Canon RF 100-500 Long Term Review!

[@PhilThach]

Another thing I love about this lens is it has a great minimum focus distance. This allows you to get much closer to your subject than many other telephoto lenses. You can even do near-macro work with this lens. Thanks to the viewers who reminded me that I forgot to mention this feature!

[@dannydanquah3681]

Another advantage is, at 500mm, you can get as close to your subject as 3.94'. Ideal for macro photography. I've had no regrets for buying this over the EF 100-400mm.

[@PhilThach]

Yes! Thank you! I can’t believe I forgot to mention the minimum focus distance in this video. I don’t know what I was thinking.

[@reallymentalpig1173]

I just got it and I didn’t know this, thanks.

[@rat_boy_u]

I have been using this lens since 2021, it's amazing. Very well built and I'm impressed with the compactness and how light it is. I agree that Canon has a pretty high premium for these lenses, I hope they come down or I make way more money.

[@steve.hamlin.artist]

Great points. I own the EF 100-400 II and I just rented the RF 100-500 for a week. I agree with everything you said. I did a comparison of the 100-400 fully extended with the 100-500 at 400mm. I had heard that the 100-400 was not a true 400mm (I think from Duade Patton). I used a setup with a ruler and a ceramic unicorn, with my camera mounted on my iFootage mon-tripod to ensure that the comparison was as fair as possible. The 100-400 was definitely short, compared to the 100-500 at 400mm, perhaps by as much as 10%. I still like the 100-400 and will wait to buy the 100-500, but the RF lens has a lot of advantages.

[@jeroendaniels1992]

Fantastic review Phil! One of the best reviews for this lens from someone that we know who uses it a lot. Another useful feature that you didn't mention in this video but which you have done several videos on is the very short minimal focus distance that is great for large insect or flower photography. One other thing that would have been good to mention is probably the lens' biggest competitor in my opinion, the EF 100-400 Mk2. It's shorter on the long end but also slightly faster and quite a bit cheaper, but then you also have to use an adapter.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! Yes, I should have mentioned the minimum focus distance. Very good point! I don’t know how I forgot that. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@m11kan]

but not faster in terms of autofocusing speed.. RF lens is much faster in RF body than EF and IQ is better imo. That lens is only faster gathering light which is not very much when comparing them.. RF lens is also way sharper. Anyway if you have less money to spent then 100-400 mk2 would be ideal but you lose many things..

[@-DawnZero]

@@m11kan the IQ is marginally better. I can not tell the difference in AF speed or IS between the two. You won't notice the IQ unless you're pixel peeping.

[@kennethcheong4498]

My experience with this lens mirrors all that you've brought up. One other thing I dislike is that it has issues focusing in low light. One other thing I like is that the AF speed is blazingly fast. I've used this to capture KF dive shots and it gets the focus on.

[@yuqin405]

Best lens interview ever. Not just for this lens, but generally speaking in this subject.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! :-)

[@ZakDeadlight]

Yeah, I totally agree. Probably the best lens review video I've ever seen

[@rdphoto2]

Very detailed information and review of the lens. I think you and Heather's backpack bags are real nice. Nice commentary about the lens.

[@PhilThach]

Thanks, Ron!

[@Mudly71]

I love this lens coupled with the R5 and the ×1.4 converter my bird shots are mind-blowing stopping down to 1/250 and 1/125 just amazes me how clean and crisp my shots are.😍

[@PhilThach]

That’s awesome!

[@binetix]

Nice video... Actually I may confirm full year after your year of usage that even today this lens remains one of my favourite in my bag. I'm using it with extenders as well, and perhaps the only annoying thing based on my practice is that I have to shift the focus length above 300 mm in order to mount an extender. The new RF 100-300 has no this issue but the price is a way beyond RF 100-500. Nevertheless, it remains highly recommended even with an extended 1.4 (as 420-700 mm).

[@donh4907]

I have this lens, comments: 1-price is level, the dollar is what is going down. 2-"Air Pump" when zooming, don't worry Canon has good engineers. 3-Have used with light rain + heavy mist with R7-NO problems-was dripping wet. 4-Have covered it and your skinny lens hood with Mossy Oaks vinyl camo-works great. 5-You use the tele extender when you are at 300-500, whatz the problem, you don't use the 100-300 range all the time! 6-Phil, like your replacement skinny lens hood-own it. 7-1.4 extender + R7 + 100-500 gives great reach - seldom use 800f11. 8-High ISO and f8 &f11 causing a noise problem? Use DXO, Topaz, ON1, Adobe. Duh?? You must still be using software from1920. Phil, you left out the assignable ring - I use it for exposure compensation on the fly with bird photography.

[@PhilThach]

1. Sony's 200-600 is still 1999, this lens costs too much. (I Still love it though). 2. No level of engineering will make it stop being an air pump. 3. Me too. 4. Some people like to put lens covers on. I don't. I use my lenses for more than just wildlife and a camo lens on the sidelines of a sporting event looks dumb IMO. 5. I find that I don't need to use my extender when using the 100-500 on my R7, maybe with the R6mkII. 6. I do like my skinny lens hood, I even made a video dedicated to it. 7. I know this seems strange, but I seem to prefer the 800 f/11 over the 100-500 with a 1.4x extender. I have no scientific data to explain that. I use Topaz as anyone who watches the channel can attest. In fact, I have made two Topaz Denoise AI demonstration videos. Here is where you started being kind of mean so I will respond in kind. There was no software in 1920 and no digital camera until 1988. Duh! LOL :) Just because I know how to fix a noisy photograph doesn't mean I want to have to fix it. I omitted the programmable ring on purpose. I did include it when I talked in another video about the 800 f/11 but since then I have started shooting in Fv mode and I use other controls on the body to adjust exposure compensation. I find it awkward to adjust exposure compensation on the 100-500 with the control ring because the location of the ring is so close to the body. It's in a much better location on other Canon lenses such as the 24-105 and 24-70 lenses, and even the 800 f/11. Thanks for watching! I know when people feel the need to type long comments that I've made a thought-provoking video.

