without 2x TC, but i would have loved to try it with 1,4x, for sure a lot better, not only because of the bigger aperture...
I have the Canon R5 and I have replaced my both EF400 F/5.6L and EF70-200 F/2.8L II USM with the Canon RF100-500mm - its been excellent as as you said I don't think I would have used the other two lenses any more that's how good this new RF lens is - Excellent Lens
Great 👍 yeah it’s very versatile isn’t it
I'm really enjoying my 100-500 while shooting birds. Planning to use it for some flower closeups soon. The con regarding the extenders isn't a big issue; I'm only interested in the long end if I put on an extender.
good point Kevin
Here’s my review of the Canon RF100-500mm f4.5-f7.1 telephoto zoom lens. took a while longer to get done than I'd hoped but hopefully you enjoy. Is this a lens you would purchase? What other Canon lenses would you like me to review? As always thank you for watching.
If it wouldn't extend it would be an INSTANT buy for me.
Thanks for the review, good stuff. Personally, I think this lens is a bit of a dogs dinner. It's a decent enough naked lens but the only real advantage over the excellent and much cheaper ef 100-400 L II is an extra 100mm reach. When you bring extenders into the equation the 100-500 starts to become much less attractive with it's clunky restricted focal length and slow f/11 at the long end. The EF100-400 on the other hand behaves well with a 1.4 extender taking you to 560mm at a much more useable f/8. with no restrictions on focal range zoom. I just can't see the value to performance ratio in the RF 100-500 when comparing it to the EF 100-400 MKII. I'm really hoping and waiting for Canon to make a RF200-600 L with a reasonable max aperture . If they got it right it would be a killer lens and probably a best seller for them. I live in hope lol
Yeah agree with you, let’s hope they make an RF200-600mm to compete with Sony’s
I hope they don't make a lens like the 200-600, Sony's one is crap...
@@frostybe3r the biggest disadvantage of the 200-600 is in my opinion the 200mm on the lower end making it less usable and the price.
@@harrison00xXx It’s half the price of the RF 100-500 but ok.
@@frostybe3r Well, its performing also in literally everything worse...
Sry, not just worse... A LOT WORSE!
I searched the last months a lot for telezooms, prime teles.... how i can get the most performance and focal distance for a reasonable price without cutting too much on image quality and wildlife usability.
I nearly bought a 3rd party 150-600 2nd hand, but the more i watched the focus breathing issues on mirrorless cameras, the more i understood why so many 150-600s are sold for reasonable good prices!
moving wildlife without usable AF is a pain in the ass (tried it for years with 75-300 IS USM), and a usable AF-C is preffered in that case.
Since i had already a EOS RP - there was no other option (for reasonable prices) than RF 800 F11. I though about the 100-500L, but without TC its not long enough and with a TC its performing not anywhere that great anymore, especially with the 2x TC. Too much downsides for such a high priced lens, let alone the overpriced Teleconverters!
Excellent review. In particular, the comments on practical use with the TC were previously unknown to me.
Limiting of the focal length range by usigng the TC is an important aspect and must always be taken into account.
Thanks for watching, yes thought it was important to mention, I know for some it’s not an issue but still a slight drawback for me.
Trying rental version of the RF first, then make a decision. Great review. Thank you.
Thanks for watching, yeah I’d always try before you buy on expensive purchases if possible 👍
A good review that just exacerbates my envy in wanting it. Thanks
Thanks for watching, yes I really lovely piece of glass, I didn’t want to hand it back to the hire company 🤣
Great review. Thanks!
Thanks for watching 👍
I am looking to switch to cannon and your video was helpful to know what the options are on the zoom. Thanks! Some of the other reviews compared the 100-400 and 100-500 and found the newer one (100-500) does have sharper and crisper pictures with the extender on. Just FYI
Bought this one yesterday, gonna pick it up in 2 days. Can't wait to try it out!!
Awesome hope you enjoy it! 😎
How you liking it?
Can it shoot night sports under stadium lights?
I wonder how does this lens compare to the Sony 100-600?
Do you mean the 200-600mm? If so I’m hoping to test that with the Sony A1 next month so I’ll do a video on it.
@@cameracravings3216 yes sorry I meant the 200-600mm. Can't wait for your video thanks 😊
The Sony is a different category almost, much bigger and heavier.
