Canon RF 100-500mm Lens Review by a Bird and Wildlife Photographer

A review of the Canon RF 100-500mm zoom lens. Lens was used on Canon R5 camera body. Review is from the perspective of a bird and wildlife photographer.
Link to sample images:
ronaldbielefel...
Link to sample video: vimeo.com/user...

[@ollehemmendorff2134]

Wow, i've used the 100-400 ii for years for wildlife and i wish someone had explained the IS modes this well years ago. I've also ordered this lens and can't wait.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment.

[@brucegraner5901]

A well done review and assessment of the performance of the lens-camera combination.

[@lindachubbs1790]

I had the SONY and I loved how it zoomed! I wish Canon could do the internal zoom. That would be MEGA!!! you have done a Great review! I have to go to the Canon Thread and see if they have more feedback. etc.

[@davemorse8511]

Fantastic overview, thank you very much.😃☮️

[@judithboulden434]

Great review. For those of us trying to decide what to keep, what to replace, a review comparing the Canon 100-500, 100-400 and the Sony 200-600 would be awesome.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I will see what I can do.

[@SomeonewithaSony]

Yes, please compare with the 100-400II. The 500 or 600mm f4s are way out of my price range.

[@forsterl.stewart414]

The choice is clear If you still shoot with a Canon dslr... Canon 100-400mm 5.6 II would be a wise choice if you want a low cost highly durable lens which can be used on ef dslr and rf mirrorless mount plus extended reach with Tele extenders farther than the rf 100-500mm lens can reach. With the ef 100-400mm you can use both the 1.4 iii and 2x III Tele extenders simultaneously for extreme reach. With all zoom ranges. The 100-500mm rf lens is limited to 300 to 500mm range with a Tele extender. So if you're planning on using Tele extenders you might consider other lens options. The 100-400mm ef ii is a rock solid all metal durable lens while the 100-500mm rf is although a lighter weight lens. It has a plastic exterior less durable plastic filter threads, it does have some metal on the inside and the mount of is metal. The 100-400mm ef II lens has instant one touch manual focus mechanical override. The 100-400mm ef II and the 100-500mm rf lens both are very sharp. The rf has a electronic focus override that is difficult to use. The i.s. for both lenses are excellent. The 100-400mm ef ii has a little lower cost but you have to factor in the cost and slight extra weight of the ef/rf adaptor. You can save cost buying a used Canon ef 100-400mm i.s. ii they have been around for quite some time and are readily available.

[@michaelricco81]

Your reviews are excellent and very easy to follow and comprehend. I have had this lens for a couple of months now and several of your comments directly addressed my own questions. In particular your explanation of the 3 mode settings has been been very very helpful. Thank you so much.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I an glad you found the video helpful. Thanks so much for taking the time to comment.

[@DAVE_WHITE]

Stabilization 1 for still subjects mode 2 basically for panning and mode 3 sports and erratic subjects as per the manual you nailed it!!

[@dannydanquah3681]

I finally received my Mossy Oak roll and my RF 100-500 is looking beautiful. Thank you very much sir.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Fantastic!

[@patthompson1253]

Thanks Ron. I have my 100-500 ordered, can't wait. Your video was so helpful!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks so much. Glad you found the video informative.

[@usernamenotknown]

Brilliant review. Best description yet of IS lens modes. Thank you

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment.

[@miguelortiz5270]

Nikon 200-500 with his f5.6 and the Sony 200-600 with the internal zoom and the short throw are incredible lenses. (Both with better prices also) The 500/f7.1 of the Canon and his price made me still doubt to go with the R5. (I have the D500 and the A9) Thanks for this great review! Greetings from Chile

[@michaelcohen6177]

I’m pleased Canon has hit a home run.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Me too.

[@picklebird1261]

Another awesome video with real world helpful tips and information answering the questions serious photographers want to know! Thanks.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment it is much appreciated.

[@JMontyGO]

Focusing distance on Full is so much better than Infinity. When set to Infinity I had all kinds of focus issues. Thank you for this tip!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks for sharing!

[@jeanthomas5245]

Appreciate the video. I think I will go ahead and get the lens..Looking forward to the video on the converters.

[@piussullivan3746]

Top notch, Ron... always enjoy watching your videos, you do a awesome job in front of the camera and behind the camera. You're what they call a well rounded photographer... :)

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks so much. I greatly appreciate your feedback.

[@debbiebarnes-shankster6870]

Thanks for the info. I am heading out tomorrow morning to photograph birds with this lens for the first time and my new R6. Looking forward to seeing how everything performs.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Good luck, I hope you do well!