[@paulkavsak1941]

2 additional things I do not like are 1. The location of the manual focusing ring and 2. The plastic threads at the ftont elemrnt. I would prefer metsl threads.

[@graemefryer6227]

great review. worth adding that r5 can get decent shots at iso 6400 and beyond in my experience and you can pick up this lens 2nd hand and save money there.

[@tbgtom]

Regarding the cons: price... I don't mind paying a bit more for a good product... it's like buying a BMW instead of a Chevy. zoom... this doesn't worry me in the least, I prefer the small footprint when compressed. TCs... for the most part if you're using a TC then you only really want to use the long range anyway, it's not a big deal to just dismantle the TC. Hood... I use the RF 50mm hood on mine, as you suggested in an earlier video and I love it!!! Genius. 600mm... one thing everyone always wants is an inch more. When I was riding Harley's in the early 2000s we all wanted one more gear, same difference, can't always get enough, if it was 600 we'd want 700. Aperture... ok, this is something we'd all want, but to keep the weight down I'll take the 7.1.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Tom! Sounds like we agree about this lens. I'm glad you like the RF 50mm 1.2 hood on it! :)

[@georgewelch2366]

Great review. I know that the lens is expensive, but when comparing it to the Sony 200-600/Nikon 200-500 or new 180-600, what people may not realize is it’s an L-series lens built to professional standards vs a consumer grade lens. My three chief complaints are the horrible short lens foot which needs an Arca Swiss plate, external vs internal zoom and the issue with the teleconverter and only being able to use the 300-500 range when it is mounted. The reason we use zooms is for flexibility and that takes a lot of that away.

[@7inrain]

Thank you and thumbs up. Your video makes me more and more certain that this combination - the R7 and the RF 100-500 - is the right one for me too. Yep, its a lot of money but looks really like being worth it.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! It’s a great lens!

[@ShutterEmotions123]

Hi Phil. I picked up the Cannon RF 100-500 refurbished on the Cannon website last night for $2429. Your video convinced me to give it a shot! Keep up the good work. Your content is greatly appreciated! 👏👏👏

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@blisteringbooks2428]

I have a 400mm f2.8, it focuses far faster than a 5.6 lens but now [age related problem] it is far too heavy. Another point about f stops is that I was a pro motorsport photographer for 50 years, until 2000 I was using 100,200,400 iso so f2.8 was almost essential, especially when raining, now 12,800 is actually usable, especially with Topaz denoise. I have mainly EF lenses and cannot justify spending £2.5K for an extra 100mm when I can put and extender on my 100-400Lii, especially as RF extenders are around £800, for another £400 I could get an R7.

[@PhilThach]

Excellent points.

[@Well.BoughtPhotos]

Aspiring motorsport photographer here! Just curious, what kind of racing did you cover? @blisteringbooks2428

[@blisteringbooks2428]

@@Well.BoughtPhotos Offshore powerboat, inshore powerboat, off road, tarmac, ie hillclimb, circuit etc. Silverstone, Jerez. Only now it isn't worth the effort, far too many people take hundreds of images and post them free on the internet. I still offer mentor days. Good luck.

[@blisteringbooks2428]

@@Well.BoughtPhotos incidentally where are you from, the family knew people called Goldsworthy years ago, I think when they were in Cheltenham. I am not sure, but the matriarch, name forgotten, sorry, was going to teach me Sanskrit!

[@Well.BoughtPhotos]

I live in the U.S., but the Goldsworthy side of the family is from England. Specifically Cornwall I believe. Never met another Goldsworthy here in the states@@blisteringbooks2428

[@shaycostigan2091]

Great video, very informative. I just got my Canon r5 and just got the kit lens but thinking about getting 100-500 or the new 100-800

[@PhilThach]

Sounds great!

[@Zippy-da-Chimp]

Thanks for the review, Phil. Thank you for including the "what you don't like" comments about this lens. With the exception of price, none of them are deal breaker for me either. I am strictly an amateur photographer, so I am saving the $$$ to buy the lens and watching for a price drop or sale prices.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! I noticed they have it on sale right now for a couple hundred off.

[@tonylockhart1963]

I’m currently waiting for my 100-500mm rental lens to arrive. £84 for a long weekend. Try before you buy is sensible for me! A good friend runs safaris in Kenya, and he has the 100-500 L and 100-400 L series 2. He says the 100-400 is now a paperweight! Horses for courses, as ever, but I want a lens to last me many many years, and I’ve a feeling I’d be making a mistake with the 100-400 L, needing the adapter and 1.4x. Clumsy and heavier. Both great lenses, I can’t ‘lose’ either way.

[@PhilThach]

Good luck. I think you will like the 100-500.

[@eerofi]

My guess is that the included lens hood is wider to fit in wider filters like some variable NDs or CPLs. These cameras are used more and more for video and most lens hoods are too tight to be used with NDs. For the same reason it has the little latch to rotate the filter easier. If you don't need that it is of course ok to replace. But I wouldn't think of it as a design mistake.