Did you find that the internal lens component to be noticeably wobbly while in standby/off? I've noticed this with mine, and assume it has to do with the super-duper image stabilization in this lens - but damn if it doesn't seem like a longer term failure point.
Hmm can’t really remember it being too noticeable? There was a bit whilst walking with it.
@@cameracravings3216 - Yes, mostly noticeable while walking. I got this primarily as a hiking+wildlife lens, and although i don't regret it for its form factor and wonderful optics the internal movements (dare I say "rattle") are concerning. If you leave the camera on it's not a problem as the IS holds the front element in place. If off, and hung around your neck in front of you....you'll feel it knock back and forth with each stride.
A good review. I totally agree with the cons and pros. When shooting wildlife the subjects are most of the time on a distance and then the extender is good. I then leave the extender on for the entire shoot. No problem. When I go out and want to photograph more diverse subjects, I experience it as something negative. Especially if your subject is close and you can't take the distance to get it right in the picture. Then you have to change more often with or without an extender. But beyond that minor negative, it's a great lens.
In my opinion its a great lens WITHOUT teleconverter (if you can afford it)
As soon you add a teleconverter... you better just do it because you want more reach without getting a supertele lens additionally, anything else would be a bad decision.
I was going then the RF 800 F11 way... much cheaper, more reach and i can handle the big focal range plus i barely need anything between 200 and 600 mm anyways (and therefor i just have a 75-300mm on 1,6x crop with 120-480mm)
Nice review. i like it with the 1.4x as it allows 700mm. i mostly use the copy zoomed out so no issue foe me to get too 140 mm or so. and if i want to do landscape, just take it off. the only time i put the tc on is to get to 700 mm on a good light day.
I tested it with 2x TC
I really loved the 1000mm, but in the end i realized 1000mm are sure a nice advantage for wildlife, but im also fine with a better aperture on the RF 800 F11.
The 100-500 standalone is very nice, especially as universal lens when the 100mm are wide enough, but as long there is no option like a 100-500 (or 400) with a integrated teleconverter, its still too expensive.
This is the lens I would like to use with my new R6 (when it arrives) as well as a 2X extender (despite limiting the range from 600-1000). But it is nowhere near to being in the budget at the moment. I'm hoping the R6 works well enough with my Sigma 150-600. Even with that lens though I'm not getting close enough to my subjects (high-flying bald eagles or birds that fly away when I'm too close). So an affordable solution would be a 2X extender attached to the Sigma and then to the ES-R basic adapter. How well do you think that could work for me? Or do you think lighting or AF might be too much of an issue? Thanks if you can comment.
I tried the 100-500 with 2x TC. Its "ok"-ish, but in my opinion the RF 100-500 shines the most on a R5 so you can crop more and its sharp enough for that, but only without 2x TC.
With 2x TC it gets already (front) heavy and annoying to carry, not so much on 100mm without teleconverter. Therefor its a superb 100-500 lens.
Also, the aperture gets a problem with 2x TC in not so perfect light conditions, tested with R6 and RP. Beside the reduced sharpness with 2x TC, the camera has to deal with high ISO too then.
If you mainly want 100-500 and probably also a supertele... you better think about the 1,4x converter where the 100-500 is still sharp enough and you got 800mm at least which is already much.
Since the 100-500, especially with a 1,4 or 2x converter was too expensive and too unpractical in my opinion and i mainly wanted just good reach for wildlife, i got a RF 800 F11. performing even better than 100-500+2x converter. Sadly no chance of testing it with 1,4x TC, but i guess with a 1,4x TC they are pretty much on par (in image quality)
The problem with R6 and 100-500 combo: It "just" got 20 MP, pretty huge pixel size, the RF 100-500 is MUCH SHARPER than it needs to be for most cameras, which is somehow a good thing, but to get the most out of it, it means you better have a 30MP+ camera. With enough MP i guess you can even forget the TC and just crop in post processing!
My RF 800s F11 is already annoying, the F14 (smaller AF area than the RF 800!!!!) of the 100-500+2xTC is even more annoying, just said! Thats why i would definately say: 1,4x TC instead of 2x.
What is the black base plate you mount on to the tripod collar mount?