[@MeridiusMaximus]

Amazing images! Thank you for review and sharing.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment.

[@leomckillop1077]

Great video Ron!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks so much.

[@itaylorm]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts this is very helpful. I am about to get one (Once they get off back order). Hopefully before I go to Florida at Christmas time

[@kennethlui2268]

Great video. With the EF 100-400 IS II, I always set mode 3 for IS and “full” for focusing distance. I agree f7.1 at 500 is not very desirable. I wish it was 5.6. I also wish Canon could make a RF 600 mm f4 very soon. I can’t wait to see your review on 100-500 with 1.4x and 2x extender. Keep up your good work. Great shot on the Owl.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment. I am really looking forward to the 600mm f/4 for the RF whenever it comes. I just hope it is not years and years away.

[@frostybe3r]

@@whistlingwingsphotography There's no reason to get the RF 600mm, the EF 600 MK2 is more than sharp enough for the R5, the EF 600 MK2 is actually sharper than the RF 28-70, the RF will also cost around £15K.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

@@frostybe3r If the RF 600 f/4 is a DO lens and thus much smaller and lighter than the EF 600 f/4 II i currently have, I will be tempted. It is getting harder and harder to lug the EF 600 f/4 around everywhere I go. Given that the EF 600 f/4 III is so much lighter than the Mk. II, I am thinking any RF 600 f/4 will be even lighter and shorter ( if a DO).

[@frostybe3r]

@@whistlingwingsphotography The MK3 also has worse image quality than the MK2, hopefully they don't mess up like that again with the RF.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

@@frostybe3r I have heard some think it is not as good. I have not shot that lens. I too hope any RF 600 will be as good or better than the Mk. II I now shoot.

[@gtwynet]

Got one on order. Picking it up on oct 5 or so. Good informative video, thanks for posting.

[@markjaidii6493]

Great review and information!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks for the comment. Always appreciated.

[@georgeelizalde2035]

Awesome. I love your videos. Well done. I am waiting for my lens---starting at 70/200mm

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for your comment.

[@dglatz01]

Super informative video Ron. Thank you.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thank you.

[@amitchattopadhyay9367]

Hi Ron, a nice review and really some pleasing images. Would request you to create an episode on settings and techniques on BIF wildlife.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment and the suggestion. I am working on putting together the materials for just such a video.

[@harriihamaki1394]

Nice review. Waiting for mine to arrive.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks for the comment. Yep, waiting can be difficult.

[@Hordesdaddy]

Great review and very informative video. Thank you! I love my R6 with my 100-500. Really love the combination.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment. Glad you like that combo. I have not shot the R6, but hear the noise is really low at pretty high ISO settings. I might like that body for low light work.

[@miltphoto3336]

In depth video, thanks !! What lens cover do you have on the lens?

[@srinagardiary-lifeinkashmi5731]

nice review

[@rmg6911]

Hi Ron, Can you make a video installation of Mossy Oak Graphics?

[@HotGates]

Very nice I'll have mine tomorrow but how is the focus breathing?

[@12340786ful]

amazing photos.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much.

[@robertjoy9534]

Very good explanation of IS modes. Looking forward to trying mode 3. Thanks!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment. Great hearing from you.

[@mahdfireworks]

Hi there I have question for you. I am considering the rf 100-500 with a 1.4 tc on the r6 but i am not sure if thats the best choise for me compared to a used ef 600 f4 l is usm mk2 also with 1.4 tc. I shoot birds In fligth and the ligth here in Denmark is not like the sunny days down under. So please advise Thx Regards from Denmark

[@raylander6329]

Wow, what a great review!!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much.

[@robgerety]

Thanks for the video. MIne extends by itself somewhat.

[@michaelcohen6177]

Great review Ron.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks, Mike. Hope we can get out and shoot again soon.

[@terryrensch2561]

Thank you very informative i have liked and subscribed

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thank you for watching and commenting.

[@JPLamoureuxsTravels]

Can’t wait to get mine 😜 thanks for the review buddy, really enjoyed that!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks for the comment. I hope you love yours as much as I love mine.

[@JPLamoureuxsTravels]

Whistling Wings Photography I hope so buddy! Picking his and the R5 up to go with my camera arsenal hopefully end of the month, a 50th birthday present to myself 😉👌

[@cdryall]

I agree - I would love an internal focus RF 200-600 F6.3, can only hope!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

If we all wish hard enough maybe it will happen, but I would not hold my breath.

[@siegfriednoet]

Stumbled onto this channel, Well explained 👍

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much.