[@PhilThach]

You may be right about that but I will say two things. 1. The smaller lens hood that I use from the RF 50mm 1.2 clears filters with no problems and 2. Turning a CPL through that little door is extremely difficult at best.

[@eerofi]

@@PhilThach yeah... I use a variable ND filters with EF 100-400mm and it is indeed tricky to rotate it through the little hole. But still easier than through the lens hood, especially when trying to observe the collect exposure at the same time. I guess old camcorder internal NDs is the way to go with video. 😅

[@jpprovost64]

i cant wait too receive mine thanks you Phil ! hope its a good fit whit my new R7

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! Enjoy it!

[@donh4907]

You will love it on the R7.

[@FQ8]

The only thing I miss on my EF 100-400 II is the 5.6 at the long end. Other than that no regrets. It is lighter, as sharp and of course that extra reach!

[@PhilThach]

I agree, thank you!

[@nordic5490]

I have this lens.@ 400mm it is f6.3 wide open. Ie, Not that much different to the f5.6

[@mcs3015]

This is an excellent review! Very helpful: there are considerations I wouldn’t have thought of.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@raylander6329]

The best long lens I shot with very good results that could be seen on very large prints, was the Tamron 150-600 g2; a bit heavier but very sharp and a 6.3 which was ok. That lens got me the best images on both trips to Africa (and we had the Canon 100-400 II as well). The collar was Arca Swiss. Price was $1300; Canon, make something like that!! Phil, great review, I agree with every point you made; Thank you very much!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Ray!

[@Mudly71]

I would also recommend it for Moon shots I get to use 100% of my frames when stacking compared to the Tamron 150-600mmG2 usually only 60% and I'm not doing anything differently.🥰

[@PhilThach]

That is interesting, thank you!

[@unknown_user_235]

Glad to see the first youtube reviewer who admits this lens is overpriced contrary to the other reviewers who says "it's expensive but it's sharp, small bla bla" . If being small had been a something which increases the price, we wouldn't have needed to pay 15.000 usd for 600mm f4 lenses.

[@stubones]

All the RF glass is ridiculously over priced. If money was no object, that’s all well and good but most people will buy the adapter for their EF glass. At least in the short term…

[@WernerBirdNature]

Hi Phil, a great review of this awesome lens! I have upgraded it from the EF100-400ii which used the same concept regarding zoom stiffness. On my old 70D it was giving me good reach. but after switching to the R6 (before the R7 was at last announced) I liked everything expect the reach. And from Duade Paton I learned it was in reality rather a 100-370. As such, the 100-500 is actually just as fast relative to focal length. But unlike most zooms, on the 100-500 you don't need to stop down from 7.1 to get more sharpness. That's a big extra reason why the 7.1 is only in theory a handicap. Some weeks ago, we already discussed about the lens hood. I think I figured out why Canon made it as wide as they did: only like this, it allows ad some camo like lenscoat, easycover etc. The only real negative for me is the fact it only takes convertors from 300mm onwards. Still waiting on the delivery for the RF1.4x so I'm unsure how annoying this is IRL when attempting to find a tiny bird in some bushes. The RF2x is in stock, but then wide open means 600mm .. not buying that convertor before I know I can live with the 420-700 mode ;-) About a year ago, Canon filed some longer zoom L glass patents including some 150-600 versions .. but I feel most of these patents came too close to our 100-500, except for a 300-800L/8. And for my shooting, that would be an excellent complementary lens to the 100-500, assuming it could be a similar weight and price and IQ as the 100-500.

[@PhilThach]

Thanks for the well though out comment. I'd love to have a 300-800 lens for birding especially if it had a decent minimum focus distance.

[@WernerBirdNature]

@@PhilThach yes indeed, the MFD of the 800/11 was one of the biggest reasons for me not wanting it. This 300-800 I'll get after watching your review ;-) But be aware there's already an existing 300-800 from Sigma. IQ might be good .. but it looks like an elephant we don't wanna drag around all day 😛

[@nithinvadlamudi8363]

@phil - Your videos are damn good. One quick question as you already have Nikon 200-500 5.6 and RF 100-500. I have R5 and 100-500. I’m looking for another lens. Is it better to get a Canon prime lens or Nikon 200-500 5.6 lens along with d500? Or just use RF 100-500 and get an R7?

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! For birds, I’d get an R7.

[@nithinvadlamudi8363]

@@PhilThach Thank you!

[@therehocipe]

What is this for a black lenshood? Have you any link pls?

[@PhilThach]

It’s actually the lens hood that comes with the 50 mm 1.2 but it works great on this lens. I made a video all about it and there is a link to it in the my gear section of the description.

[@multeegaming]

Hey! Great video! How do you think, is it a good lens for professional soccer photography? I can imagine that image quality will be not good enough because of high ISO,( it can be solved by Topaz, I know it) But I am afraid of depth of field, it will be worse than Ef 100-400 mk2?

[@tonyw3250]

I bought a Sigma 150-600c I used it for a couple of hours and ordered the 100-500 at 3 times the cost. I feel a little sick doing so but it's around 700g lighter and much smaller so I hope I'll be happy when it arrives

[@PhilThach]

I hope you enjoy it!

[@wellingtoncrescent2480]

I recently sold my birding lenses, the Sigma 150-600C and Tamron 100-400 Vi DC, to purchase the 100-500 RF for my R7. Though the price initially made me hesitate, I think you are going to enjoy the combination for birding. In addition to light weight, the dual focus motors are exquisitely responsive, the synchronization between lens IS and IBIS is better than in the 3rd party lenses, I don't have to worry about AF pulsing, and the image quality us breathtaking. If you can manage the cost, it's worth it. Enjoy.

