Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM images here.

edmidlifecrisis wrote in post #19233314
Hi Ed
I had the 800 for a while but really wasn't happy with the long MFD and the f/11. IQ was pretty good and I am sure it would have improved as I got used to it more. I liked the handling and size weight a lot.

Now I have the 100-500 and it is a real winner. It is lighter than my 100-400ii, however I don't have the RF teleconverter yet so can't say how well it works. I have always had mixed results with the 1.4TC on the 100-[\400 although the TC's work really well in my hands with my 300 2.8. Maybe it's me I don't know, but when I use the 100-400 with the TC on either my 5DIV or the new R5 it sometimes works really well and other times maybe not so well. The RF 100-500 is pretty great so far. I will admit that my time with it has been a bit limited so far. I took it to the Stick Marsh last Saturday and it was a joy to use. The images looked great when I got home and examined them. And the MFD is pretty amazing although I haven't really wrung that out yet.

PS I got mine from Canon USA when everyone else was out of stock. Go figure. I went on the site just for the heck of it and was startled to see it listed as in stock.

The 800mm and 100-500 with 1.4x are an interesting set to compare. Both have a 70 mm diam front element. So light gathering is the same. If Canon had a 1.6x TC and you put it on the zoom, they would both be 800mm f/11.

I'm thinking the 100-500 would be the winner if the critters were closer, enabling shooting with the bare lens. I think there are lots of times you could have such scenarios in Florida. In most other places I have been to you need more reach, so you really need around 700-800mm, and are often cropping those. With the 1.4x on the zoom, I think the rigs would be similar in IQ. The 100-500mm has much closer focusing, has zoom versatility, but is heavier and costs a lot more. Tough decision.

Let us know your impressions as you get more experience.

Archibald wrote in post #19233327
The 800mm and 100-500 with 1.4x are an interesting set to compare. Both have a 70 mm diam front element. So light gathering is the same. If Canon had a 1.6x TC and you put it on the zoom, they would both be 800mm f/11.

I'm thinking the 100-500 would be the winner if the critters were closer, enabling shooting with the bare lens. I think there are lots of times you could have such scenarios in Florida. In most other places I have been to you need more reach, so you really need around 700-800mm, and are often cropping those. With the 1.4x, I think the rigs would be similar in IQ. The 100-500mm has much closer focusing, has zoom versatility, but is heavier and costs a lot more. Tough decision.

Let us know your impressions as you get more experience.

Those are all great points and I agree. We have a lot of close opportunities here not available in many other places where maximum reach is most important.

edmidlifecrisis wrote in post #19233316
It is a really cool shot.

Thanks Ed.

What's it like adding a 2x TC to the 100-500 ? i haven't seen any examples of it, most seem to be shooting with the 1,4x TC on their lens.

/ Magnus

I shot down The Moon tonight.. the sharpness of these is outstanding, i didn't even have to add any extra in the post process. These pics were shot using the 1.6x cropmode in camera and then cropped to 1:1 format.

One from the last day before I had to send it back to Lensrentals. A 30mp crop. IQ with the 1.4t/c is great with decent light, but it's a little awkward as a walk around lens since it doesn't fully retract.

Photo from kd_reno's gallery.

Some recent photos with this great lens!

Magnus3D wrote in post #19239091
Some recent photos with this great lens!

Hosted photo: posted by Magnus3D in
./showthread.php?p=192​39091&i=i224726140
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

Hosted photo: posted by Magnus3D in
./showthread.php?p=192​39091&i=i188034795
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

/ Magnus

Very nice.

First pic with the new lens


Common clubtail female

Photo from Weja's gallery.

Weja wrote in post #19240921
First pic with the new lens

Weja

First impressions, Jan?

@Levina

Fast focussing on the R5, and the stabilisation is really quiet in comparrison to the 100 400 II.
The stabilisator and the ibis on the R5 , let me take sharp dragons pictures with less than 1/50 shutterspeed handheld.
Because of the diafragma of 7.1 at 500mm. i would not use this lens with 1.4 extender.
100mm. more than the 100 400 ii,and i used that 100 400 a lot with the 1.4x iii extender, which caused a lot of hunting of the lens.
With the 100 500 bare on the R5 no hunting

Weja

Weja wrote in post #19240928
@Levina

Fast focussing on the R5, and the stabilisation is really quiet in comparrison to the 100 400 II.
The stabilisator and the ibis on the R5 , let me take sharp dragons pictures with less than 1/50 shutterspeed handheld.
Because of the diafragma of 7.1 at 500mm. i would not use this lens with 1.4 extender.
100mm. more than the 100 400 ii,and i used that 100 400 a lot with the 1.4x iii extender, which caused a lot of hunting of the lens.
With the 100 500 bare on the R5 no hunting


Weja

Thanks, Jan!
I'm a bit on the fence regarding this lens. I have the RF 800/11 which is a fun lens for when I need more reach then my EF lenses can give me but truth is that my old and humble EF 400/5.6L and 400/4L are still better: better colours, better contrast, better detail. So I would like something better (edit: than the 800/11 that is). The 100-500 is no doubt a great deal better. But to buy another slow lens, I don't know. I'm actually considering getting a 500/4L now, first version of course. Added benefit is that I would also be able to use that lens on a DSLR. Downside is its weight. Decisions...

Weja wrote in post #19240921
First pic with the new lens


Common clubtail female

Gallery photo:
posted by Weja originally in forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Weja

Gorgeous shot. And you're making that lens more tempting than it already is.

Another one from my rental week, with the 1.4x.

Photo from kd_reno's gallery.