[@yorkshirekoi2246]

did you damage that lens with the camo cover as it goes inside the lens what about the seals ???

[@vsmcl3979]

Thanks Ron! Very informative!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks, and I hope all is well.

[@esthervanaalderen1873]

What kind of cover do you use for the RF 100-500? I see that this one is also inside when completely zoomed in.

[@Moni-qd9no]

I really love your reviews, easy for me as a not native-english to understand you. Great informations, well structured video. Thank you and carry on...

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much. They are not fancy, but hopefully provide some good information.

[@georgeewart52]

Great review, like the camouflage jacket, even on the lens barrel, that is cool!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for your comment

[@romanbennifir6020]

Whistling Wings Photography would you mind telling us who makes the skins? Thanks

[@tiagodoria9836]

Thank you very much for your amazing reviews. I got one question, can I use the same definitions with the R7?

[@andykimpton7877]

Great review Ron, much appreciated. What brand of lens Camo did you mange to find please?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. It is called mossy oaks graphics and I have a video on it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n36VemCCmsSJj7c

[@TC_Conner]

Hi, great review! I’m expecting my RF 100-500mm to be shipped this week. I will use it on my Canon EOS R. Can you provide any input on this combo? (I have one variety of the “holy trinity” of RF lenses that I use now and I’m hoping the RF 100-500mm will be an added bonus.)

[@jeffparins5949]

Ok, thanks for the explanation. For me, I'm not a professional and not a pixel peeper, so it sounded good to me.BTW, based on your reviews and recommendation, I have ordered the rf100-500. When it gets here, I will test out the crop clarity issue you brought up. Thanks again, Ron, for your quick response!

[@thelensmanphotography]

I also changed the DOF preview button to change focusing methods - you can use one finger to change rather than moving your hand from the lens barrel to the ring to change methods.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Nice. I have small hands and I have a difficult time reaching the DOF button, so I set up my R5 so I have 3 AF methods at my beck and call as they are assigned to three different buttons I can reach easily. This way I don't have to use the action dial all that often, but I still do and I like it on the ring as it works well for me.

[@peterc6782]

Great review, really helpful. Thanks.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks for the comment. Always appreciated.

[@forsterl.stewart414]

The choice is clear If you still shoot with a Canon dslr... Canon 100-400mm 5.6 II would be a wise choice if you want a low cost highly durable lens which can be used on ef dslr and rf mirrorless mount plus extended reach with Tele extenders farther than the rf 100-500mm lens can reach. With the ef 100-400mm you can use both the 1.4 iii and 2x III Tele extenders simultaneously for extreme reach. With all zoom ranges. The 100-500mm rf lens is limited to 300 to 500mm range with a Tele extender. So if you're planning on using Tele extenders you might consider other lens options. The 100-400mm ef ii is a rock solid all metal durable lens while the 100-500mm rf is although a lighter weight lens. It has a plastic exterior less durable plastic filter threads, it does have some metal on the inside and the mount of is metal. The 100-400mm ef II lens has instant one touch manual focus mechanical override. The 100-400mm ef II and the 100-500mm rf lens both are very sharp. The rf has a electronic focus override that is difficult to use. The i.s. for both lenses are excellent. The 100-400mm ef ii has a little lower cost but you have to factor in the cost and slight extra weight of the ef/rf adaptor. You can save cost buying a used Canon ef 100-400mm i.s. ii they have been around for quite some time and are readily available.

[@CrowPal]

Another dislike you didn't mention is the Arca-Swiss mount Canon could have machined into the lens foot, but didn't. (Or provide an Arca-Swiss mount option.) Wouldn't it be nice not to need that extra accessory you have fitted?

[@sergioazorin2305]

Thank you for your video. What camouflage cover do you use?? or did you paint it?. Thanks

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

It is called mossy oaks graphics. Here is a video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n36VemCCmsSJj7c

[@Wellin220365]

Hi. Excellent review as always 👍👍👍. Where did you get the lens cover from??