[@tonyw3250]

@@wellingtoncrescent2480 Thanks for that, I should get mine tomorrow although I'm still bed ridden after selling a kidney to fund it🤣

[@wellingtoncrescent2480]

​@@tonyw3250 I hope you let us know how it goes :). I was really lucky in that a national retailer here in Canada had a pre-Black Friday sale with 20% off, which knocked $800 Cnd off the cost, which made for an easier decision, especially with the sale of my 3rd party lenses. Since I presume that Canon Canada had to sign off on the rebate, I was surprised that the head office wasn't pushed to match the price elsewhere. But I'm not complaining!

[@tonyw3250]

@@wellingtoncrescent2480 We get screwed on price here in Australia like you do in Canada. The lens here is the equivalent of $3500 USD I got it on sale for $3000USD or $4500 (Australian)

[@pdel7007]

All lens design must involve compromise I think? A great review explaining the pleasures of ownership whilst recognising the negative points. I currently use a Sigma 150-600 and am aware of the focusing issues but live with it on my R6. I just can't bring myself to stump up the asking price for this lovely Canon lens .Thank you

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@sfink16]

I would consider the 100-500 if it was $2,000. Instead I bought the 100-400mm, with the several more compromises, but also at the cheap price. When I need more reach I bought the 600mm F11, with it's compromises, also at a cheap price. I have the EF 300mm F2.8, but like you said, have to stop down to get the full bird in sharp focus.

[@PhilThach]

I understand your choices. Thanks for watching!

[@davidclode3601]

Great review, thanks Phil.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, David!

[@royottaway9434]

I personally don't like the plastic white lens hood , so with your help I have ordered the black hood ( special order in the UK ) . I use the lens hood for protection , so as with my EF 70-200 2.8 mk2 that I have had for a long time , and have bashed it against walls with no problems , but the white one I feel would not take that punishment . Just a note on the RF 70-200 2.8 the zoom throw is too much , so I will stick to my EF that I can zoom fully with my thumb .

[@PhilThach]

Sounds good, Roy. Thank you!

[@donh4907]

You will like the smaller hood. Own it. Love it. In storage mode (reversed) keeps the lens small in your bag.

[@AbHAT22]

Terrific review. Great point on people stopping down their big lenses to F/8 and then complaining about this lens being F/7.1. It is still overpriced for me. I use my R7 with Sigma 150-600 C and I love that combo. What are your thoughts on this lens vs the Sigma lens that costs one third but weights a pound more.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! I have not used the sigma. I’ve heard it is very sharp, but has some difficulties with it’s autofocus pulsing when adapted to R mount cameras. I can’t confirm or deny that that is an issue. I’m glad you are enjoying yours!

[@alansach8437]

True, but if you are in the habit of stopping down your big lens to f8 (presumably for maximum sharpness), chances are you will want to stop down this lens as well, which puts you in pretty slow territory.

[@Eli4Bill]

Great, detailed review Phil!

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Bill!

[@ludowild]

Great review ! thank you for sharing ! All the best from France

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@donaldjones2106]

My photo budy has a Canon R 6. He uses a Sigma 150-600. It was about $900.00. What about it. Try it. I have used it on my Nikon Z 7 ll. Great lens.

[@antharrisonthe.grumpy.snap1459]

Fantastic review of the lens Phil... Nice and honest and I totally agree 👍

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@rastersplatter]

Cool video. Thanks for creating.

[@PhilThach]

`Thank you!

[@shuknur120708]

what lens hood u using?where to buy?

[@PhilThach]

It's the Canon ES-83, it comes with the 50 1.2 but works great on the RF 70-200 and RF 100-500. Fits better in your camera bag. Here's a link, amzn.to/4acAOh2

[@df-fotografie3230]

Hello Phil, what kind of lens hood did you mount on it? Greetings Karl

[@PhilThach]

There is a link to it in the my gear section of the description below this video. I also made a video all about it that I will link in my next comment.

[@PhilThach]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHTWqqWagbSCeaM

[@smaganas]

What option do Canon 5DMK4 owners have for this?

[@PhilThach]

This is an RF lens so you’ll need to update to one of the newer canon Mirrorless cameras like the R5 or R6mk2. It will work on any of the canon cameras whose names start with an R.

[@MrBrockley3]

What lens have you got, please? Thanks John

[@PhilThach]

I have too many lenses to list here. One of them is the RF 100-500 L IS USM

[@novainvicta]

I own the RF 100-500mm and the RF 100-400. If Canon had not built the RF 100-400 then I would have said it’s worth the £ 2950.00 it costs in the UK. It’s sharper than the RF 100-400, has weather sealing, comes with a hood, is slightly faster but the question is whether it’s worth 4X the price of the RF 100-400 which is smaller, lighter not restricted using the RF 1.4X and 2X converters and can fit into a ruck sack much easier and given it’s price point is way sharper than maybe it deserves to be. I will not be selling either but the acid test is I reach for the RF 100-400 way more than the RF 100-500. However the extra reach and the better sharpness (both are good in the centre but the RF 100-500 is sharper into the corners) is definitely an advantage in wildlife but less so in landscape.

[@PhilThach]

I agree, the RF 100-400 is an amazing lens for the money! Thanks for watching!

[@simonvail458]

Great review. Thanks. Anyone any experience using this lens in theatres or concerts or for ballet/dance where the light is low? Even better if someone uses the canon r6 mark ii and this lens

[@PhilThach]

I would recommend the 70-200 f/2.8 for that.