Thanks
It’s a peak design quick release arca swiss compatible plate - use them on cameras and larger lenses to swap between, tripod or camera clip on bag/belt for quick carrying. They are super useful (may do a video on them soon as it’s something I’ve used loads over the years. Other brands like Ulanzi now do similar things at a cheaper price point, but peak design were the og manufacturer and very good quality.
@@cameracravings3216 Thanks
@@cameracravings3216 Is it the standard or dual plate?
@@eyeguyeyeguy1 from memory I think that one is the standard, but I also have the dual plate too.
Do you think this is worth upgrading from an EF100-400mm? I'm coming from dslr but struggling o get hold of the canon adapters :(
I think if you already own the latest ef100-400mm you may be best sticking with that (if you can get hold of an adapter!)
I am saving up for the 600mm contemporary thats how far my budget can stretch to and i am in the DSLR system over the mirrorless at the moment i am saving for the one with out the converter i do like to look at the mirrorless system like the rf 100-500 i will move on to the mirrorless system one day but will stay with the cheaper option keep my old lenses and get and adapter so i can still use my 18-55 50mm prime 55-250mm 75-300mm and the future 150-600mm i am currently using and old 135-400 from sigma at the moment
Be careful. You may find once you get the mirrorless body you quickly crave native RF lenses. They just work ao well with the bodies.
Stay at DSLRs as long as you can if you love your EF glasses!
I got a EOS RP.... as my EF 50mm 1.4 broke... i replaced it with a RF 50mm 1.8 because it was easier and faster replaced than looking for a good 2nd hand deal on EF 50mms.
Just after i got a Meike EF RF Filter adapter.... i began to replace more and more EF glass with RF glass, lol.
Only the filter adapter with its clear, ND and polarizer inserts made me hold on to the most usable EF glasses i had, but especially "garbage" stuff like a 18-55, 55-250 (EF-S, APS-C lenses, ouch!) and 75-300 was thrown out very fast (and financed midclass RF glass like RF 800 F11)
Also, especially with the 3rd party 150-600mm telezooms, you have to be careful - all of them have focus breathing, literally fking up more than 50% of your wildlife shots on mirrorless Canons!
In my opinion, for basic zoom lenses, macro stuff, prime lenses and so, older EF lenses are just fine on mirrorless. In fact i love them because of the filter adapter making every EF lens usable with the same filter insert. But there are sadly problems with some 3rd party lenses which make them for the one or the other usecase very problematic or limited (like the 150-600 with unusable AF-C!)
I would like to see how the sigma 150-600 contemporary measures against the 100-400 with 1.4x on the R5 in terms of IQ and AF speed n accuracy.
Great that’s next on my list of lenses to hire 👍
@@cameracravings3216 tnx that would be great. Looking forward to it. I already have the 100-400 MII and an 1.4x on a 7DII. So I know AF speed is an issue plus I'm at f/8 which only allows single point focusing on the DSLR so even when I move to an R5 , I will certainly keep the 7DII (for a bit longer due to the crop benefits) so I'm looking at options that don't cost the earth and can be used across both the EF and RF mounts. So really looking forward to this.
@@dimitristsagdis7340 I had the same. Having the 7dmk2 for the crop benefits but i must say when i got an 5dmk4 i never used the 7dmk2 any more. With the higher pixel cameras i crop in post. And now with the R5 it's even higher in pixels then the 5dmk4. So I traded in the 7d for the rf 100-500 with some of the ef-s lenses i had never used anymore. Now I had the lens at an affordable price😁.
@@jaapmechielsen7071 Tnx I’ll look into this
I'm looking up date my ef 100-400 V1. I like that the sigma is 60mm vs 500mm but it;s 1.5lbs heavier. Id like to see a comparison if image quality and speed/accuracy between the sigma and 100-500
Why would you want to add an extender to this lens between 100 and 300mm?
You wouldn’t specifically for that focal range, but my issue with it is two fold - 1. What if you want to carry it in your bag with lens and extender attached to camera, it takes up way more room because it has to stay extended to 300mm (one of the big selling points is how compact it is and 2. If you are tracking an animal or bird coming towards you when the extender is fitted and want to retract the zoom to keep shooting it you have less flexibility than say the EF100-400mm in the same situation.
Nice review with some wonderful images. The swans courting one is top drawer.