[@christopherwood1668]

What would you suggest, budget and weight not important.. Canon R5 with the 100-500 or Canon R5 with the Sigma 150-600 sport? I’m so torn!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I have the 150-600 Sport and do not like the lens for what I do. For me, there is no debate. The RF 100-500 with and without the 1.4x TC. Cheers. Ron

[@tomsullivan2907]

Ron, Another great video, can't wait for my 100-500 to come! Nice Photos in the link. Can't wait to see you try some TC and produce a video on that. I have EF TC's and can use them with the adapter, want to see if the can use the RF TC and attach the adapter for EF and use the 100-400, 500 & 600mm or if that fails. Can you put a 1.4 RF adapter, attach you 600mm with EF 1.4 TC attached. Lots of interesting things we could do if that works. I don't like that Canon didn't make the RF TC handle the whole range of the 100-500, can't zoom all the way back. Not sure why they couldn't have made the TC body a little longer and then the lens out of the TC would have cleared (guessing there is a distance to lens ratio they have to maintain). Just for all us folks who used the EF TC's the RF TC's seem limited from the start on the zoom.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I am not sure about all the different ways you could order the adapter and various TCs. I tend to stick with 600, 840, and 1200mm via the adapter, 600mm f/4 and one of the two EF TCs. This is basically all I have ever needed with regards to focal length and the performance is excellent. The RF TCs on the 100-500 work well, but of course the slow apertures come into play. The restriction on the zoom has not been limiting for me up to this point, but I am sure it will rise up as an issue at some point, but hopefully not too often.

[@danielpichler1]

Hey Ron have you ever been able to get a shot and or video of a skimmer catching a fish?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Nope, I do not have that shot. However, I can't say I have tried. I just don't get many ops to shoot skimmers given I am doing tours most of the time and my tours are not in "skimmer areas." Would love to spend some time with skimmers it I ever get the chance.

[@peridot180]

Wonderful review! I am still deciding if I want to get this lens. I already have the 100-400mm II, so I am not sure. Honestly, if it went up to 600mm, I would buy it in a heartbeat. But the 500mm limit and the 7.1 aperture there kind of turns me off to it. Plus, I think it is a bit overpriced for what it is. I may just try the 800mm f/11 for now to tide me over until I see what else Canon (and Tamron and Sigma) release for the RF mount. Thank you again for the great review!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Hey, thanks for the comment. I understand exactly where you are coming from.

[@paulwayjbk7499]

Another great video. What skin do you have on the lens?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

It is called Mossy oak graphics

[@paulwayjbk7499]

@@whistlingwingsphotography thanks 👍

[@steveslack4750]

Great review, and beautiful shots. This lens has been on my wish list since it was announced, i have one on order, and should receive it this week. Sadly i still have a bit longer to wait for my R5. The wait is agonising!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I know what you mean about the wait. It is always a problem with new releases these days it seems. I really wish manufacturers could get a big enough stock lined up to meet the initial needs. I guess we should just be glad there is an R5 at all given the current situation in the world.

[@dav14pawest]

Thanks for another great discussion about the R5. I have the 100-400 II and use it primarily on my 7d. When I put it on the 5d the loss of the crop is very noticeable. This 100-500 would more or less cancel that difference. I have the 1.4x iii but think there is a noticeable drop in sharpness with lens. Now if I could only get my R5. I also wish it were a 200-600. I may rent the 600 or 800 f/11 at some point but can’t imagine I’ll be happy with them compared to the 100-400 or 100-500..

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment. Yep, going from a cropped to a full-frame sensor can make a big difference depending on lenses and what type of photography you do most. I was surprised with how good the RF 800 f/11 performed on the R5 and the image quality is really good for the price point. Not sure I will ever get the 800, but it is intriguing with respect to video work for me.

[@kilohotel6750]

Another good video. I guess like a lot of others I'm considering this lens as a replacement for my 100-400 II. Right now it's a great second lens to go with the 600 F4 so not sure I really need the 500mm.

[@nilssonnenberg3908]

Nice Video. where do you get the Skin for that Lens???

[@alistairgraham8073]

Great information - i am awaiting my R5 plus that lens plus a 1.4x TC to arrive - can i ask where you get the cammo covers? - i just wish they had a Nato green lens colour option though

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

This should provide you with the information you are looking for: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n36VemCCmsSJj7c Thanks for the comment and viewing my videos

[@TheThomashammer78]

how on earth did you get all the wonderful toys they are all on backorder everywhere... Lens,Camera and battery grip :)

[@shootingscenes]

Hi Ron. Great video as ever. Hey where did you get the great 100-500mm lens cover from? Like the idea that the zoom extension is covered in use. Thanks Roy

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

It is missy oaks graphics and comes in sheet form. You need to cut it and stick it yourself. I have a video on it but can’t send a link right now.

[@forgewire]

Why camouflage on the moving barrel? It can interfere with the dust and weather seal protection.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Well, to me it does not make much sense to camo the other parts of the lens and then have a huge white area exposed when the lens is extended; and I have my 100-500 extended a lot. the camo may interfere as you say, but I am not sure of that, and anyone who is worried about that aspect of this can choose not to put camo on the moving barrel portion.

[@ronlutzphoto]

Great video.. bought the R5 & 100-500,, what camo lens coat are you using?