[@joditowne2519]

Thanks for the lens review. Will the R7 attached to 100-500 plus the 800 f11 fit in either of your Lowepro 200 or 300 bags? I need something bigger. Thanks

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! The 100-500 will fit in the 200 size bag but not the 800. In the 300 size bag the R7 will fit attached to the 800 f/11 with the 100-500 also in the bag.

[@gerardferry3958]

lI like the tennents lager flask on an r7 the 500 might be a nice length at 800

[@ses4vols]

How does the autofocus speed compare to the Nikon 200-500? I find that the 200-500mm is slow for action.

[@PhilThach]

The 200-500 is an overachieving budget lens. It's focus speed was never in the same league as my fastest F mount lenses, the 70-200 f/2.8 G VR II and the 500 f/4G VR. This Canon 100-500 lens has dual ultrasonic focus motors making its focus both fast and quiet. Honestly, I never complained about the focus speed of the 200-500 but I can verify your observation that it is slow. Still, I never thought it was so slow that it made me miss shots.

[@Hvitkinn]

I know that you are in the canon ecosystem but i recently came over Fuji xh2s with fujinon 150-600mm f5.6 -8 internal zoom. It Is an aps-c camera and good autofocus. F8 on the long end though… but good reviews on youtube… cheers. And good price for value.

[@PhilThach]

If I was in the Fuji ecosystem I would certainly have the X-2HS and that lens. I love the stacked sensor in that camera. I wish they would go away from X-Tran and start making Bayer sensors in the X line of cameras. Thank you!

[@todanrg3]

The equivalent lens of the Canon 100-500 is not the 200-600 or Nikon 200-500 but the Sony and Nikon 100-400. Both high-end lenses with similar prices. The 200-600 is a lower category lens.

[@erichpoole1396]

hi Phil, this is an amazing lens lens isn't it? I bought one a couple of months ago here in the UK, which for some reason Canon like to charge us more. I paid £2980 or around $3620 USD with the exchange rate. But it was worth every penny based on the images it allows me to take. I also have the RF 24-105 f4 and the RF 800 f11 so i have pretty much everything range wise covered although i still use my EF 70-200 f4, EF 17-40 f4 and EF 100 2.8 macro with an adaptor. A question i have is 'what do you think about dressing these lenses with the camouflage covers'? I am contemplating getting covers for the 800mm and this 100-500 as i like to take a lot of nature pictures, what are your thoughts on these lens covers, do they add or detract, are the birds really frightened of a white or black lens, are these gimmicks or are they worth the money? Keep making these great videos, i learn a lot from you and Heather. regards Erich

[@PhilThach]

Thank you for the kind comment! I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a lens cover, but I personally won’t be using one.

[@distantport]

Hi Erich, how do you like your 800mm? Thinking of getting one.... is it as sharp as 100-500 or not really

[@meteoroz]

One more irritation is that when you have the collar on, there are no clicks to indicate when you are in full landscape or full portrait rotation. It just would have been nice and not that hard to implement for Canon, especially for an L Series lens of that price point.

[@lovemycity420]

I’m definitely targeting this lens, I think it would be a great replacement for my RF 70-200 F4! I’m thinking I wouldn’t need both?

[@PhilThach]

If you have the 24-105 f/4, you probably don't need both the 70-200 f/4 and the 100-500. I have the RF 70-200 f/2.8, it's low light capabilities make it worthwhile even while owning the 24-105 f/4 and the 100-500.

[@lovemycity420]

@@PhilThach I don’t own the 24-105 f/4, I have the RF 15-35 f/2.8 & RF 100mm f/2.8, I plan on eventually getting a 85mm too! I had the EF 70-200 f/4 II and it seemed like every picture I took with it was magical😂, the RF version is definitely sharper but I feel like I’m not getting the same quality rendering! Don’t see a reason to have both RF 70-200 & RF 100-500! Your videos are great!!! Love the bugs from work series

[@steveparent8788]

Fair review Phil ! Do you have the rf 800mm ? Is so I have a very interesting test for you. Let me know !

[@steveparent8788]

@@PhilThach Can you compare a photo taken with the R5/R6 and Canon RF 100-500 at 7.1 using the 1.6 crop mode VS same photo taken ith the R5/R6 + Canon RF 800 f/11. If you don't crop anymore in any of these 2 situations, which one will have the sharpest image straight from the camera ? Nobody has done this precise test taking a static image. Please let me know Phil !

[@PhilThach]

@@steveparent8788 That's an interesting idea. I think I may do that at some point. Thank you for the suggestion!

[@steveparent8788]

@@PhilThach I believe that the result might be a surprise for manu users. Can't wait to see this

[@melindawheeler4213]

Those 2 lens are apples and oranges in my opinion. The minimum focus distance and the small area of focus on the f11 lenses are the problem for me.

[@nordic5490]

@@steveparent8788 as someone who owns both lenses: I have a rf800mm f11, and used it once with my R5. It is just too inflexible, the focussing is not that great either, and it is not nearly as tack sharp as my rf100-500mm. I just bring the 800f11 along as a spare for other togs to try when we are out birding. The rf100-500 is way sharper, and you will have much sharper results cropping it to a 800mm fov rather than using the rf800. I wanted to love it, and i tried, but, you did know that the rf800mm is a Diffractive Optics lens didnt you ? So is the 600f11. Others have the same results as me.

[@peterviragphoto]

Great in depth review Phil. Amazing lens with superb optical performance. If I had some extra cash I’d definitely invest into one but will be using the EF 100-400 II via the adapter. P.s: what’s that lens hood you replaced the default with? Cheers

[@PhilThach]

Thanks, Peter! It’s the ES-83 lens hood that actually is designed for and comes with the RF 50mm f/1.2. I use it on my RF-100-500 and RF 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. I made a video about it titled Space Saving Tip for RF 70-200 and 100-500 lenses!