Thanks for watching, yes it was lovely to see the swans like that 😀
Please provide moon shots
Thinking about ditching my RF 70-200 2.8 for this after watching reviews on this model
Yeah it’s definitely a possibility to use as a replacement for the 70-200 2.8. I’ve tested and reviewed both over last few months and although I think the image quality of the 70-200 was better there wasn’t a huge difference IMHO, so if you don’t need the fast 2.8 aputure it’s a good option.
Eh, this isn't a replacement for the 70-200.... They're for completely different things.
@@frostybe3r but it may be for him, depends on what he likes to photograph and how he likes to photograph those subjects.
@@coreybrooks3493 They're designed for completely different things, your comment doesn't change that.
@@frostybe3r and your narrow mind doesn't change the fact you don't know what he uses the lens for.
Light and flexible lens with high price, made unusable and inflexible via teleconvertor usage.
7:01 'it wouldn't allow you to zoom out past 300mm"
???
so that's 2x300 =600mm max ?
that's a real bummer...
Hi sorry if I wasn’t clear in my explaining - the lens only functions with the extenders between 300mm and 500mm so you get the extra reach at the long end, but have to take the extender off to zoom it back in due to the lens barrel at the rear (between 100mm and 300mm ) meaning of you want to carry it in your bag nice and compact (one of its selling points) you have to remove the extender. Also if you are tracking an animal or bird in flight coming towards you when using the extender you’ll have less flexibility as it gets closer when compared to the ef100-400 with extender. These may be minor issues but thought it important to mention.
This lens is hugely overpriced. Quality may be good (I didn't try it) however, this can hardly be called a prosumer glass. It would have been appropriate around $ 2k.
yes, totally agree.
I tested it with 2x TC and without.
I would only recommend it if you really need this universal 100-500mm often and it has to be small and light, also i would only use it without, maximum with a 1,4 TC.
With a 2x TC its already noticable worse than a RF 800 F11 (in aperture and sharpness!), and without TC its somehow not flexible enough for wildlife (i talk about natural wildlife, not baiting etc!), at least not on full frame. With R7/R10 its probably "ok" for wildlife with 160-800mm effectively.
I got a RF 800 F11 instead and saved a lot of money so i could keep some of my universal glasses like 28-135mm and 75-300mm, with the RF 800 i have now practical focal ranges from 28-480mm in EF glasses with a EF RF Filter adapter and polarizer, V-ND and clear filter for anything and 800mm (aswell as the RF 50mm 1.8) for wildlife, astrophotography etc.
What i was most impressed by the RF 800 F11... its capability in astrophotography! It can really replace a 750mm F5 newton telescope. The mount, guiding stuff etc i still use, but i just mount the 1,7kg light combo of my EOS RP and the RF 800 F11 on a sturdy equatorial mount nowadays and the RF 800 produce SO MUCH BETTER IMAGES than the newton ever could!
Sure, F11 take a lot longer exposures and so more time to collect data/lights, about 5-8x as much time invested for a single image later with a lot of unusable lights due the very long exposure time, but the much better results are worth 5x the time invested (especially when you are doing it anyways automated)
In fact the RF 800 makes it even easier... with my newtonian everything was automated except for the focus. Since the RF 800 is a autofocus lens, i can control the focus motor via the astrophotography/mount control app on PC/Mac ("kstars") aswell use autofocus completely automated! So the RF 800 made my astro setup literally completely automated.
i basically use my newton telescope only for visual observation and sometimes bigger targets where the 800mm are just too much (my 750mm newtonian has effectively 732mm). Or very small targets where i need 2x Barlow adapter and a small astro camera for effectively 1600mm or even 3200mm.
Where the RF 800 F11 just doesnt shine... wildlife in early sunrise or late sunset.
why would you need to use the extender below 300MM? the lens alone covers 100-500! 1.4x at 300mm starts at 420mm! they overlap by 80mm! there's no focal distance that isn't covered by the combo of just lens or lens plus converter! 100mm all the way to 700mm, every mm of throw is available! shut the fuck up about the lens not "letting" you use the converter from 100-299mm! you don't need it! the lens alone already has those!
Yep, 1,4x converter is the way to go if you want to pair it with 100-500L.
I tried the lens with and without 2x TC, but i would have loved to try it with 1,4x, for sure a lot better, not only because of the bigger aperture...