[@bitdancer1005]

Excellent review and tips for using the Canon RF 100-500mm. Owning the Sony 200-600, I've experienced blur interaction between the IBIS/lens OIS with high shutter speeds (> 1/1000s). Hearing that you use IBIS/OIS all the time and seeing frozen bird motion, I assume you've seen no such unwanted interaction. Thanks in advance. Beautiful images!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment. Every so often I might see something weird that I think might be attributable to the IS/IBIS system, but after the latest firmware update I really am not experiencing any issues. I shoot on Mode 3 a lot and most of the issues seem to be linked to use of Mode 2 for panning.

[@ExNightZ]

Hello, I was wondering where you got the camo wrap for that lens?

[@stanleyhall2793]

I love the camo cover. Do you mind sharing where you got it from?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

It is by Mossy Oaks Graphics. Here is a video about it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/n36VemCCmsSJj7c

[@ivorottleyphotography4024]

Well done, thanks for this.....I have the same combo, my first Canon after starting photography with Nikon 4 years ago. I'm interested in how you get on with the tele converters. A request for you....could you do a video specifically on the AF modes? Thanks

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks for the comment. I will do my best to do a video on the AF modes .

[@trevor9934]

Hi, thank you for your review. I have the same lens and love it, especially with the latest firmware upgrades. I was wondering where you got your camouflage cover from? Does the lens extension material have any effect on the weather sealing? Thanks in anticipation

[@djack41]

How does it perform vs the EF 100-400mm with a 1.4x? A downside to the Sony 200-400 is a min focus of 8 ft vs 3 ft for the Canon 100-400.But the Sony costs $700 less and offers longer range with internal focusing.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

It is very similar but the IS is better on the 100-500 IMO. I really do miss the 600 on the long end at 6.3 of the Sony 200-600. The 1.4 on the 100-500 works well to get you 700 but the slow aperture is really a drawback. For me it is looking like the 100-500 is going to be relegated to situations where a zoom is need and where no more than 500 is necessary. I will use my 600 f/4 with TCs when I need really long reach.

[@kclarkeadventures]

Where do you get camp for lens?

[@BartonFinker]

Hi Ron. Thanks for the informative review. 2 Questions: 1. What type of lens camo cover are you using? I don't see lens coat have got a cover for this lens yet. 2. You talk about using the ring for changing AF modes. What other AF modes are you using? On my R5 it seems it's always best to stay on the first one which detects the bird's eye. When do you choose to change AF mode and to what mode? Thanks!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I made my own out of a material called Mossy Oaks Graphics. I have a video about it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n36VemCCmsSJj7c I also use Zone and Spot AF a lot depending on the situation. I like zone for when I am shooting really fast birds in flight, like diving belted kingfishers. I like spot when I am shooting small song birds like warblers that are in bushes and trees with a lot of branches.

[@BartonFinker]

@@whistlingwingsphotographyThanks!

[@markholford7054]

I am basically a stills photographer and not sure if I want to pay the extra for the R5 over the R6. Do you have any views about what you lose with this lens on the R6? Is it shooting speed? By the way I agree about great and very clear review. Thank you.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I have not shot the R6 and I wanted and need the 45MP. I have a 20MP 1DxII, so I wanted something that combined the high FPS with higher resolution. So, I really cannot comment on how the 100-500 performs on the R6 versus the R5. Sorry.

[@markholford7054]

Whistling Wings Photography thanks for this and your other reply

[@larrymathewson6231]

Hey Ron: I noticed a Camo cover for the new RF 100-500mm lens. I'm in Canada and wonder where you got the cover and if someone in Canada makes the same cover.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I made the "cover" myself from a material called "Mossy Oaks Graphics" It is a self adhesive film type material. I cut and fit it myself. Video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n36VemCCmsSJj7c

[@michaeldusautoy3091]

Thanks Ron for posting. I have the R5 with the 100-400 mkii. I have found with biff that the focus begins to hunt but if I am able to lock on with spot af then enable the animal eye autofocus, and if that locks on it’s great. But if it doesn’t lock I am lost and the lens continues to try and focus - this on mechanical shutter. Any thoughts ?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

A couple of thoughts. First, do you have "Tracking Sensitivity" set to "Locked On" or to a more responsive setting? I like the "Locked On" setting, but if you miss your target you need to "pump" the AF-ON button, or whatever means you are using to initiate AF, until you get a lock on your subject. This way of doing things tends to minimize "AF Hunting" for me. If you have the Tracking Sensitivity set to Responsive the AF will always be looking to focus on something as long as you have the AF-ON button or other initiation method pressed. This setting tends to increase Hunting for me. Second, I always try to pre-focus at a distance where I expect my subject to be, because if I try to get AF lock on a subject that is way out of focus this tends to increase the AF systems miss rate and thus increase AF hunting. Lastly, I always try to initiate AF ( I use back button AF not Half press) when my subject or my subjects head or eye is as close to the center of the frame as possible. This seems to increase the AF lock on success. I use Zone and Animal Eye Detect w/Tracking as my two main AF methods and have the zone set to the middle of the frame 90% of the time. I hope this helps. If I think of anything else I will add to this comment.