[@peterviragphoto]

@@PhilThach cheers mate, will have a look!:)

[@bluejays5660]

Which of the 3 stabilization modes do you usually set your lens at?

[@PhilThach]

I virtually always use mode 1.

[@Dewabarasunderan]

No images in this video?😅 Isn’t that what makes or breaks a lense?

[@PhilThach]

It is. Look in my wildlife and pets playlist, there you will find video after video where I use this lens and feature pictures.

[@adinew8920]

Thanks...

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@dcastrod]

How much do you think the price will go down to for this when Canon finally let's Sigma and Tamron make lenses with Auto focus?

[@PhilThach]

I'd say the MSRP won't go down at all but they may put it on sale for a couple hundred off from time to time.

[@TheCloudfoot72]

I use a Tamron 150-600 g2 with my R7 and it works great. It is kinda of a beast but I get nice sharp images and nice auto focus.

[@wingsandthings.]

I got rid of my tamron 150-600 because of the heavy focus jittering with my R7. It only got like 20% of shots sharp

[@juhalehtinen4068]

Very informative video, but who is Heather?🤔

[@PhilThach]

Thank you! Heather is my wife. She’s on the channel from time to time.

[@juhalehtinen4068]

@@PhilThach Ok😊

[@OhhhhhhhBugger]

Great, sharp lens, but yeah, annoying price tag. I tell people to get one second hand if possible. I got one for about $400 cheaper. I like the size, but I wish it was an internal zoom.

[@RichardCookphotography]

Great video Phil😀

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Richard!

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

If I just came right out bashing on this lens, it probably wouldn't be a fair representation of it. The fact is, then lens is just not the "correct" lens for most of my shooting. Just too short. Anyway, I rented this lens, and nearly the whole time, I had the 1.4 or 2.0 TC slapped on it, which made it VERY slow. I also rented the RF 800 F11... twice. Liked it so much, I bought it. I still actually use the 1.4 TC on it, for 1120mm, about 30% of the time. I also use extender tubes on it, to get my MFD down as short at 12ft. Long story short > regardless of price < the RF 800 F11 is just a much more suitable lens for the majority of my shooting. BTW, right around the same time I bought the RF 800 F11, I found some tutorials about how to make my Sigma 150-600 work (focus) much better, on my Canon R5. I think it worked.... but I can't be 100% sure how much of a fix / improvement that was, because once I slapped the 800 on, I can barely force myself to take it off :) LOVE my RF 800 F11 ;)

[@PhilThach]

I understand. For small birds on a full frame camera, the 100-500 just doesn't have enough focal length. On full frame for small birds I too prefer the 800 f/11. I still use the 100-500 for outdoor sports like soccer or baseball even on full frame. There is a KZbinr who suggest the 70-200 as you first birding lens in two separate videos. Worst advice ever. LOL

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

@@PhilThach oh okay, I forgot you were using the R7. That puts you right back up to 800mm, so yea, Id probably be fine with that :)

[@nordic5490]

I own both. The rf800 f11 is just soft in comparison using my R5. Even with the 100-500 cropped in. Did you know that the rf800 f11 is a Diffractive Optics lens ? That might explain its softness. I still have my rf800, but do not use it due to its softness, slow f11 slightly dodgy focussing. The biggest gripe with the rf 800mm - it has a massive 95mm front filter thread. But, I used a 77mm cpl via a 95-77mm stepdown adapter ring, and there was no vignetting at all. My gripe is that his lens has a massively wide 95mm plus wide body, but the optics are less than 77mm wide, hence the f11. The wide body is all for show. Ie fake.

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

@@nordic5490 honestly, although I hear some complaints about this lens being too slow, or not being weather sealed, the one thing I almost never hear is that it is soft. In fact, I think the #2 thing I hear, right behind how much reach it gives, is how sharp it is. That said, I'd have to believe you just got a soft copy.

[@buggersofoz]

Great wrap! Haha, being overpriced but worth it, is a manufacturer's dream though, isn't it? 🤣 Keep up great job, I think I forgot to comment on the accident, but many have. Gear is replaceable, many body parts are fixable too, but at a 10x higher cost. Glad that it was just the gear. I stumbled on a hike though and almost smashed my elbow to protect the gear (previously broken in a stupid bike accident that cost probably around $30k to heal). Fortunately the hiking stumble only cost me a few scratches and I even saved my 7D2 😀

[@PhilThach]

Thank you!

[@fotoinstruct6971]

Lens hoods are specifically engineered for each lens to block extraneous side light at all of the focal lengths, and yet not vignetting, especially at the widest setting. You might find your substitute hood is doing some of that, especially if you make a large print from a favored image. One thing you are paying with an L lens is the extensive service Canon provides for working Pro's. Sony never has, and Nikon has greatly reduced Pro Service in a cost cutting move. There was a time when it seemed Nikon had a Rep hidden behind every tree and goal post. Their financial pain forced them to cut way back. Canon's CPI isn't perfect, but talk to Pro's using the other two Brands and you'll here about the differences.

[@PhilThach]

While I agree that lens hoods are designed to block side light at all focal lengths but I'm going to have to disagree with the word specifically. The lens hood that comes with the RF 100-500 also comes with the RF 70-200 f/2.8 L. I use the smaller black lens hood from the RF 50 f/1.2L on both of those lenses without any vignette or flare issues at any focal length. It's ok though, you don't have to use the smaller lens hood that I like just like Heather doesn't. That's a good point about Canon Pro Services.

[@Hubieee]

Also when you think about it: An ideal lens hood for a 500 mm focal length would look different than one for 100. so for these extreme zooms, there is always a compromise when it comes to lens hoods :).

[@jpprovost64]

i have problem the the lense crepping a the max ...

[@PhilThach]

Just turn the loose/tight ring to tight and that problem will go away.

[@jpprovost64]

@@PhilThach hello Phil im a the maximun but still its dosent work like at the beginning ... its not so bad ... thanks you Phil !

[@sr04797]

Canon rf got really stunning lens collection... except at this range... nikon has 200-500 5.6 and plans to bring a 200-600 6.3 for z ... sony has 200-600 5.6-6.3 meanwhile canon atp haven't got a great lens at this range... firstly the 100-500 is f/4.5-7.1 is a slight disadvantage, plus it's 2700-2900 usd .. while sony have it for 2k only and nikon with half the price... considering all that Canon is really lacking the "beginner-pro" level super telephoto range.. they should bring out a better lens within this range

[@PhilThach]

These are all good points. The area where this lens really shines is size and weight. After years of carrying a Nikon 500 mm f/4 as well as a Nikon 200-500 5.6, carrying this light weight lens and packing it’s small size in my bag is a joy. All the while still having plenty of power especially on a 1.6 crop factor 32.5 mp Canon R7.

[@nordic5490]

My Canon 100-500 with the tripod foot removed (try and do that on the Sony) is 1kg lighter than the Sony 200-600. 1kg over a couple of hours in the field is a big deal. Also, my 100-500 can focus @ 500mm only 500mm from the end of the lens. Macro here we come. It is just such a wonderfull versitile lens. Other youtubers tested the sony 200-600 @ its 2.4m mfd, and found it was actually only a 380mm fov. Same with the Nikon 180-600. KZbinr Jan Wagener says the Nikon 180-600 only really gets tack sharp when stopped down to f11. And, 100mm at the wide end is very usefull sometimes, when larger animals, eg roos, stop on the track in front of me. No time to change lenses.

[@steveparent8788]

What is nice about it that this lens is sharp at base ISO and it is light !

[@PhilThach]

I agree.

[@steveparent8788]

Can you compare a photo taken with the R5/R6 and Canon RF 100-500 at 7.1 using the 1.6 crop mode VS same photo taken ith the R5/R6 + Canon RF 800 f/11. If you don't crop anymore in any of these 2 situations, which one will have the sharpest image straight from the camera ?

[@FotosyMas.]

Hi Phil, I rented this lens to try on my R7 and hated it. In fact, it was one of the reasons I sold my R7. I’m currently shooting the Nikon 200-500 on Z6 II and D780 and I’m getting much better results.

[@PhilThach]

That is very surprising that you are having better results from a Z6II and 200-500 than an R7 and a 100-500. My experience has been exactly the opposite. Either way, I'm glad you have found a combination that works for you!

[@faisalabdau13]

Because R7 apsc camera, z6ii is full frame camera and better iso

[@jeffolson4731]

I got my copy from the Canon refurbished store. It was still $2609 but came with the same 1 year warranty. I love the sharpness, size, weight, image stabilization, and focus speed. I am surprised how much a 1.5 pound savings is when carrying it all day. I wish the lens was closer to the $2000 price than the $3000. I do wish it reached 600mm but I used to miss more shots at the near end because my minimum focus was about 10’. With the sharpness of the lens and the R7 I can crop if needed. My old Sigma 150-600 was an f6.3 so I only lost 1/3 of a stop of light with this lens. For me what I gained was worth it. Very good and well balanced review. I agree with Heather, your lens good looks kind of silly. That said, I am not a huge fan of the stock hood either. The door always seems to open and the door mechanism makes it hard to stow the hood with you have a Lenscoat cover on your lens.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Jeff!

[@guidlines]

If you think it's expensive over there, try buying one in Australia.

[@PhilThach]

The best I can tell it's 3999 over there but when you factor in the .67 exchange rate, it's actually over $200 US cheaper in Australia than here in the US. Thanks for watching!

[@houserhythm]

A better comparison is the Sony 100-400, not the 200-600. It is the same weight, almost the same price, it's a bit shorter, but 2/3 stops faster. (Even has the loose/tight setting) The 200-600 has to be heavier, giving you both more reach and still being 1/3 stops faster. Edit: oh and the collar and foot being one piece would be great, if they actually made it an Arca/Swiss foot. But given it's not, you have to add another plate, instead of replacing the foot alltogether.

[@PhilThach]

All good points. Thank you.

[@adrianalfordphotography]

Great review Phil. It's certainly an impressive lens, and I can understand the asking price for it given it's one of the best portable telephoto lenses out there. Compact and very versatile for a lot of uses. If I was shooting Canon, without question this would be the first lens I'd buy. Thanks for sharing your thoughts mate, cheers

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Adrian! Have a great weekend! :)

[@stephenbolger5925]

Great review Phil! Unfortunately the Canon 100-500 F 7.1 retails in Ireland for 3808 USD or 3599 euros! The Sony 200-600 is 2000 euros so the Canon lens is very expensive in comparison

[@keeganflahive1604]

Lens has no reason to be above the $1500 price point. I paid around $3000 with the Canon CarePak. Canon needs to release a 150-600 f5.6-6.3 like everyone else for a cheaper price. I am currently selling my 100-500mm to get the Canon R7, Canon 800mm f11 (I sold this a couple months ago and regret it), and the RF 100-400mm (just bought used for $300). That fact that I can all that gear for the price of one lens is crazy. Don’t get me wrong I love the lens but again $3000 vs $300 for the 100-400mm is crazy

[@PhilThach]

I really like the RF 100-400 and the 800 f/11. I think the 800 is often too much even for small birds on the R7 but there are times when it really helps. If Canon were to make a 150-600 budget non-L lens, I'd buy it for sure.