[@jbgim5890]

Thanks for a wonderful review..one question.. where do you get those camouflage tape(?) or sticker(?) for the lens?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

This is what I use. kzbin.info/www/bejne/n36VemCCmsSJj7c

[@TimNunyerBizniz]

@ Whistling Wings Photography. Great review. Would I miss my 500 f4 if I went with this new lens and what are your thoughts on adding a 1.4x to the lens and r6? Thanks.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

For me the 100-500 is not a substitute for either the 500 f/4 or 600 f/4. However, it really depends on how often you shoot in low light, and thus need f/4 type speed, and how often you use TCs on your 500 f/4 to whether you would miss it or not. The 100-500 is slow on the long end at f/7.1 and putting a 1.4 TC on it makes it f/10. So, for me it really is no substitute for a fast f/4. I do love the lens for what it is; a great zoom for when you need 100-500mm of focal length.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I will be putting out a video on the 100-500 with the 1.4x TC very soon, so look for that if you are interested.

[@TimNunyerBizniz]

@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks, Ron. I REALLY appreciate the input as Bald Eagle season is soon approaching here in neighboring Idaho. Great tutorials as well.

[@TimNunyerBizniz]

@@whistlingwingsphotography Most definitely!

[@TimNunyerBizniz]

@@whistlingwingsphotography One more question for you. Where did you get the vinyl wrap for the lens? Thank you :)

[@Rascallucci]

I think you've kind of nailed most of it, may be I will expand a little bit on some of the points as follows: 1) Right off the bat, the focal length of 100-500mm is just not a competitive offering at all. I just don't get it, there is already an EF 100-400mm II, so why just add on only 100mm to make a 500mm super zoom? Plus, Canon knew full well Sony, Sigma and Tamron were already at 600mm, so why make a shorter lens in a photography category that places a lot of focus on reach? 2) The throw is long and is stiff. Both are related in my opinion. It boils down to the external zoom design. Don't kid yourself, even with time it won't get much looser. It is no different to the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm's external zoom design. I have the Sigma and it will not get loose plus to me external zooms are inferior. 3) New Canon design philosophy. I was thinking may be Canon will come out with a longer internal zoom in future, then it struck me no they won't. This is a new Canon design language, have you not noticed they have given all the RF lenses the same short and stubby look? This is precisely the reason why they had to adopt the external zoom design because they want the lenses to be retracted when not in use to retain that short and stubby look. Just think about it, why else would they have to use an external zoom design even on such a short zoom as the RF 70-200mm? 4) Price point. What can I say? It is massively overpriced. You brought up the Sony FE 200-600mm which is also a lens I have been considering. Over here where I am at, the Canon RF 100-500mm is US$1.2K more expensive than the Sony. How is that possible? So, Canon wants you to pay significantly more for a lens that has an inferior external zoom design, a smaller aperture and shorter reach? With all the above mentioned, the RF 100-500mm is a complete deal breaker for me for this whole R5 combo. I am only an amateur and I don't shoot with huge primes nor do I have any plans in dropping US$13K for a 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/5.6 anytime soon, all I need is a quality super zoom. I know if I go with the R5, I would feel forced into buying the RF 100-500mm. As such, on balance, I feel like overall the Sony A7R IV and FE 200-600mm package suits my needs more than Canon.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I agree for the most part. Be warned, however. I found the 200-600 to be a great lens on the a9 and a9II. I did not have good luck with it on the a7r4. AF was not accurate many times and the overall image quality was not great IMO. I think the 61MP out resolves the 200-600. I am not the only person to have these difficulties when using the 200-600 on the a7r4. Also, it is almost impossible to stay on a flying bird for more than just very short bursts with the a7r4's EVF lag when using the 200-600. Unless something has changed since I sold my a7r4 and 200-600 you might not like the results you get with that combo.

[@Rascallucci]

@@whistlingwingsphotography To be honest with you, the A7R IV/FE 200-600mm focusing issue is only something I have come across most recently with basically British and European shooters. All the other reviews I have watched so far were mainly from American and Canadian shooters who absolutely sang praises about the A7R IV. But, there are people who talk about the A7R IV out-resolving the FE 200-600mm and would prefer to put it on the FE 600mm f/4. The main reason I am leaning towards the A7R IV is its flexibility in allowing me to shoot it in APS-C crop mode in maintaining maximum reach without having to touch teleconverters. I do wonder if I happen to shoot it in APS-C crop mode most of the time, would that help with the focusing issue if indeed there is one? I think what I will do is if I happen to want to pull the pin in the near future, I will cross-check with more current A7R IV/FE 200-600mm combo shooters and gauge really how serious is the focusing issue. But, if I am not in a hurry, come next year we may already get to hear the announcement of the Canon R5S and Sony A7R V. If I go with Canon, the R5S is really the only way I will do it, meaning having a super high res sensor that will allow me to shoot it in APS-C crop mode, otherwise the loss of reach on the R5/RF 100-500mm combo is just too significant. Even with a 2x TC, the R5 will only give me 1000mm and as it stands I am already shooting at 960mm wide open with my current setup anyway.

[@plinkyplanky9651]

Hi, If you were using a tripod, would you turn the image stabilisation off or leave it on? Thanks

[@jeffparins5949]

Ron, have you tried the 1.6 crop instead of the teleconverter? That will get you to 800 instead of 500

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I have used the crop mode. However, there is one big drawback when you use the crop mode versus a teleconverter. In crop mode you lose a lot of resolution as your image size goes from 45mp down to 17mp as the camera "crops" the sensor and uses only a small central portion of the sensor. You can do the exact same thing by cropping during post processing basically cropping in post versus cropping in camera. When using a teleconverter you keep all 45mp of resolution and thus the extra magnification gained by the added optics results in more pixels on your subject. Depending on the situation, and if using the TC does not degrade the image quality too much, you should come out better with the actual increased detail on the subject by using a TC. Over the years I have found that 1.4x TC do not degrade IQ much at all and thus are a better option.

[@johnzimmerman9624]

Nice review of this lens. I'm waiting for my copy to arrive. You mentioned about the effort to fully zoom the lens which concerns me but isn't a deal breaker. Have you tried it with the 1.4x and the 2x? If yes, I understand that you can't zoom back to 100mm, is that a frustrating?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I have used it with TCs. It really is not frustrating for me not to be able to fully zoom out as when I am sure TCs I am wanting max focal length so I don't do much zooming. My main wish is that it did not take so much travel of the zoom ring to zoom the full extent. That is bothersome at times.

[@Galo1955]

A very nice and great review of that lens, exactly what I was looking for prior to getting that lens. Now I have as you do many very older EF lens and have been using a first generation 1D x with ef 500mm, ef 300mm 2.8 is and many others like the ef 400mm IS D0 and I am really wondering if they will be working properly on a Canon R5 . What I would like to do is get the R5 and use my older Ef lens with it but get the RF 100-500mm is and eventually replace my Canon Prime oldy's for new Canon RF one as my budget make it possible... What really matters to me is Sharpness and image quality as one can see on my Flickr account. By the way am french from Quebec and ad no problem at all with your great explanation witch make me a instant subscriber and a easy like on that great KZbin. Thanks.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thank you so much for your comment. Many of the older EF lenses will give you awesome image quality and sharpness. Some will not give you full fps or the best AF performance. Canon has a list of which lenses provide full functionality with the R5. I hope you find the combos you are looking for as you move forward with your photography.

[@gailbisson7565]

Thanks for the great video. How do you find the BG bokeh or blur at 500mm?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

It is okay. It is not as nice as my 600 f/4, but it is a trade off for me as the extra DOF does work out nicely for larger birds IMO.

[@kevins8575]

I like your reviews and find them very helpful. I do feel I have to give you feedback on the video setup you're using. It's very distracting to see the ultra-wide lens distortion; the door frame, the framed picture and sometimes even your face often look skewed. Maybe a longer lens from farther away would be better?

[@glynnpowell7864]

Make your own video.

[@karinwest919]

thank you so much for this in depth review for us nature lovers. Really looking forward to your extender review !! I had read in a review that the lens did not have a switch for manual / autofocus, that you had to use the camera body; so apparently that is not the case?

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much for the comment. Yep, it has a switch for MF/AF.

[@tkermi]

Thanks for the great and informative video! Do you know if this lens with 1,4x converter (~f/10) on R5 have as small AF area than f/11 800mm? EDIT: Oh, I just reach the point of the video where you say that you will make another video about teleconverters with this lens - great 🙂👍🏻!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

I am working on such a video. Unfortunately, I had to send my 1.4x TC back because it was damaged when I received it and did not work properly. I will have a new 1.4 by Wednesday this week and will then be able to finish up my testing and video.