[@keeganflahive1604]

@@PhilThach most of my wildlife photography is dealing with birds of prey. So they are almost never close. Bald eagles in particular. The location I go to often has about 14-15 of them flying around currently. They are always so far away. Having the 1.6 crop sensor on the R7 and the 800 would be great. Your videos have been very helpful insights for the R7 and the lens that pair with it well. I currently shot on the R5 and 100-500 with the TC 1.4x. Thanks

[@nordic5490]

I have a rf800mm f11, and used it once with my R5. It is just too inflexible, the focussing is not that great either, and it is not nearly as tack sharp as my rf100-500mm. I just bring the 800f11 along as a spare for other togs to try when we are out birding. The rf100-500 is way sharper, and you will have much sharper results cropping it to a 800mm fov rather than using the rf800. I wanted to love it, and i tried, but, you did know that the rf800mm is a Diffractive Optics lens didnt you ? So is the 600f11. Others have the same results as me. Beware the R7. The R7 has fierce rolling shutter in electronic shutter mode. If you like funky bent bird wings, the R7 in e shutter is the camera for you. The R5 rolling shutter (15ms readout vs the r7 30ms readout) is way less severe, but, I mostly dont use the R5 in e shutter mode due to the rolling shutter. The F7 is twice as bad in e shutter mode. Lack of a fast card slot is also a problem in the R7.

[@ammadoux]

great video, will forward it to a fiend who just got the r7 and using it with his old lenses.

[@PhilThach]

Thank you for the comment and the forward! :)

[@yorkshirekoi2246]

would you like to join me on a livestream on my photography livestream ?

[@PhilThach]

Maybe. I'm pretty busy though.

[@cordbryphoto]

2:51 scared me at first I need to stop

[@PhilThach]

😂🤣😂

[@stubones]

All canon’s RF are over priced. Are they excellent? Of course they are but I suspect most people will save thousands and buy the adapter and continue using their EF glass.

[@PhilThach]

I know several people who have done that.

[@stubones]

I’d do it initially and then gradually replace EF fur RF. in the last few years I’ve bought used gear (with a 6 month warranty) and saved myself a heck of a lot of money. I recently picked up an excellent condition 1DX mkii and ef 70-200 ii for the grand total of $2200… that will serve me shooting sports, along with my other other camera and lens, until maybe a R3 becomes a lot more affordable 👍

[@nordic5490]

Ok with the EF 100-400mm mkII on my R5 but as soon as I chucked a 1.4x on it focussing was pretty much non existent. One evening some Yellow tailed black cockatoos flew slowly right over head, 10m above me. I had the EF 100-400mm mkII +1.4x and the R5 REFUSED TO FOCUS. This was the kind of oppertunity that comes along rarely. Seething, I removed the 1.4x and luckily some more yellow tails flew over 20 mins later, but much higher, and the 100-400mk2 focussed just fine then. The very next day I bought the rf100-500 and havent looked back - focussing is better.

[@jpprovost64]

but .. 500 x1.6= 800 mm ... 800mm x1.4 =1120 mm !! i think i excellent for bird ?

[@PhilThach]

Your math is good! I usually go without the teleconverter when I use this lens on the R7 because I often I find that 800mm is enough. But sometimes it's nice to have that little bit extra.

[@jpprovost64]

@@PhilThach Thank Phil i order my teconverter 1.4 ... i thnk the 2x uts way too slow to pic up the subject ... in flight for sure

[@MrTmiket0007]

Thanks so much for sharing the review and the awesome content 👌👍

[@PhilThach]

Thank you, Miguel!

[@jeromeThailande]

Nobody speak about the ridiculous gym you have to do to put an extender on this lens. The ¤○¿#@@ sealing between the 2 parts on the zoom went out on my ef 100 400 isii

[@seabreezeof]

Defiantly overpriced compared to Sony 200-600, and your not compromised of only using 300-500 if using a TC

[@nordic5490]

Nope My Canon 100-500 with the tripod foot removed (try and do that on the Sony) is 1kg lighter than the Sony 200-600. 1kg over a couple of hours in the field is a big deal. Also, my 100-500 can focus @ 500mm only 500mm from the end of the lens. Macro here we come. It is just such a wonderfull versitile lens. Other youtubers tested the sony 200-600 @ its 2.4m mfd, and found it was actually only a 380mm fov. Same with the Nikon 180-600. KZbinr Jan Wagener says the Nikon 180-600 only really gets tack sharp when stopped down to f11. And, 100mm at the wide end is very usefull sometimes, when larger animals, eg roos, stop on the track in front of me. No time to change lenses.

[@seabreezeof]

@@nordic5490 I use my 100-400II with good macro abilities on my Canon & 200-600 on my Sony., and generally will have 1.4 Tc on both, but that's flexible ... Best of both worlds, short & long range to cover a broad range. Sony on a mono or tri pod over my shoulder and Canon on a sling in the field.. You will see many using a long prime, and zoom in the field carrying it in the same way as I describe. I still say the Canon is over priced. We are all different, nothing wrong with how you work or the way I do. The bottom line is your happy with your set up.