[@tkermi]

@@whistlingwingsphotography Oh, it's always such a bummer to get something that's defective/broken during delivery. I'm not in any hurry. I also just subscribed to your channel as well so I will remember to watch your new videos.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

@@tkermi Hey, thanks so much for subscribing. Ron

[@hectoreyesc]

I liked your explanation thank you for that. As a beginner in astrophotography field, what do you think to purchase Canon R5 with 100-500 lens + 2x extender for night sky pictures ?

[@donbower]

It's honestly not worth it if you are going to use this exclusively for astrophotography. You're going to be using manual focus at all times (auto focus doesn't work for astro), so spending all this money on image stabilization and autofocus is a waste. You're better off getting something like the EOS RA which is made for astrophotography, and then spending the rest on a nice telescope and mount.

[@hectoreyesc]

Thank you Ron for your answer. I have started the Astro hobby almost a year ago with a Celestron EdgeHD 11” + CGX mount + EOS Ra really happy with that, but I’m thinking to add R5 because it’s marvel specifications in low light conditions but I’m not pretty sure if the R5 could do a great job, because your knowledge and expertise in this field is why I’m really happy to read your opinion. Really thank you.

[@donbower]

@@hectoreyesc so you already have the gear. That's great. For nebulas, the r5 is going to give you worse results than the the RA because it is not going to be sensitive to the H alpha wavelengths. You are better off going for a dedicated astronomy camera. For the same price as the R5, you could get something like a ZWO ASI 6200MM PRO which will give you absolutely stunning images. With your setup, the r5 is going to be massively oversampled, and you will lose the benefit of having such a high resolution sensor. I'd recommend doing some research on image scale and use an online calculator to see what sensor would be good for your setup.

[@hectoreyesc]

Ron tanks again for sharing your knowledge and experience, I’m greatly surprised with your answer because I can confirm to myself that I’m on the right track, I don’t want to sound on a wrong way but I started shouting with the 6200mc two months ago with nothing good to say about my images of Andromeda, Alnitak + horsehead & Flame nebulae and Orion Nebula, I had some issues like dew on the sensor causing bad images. I know that most of that issues is because my lack of experience but I’m trying to do my best everyday. Viewing and reading and following expert people like you would help me to improve the result in this amazing hobby. Thank you :)

[@donbower]

@@hectoreyesc glad I can help. Dew on your sensor is likely because of not using Dew straps. With a scope like yours you are going to need them. Some astronomy cameras have heated frobt glass to prevent Dew from forming, but you should still look into getting Dew heaters for the front element of the scope and for the sensor. The r5 will never stack up to a dedicated astronomy camera. They are harder to work with, but the results are leagues better.

[@stans6582]

Good video,.........remember you don.t have to defend your opinion......it's your let others deal with theirs

[@rohaninpittsburgh]

I love your videos. Thanks to you (and some others) I am eagerly awaiting my own pre-ordered R% from B&H. I do have a question about the camouflage covering on the 100-500 lens you showed us in the video> Many thanks in advance.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Here is more information about the camo on the lens: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n36VemCCmsSJj7c

[@JWIV5]

Terrific channel, it gets better with every video. We need to send someone in the filed with you to video you working I'm sure we'd learn a lot.

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Jay, thanks so much for your comment. It is very much appreciated. I hope to do some in the field videos as time goes on. I need to find a good video person to works with me and that has been hard to do up to this point.

[@f_r_e_d]

Great review, subbed!

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Thanks so much

[@Methodical2]

What camo cover are you using for the 100-500 and did the camo for the zoom portion come with the kit? Thanks...

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

My camo cover is made from a material called Mossy Oaks Graphics. It is not a kit. You buy the material in bulk sheets and cut it to fit the lens you are covering. Here is a video on the material. Thanks for your comment. kzbin.info/www/bejne/n36VemCCmsSJj7c

[@Methodical2]

@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks for the link.

[@Drakester1971]

Excellent informative review. Thank you. I have the 100-400mm II with 1.4 & 2.0x extenders already. Is there any benefit you can see of the 100-500 over my set up, or should I save my cash for the RF 600mm f/4.0 ;)

[@whistlingwingsphotography]

Given you have the 100-400 II, then I would wait. There are some advantages of the 100-500, with the better IS/IBIS being the most significant for me, over the 100-400. However, a 600 f/4 in the RF mount, especially if it is a DO lens, is worth waiting for.