The perfect all-round zoom for wildlife photography? RF100-500 long term review

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Get rid of the noise! Try DXO PureRaw 4 for 30 days for free (affiliate link): tidd.ly/3VmJyNR

[@alainmarion8952]

Thank you for this video ! For me it is a perfect lens for what I do (wildlife photography and videography). It has good reach (better with a teleconverter but I rarely use one), is not too heavy, fits in a backpack with other lenses, is stabilized, has good autofocus on my R5 and gives great results both for photos and videos. It is not perfect (no lens is) but is the best compromise for a medium to long zoom range. It is not cheap, but much cheaper than long primes from Canon. Very happy with this lens. It rarely leaves my camera.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that!

[@vitaminb4869]

I had the EF 100-400 II married to 1.4x III before I upgraded to this lens. If you look around online, you'll see people say that the RF lens is just slightly sharper, but otherwise not a significant difference. This couldn't have been further from the truth. The RF lens is significantly sharper than the EF version, with or without the teleconverter. I tested it thoroughly and also just in real world use I noticed a big improvement.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that

[@Sigurd_9230]

I ordered an RF 200-800, but ended up sending it back. I think the weight and size of the RF 100-500 is perfect for handheld shooting. And if I need more reach, I switch to my R7, and get the equivalent of 800mm.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, size and weight are a big plus for the RF100-500

[@FrankH-sz1ln]

I have this lens and use it with the R6 mark ii. I do an occasional video but I’m 95% photos. The image quality with this combination is absolutely superb. You just have to think a bit more about your background and leave more distance between subject and background than you would need to with a big prime. I use a pop up hide and tripod so I can lower the shutter speed as the light fades. Also it’s still f6.3 at 451mm so you can gain a little light there. I shoot wildlife from small birds to foxes and anything that might pass by. I had the EF 100-400ii which was nice, but the image quality of this RF 100-500 is just gorgeous. Expensive? Yes it is, but you won’t be disappointed. It really is quality.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Nice, have fun with the lens

[@FrankH-sz1ln]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thank you Buddy, I’ve watched almost all your videos. Everyone has been excellent, informative, honest, and without bias. Your time is greatly appreciated

[@victorbeccari]

This lens is what's keeping me in Canon right now! I'm using it on the R7 and it works amazingly. The camera is the limiting factor here. Waiting for the R5 ii has been a struggle, especially with the stacked sensors of Nikon and Sony, but this lens is unparalleled. Way lighter than the 200-600 sony or 180-600 nikon, fits in my side purse, and has that 100mm end (although I'm not profiting for it too much in the R7).

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Have fun with it

[@amagnier]

Thank you for the great review and great pictures !

[@janyemans]

Thank you for your videos. I have an R5, and I use this lens almost exclusively. It has radically increased my percentage of sharp, usable photos. I do a lot of bird photography at sundown, and I only wish it was better in low light. However, I would not trade it for anything. This is my favorite and most reliable lens.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Nice, have fun!

[@Kellysher]

Sometimes I pull back from 500 mm slightly to get 6.3. It helps a bit.

[@keeno86]

Stunning photos Fabian, and great video

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks!

[@stefanusrheeder4162]

you do some fine artisitic work. I enjoy your photo inserts.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@OldJack1960]

Hi Fabian. I've just ordered the 100-500 for use when travelling on an R6 primarily, but I also own an R7 which will give 800mm when/if needed. The price, even heavily discounted, has been giving me serious misgivings which your long-term review has helped dispel so thanks for taking the time to make this video. Now all I've got to do is tell the missus how much I've spent.....

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Have fun!

[@drewmenges8430]

I bought this lens about a month ago and so far I really like it. Thanks for your great videos!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that!

[@Frodofoto01]

Hi Fabian, another useful video. Two comments on your negative points. 1: front element scratches. No problem as I use B+W UV filters on all my lenses, and only remove them if the sun is on the frame. The RF 100-500 uses relatively cheap 77mm filters that are the same as on my RF 24-105/4. 2: lens hood. The biggest problem for me is its size. It will be replaced by an ES-83 hood from a RF 50/1.2. Overall, the three most important aspects are zoom range startjng at 100mm, high image quality, and compact size.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks! I don’t use UV filters as they tend to degrade image quality - not what I want with an expensive lens!!

[@Frodofoto01]

Have you actually tested the impact of high quality filters, like B+W? Apart from when the sun is in the frame, I see no difference.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Have you checked the video from Jan Wegener? kzbin.info/www/bejne/e5uofKJ8bcp3qbM

[@Frodofoto01]

Hi Fabian, yes, I had seen that video. I like most of Jan's videos, but this is one of the worst. He doesn't even say what filters he used. The hyperbole in the video is annoying. Several people commented that they saw no impact with their B+W filters. This was a clickbait video and does Jan no credit whatsoever. I encourage you to do an honest review.

[@adude394]

I'm a bit late here, but thanks for posting this! After quite a long time in DSLR world, I finally added a mirrorless to my bag earlier this year: An R6 Mk II. Since all of my glass is Canon (except for an old Tokina wide-angle and a Sigma 100-600 Sport), I've been using the EF > RF adapter. This past week, I decided to trade in my 100-400 EF for the 100-500 RF. (I've been waiting for months to get in-stock alerts for the 200-800, and I finally got sick of waiting, and of Canon's complete opacity regarding when, if ever, that lens is going to be available.) Just one shooting session with the 100-500 on the R6.2 made me ask myself, why the heck did I wait??? Quite responsive, a good ratio of keepers, and I can't believe how much lighter it is than the 100-400. Extremely happy with this purchase, and the results I've already gotten.

[@deanjelcic9299]

Just bought it yesterday, cant wait to take it out 😄

[@alanwood5590]

I own and love this lens. With the R5 it is my one lens nature and wildlife setup. The close focussing is key here, meaning I can go from insects to birds and more distant subjects in one session without changing lenses. I’m not aware of any other zoom with this reach that focuses as close as the 100-500.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, that’s really a feature that I like a lot

[@jeffolson4731]

Very good review. I have this lens and love it. The IQ is amazing. The minimum focus distance is great.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@rdallen9211]

Thanks for the great insight! Very helpful.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that

[@glennschiffer1742]

My go-to lens is 600mm f4 markII and I have the 100-500.The picture quality is close but autofocus is faster on the 100-500 than the 600mm

[@JeffandLeslie]

I shoot an R7 and this has become my favorite lens. Lighter and better image quality than the 200-500 Nikon lens I used to shoot. Nice review. Thanks for sharing

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that

[@kirkwest3721]

My 600mm f4 was getting to heavy for me, although I loved the lens. For air travel use of the 600 meant I had too much additional gear to travel with. Most times I was using a 7D mk ii with a 300mm f2.8 and a 1.4 extender with excellent results. However advancing age made me eventually decide to purchase a R7 and I went with the 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 and a 1.4 extender for the smaller birds. I decided on the 100-500mm mainly because being old school, quality glass is more important to me than the body. Now after getting to know and understand the camera and lens I am very happy with my choices. Yes there are disadvantages, the main one being the limitations when using the extender - for me it is a minor one as I mainly use the lens fully extended especially in combination with the extender. Quality wise I feel the current body and lens I use easily out performs especially the older DSLR body with the very old but good 300mm.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that you enjoy that combination

[@MrPjtmac]

Couldn't find ebook in video description?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks, I just added it now. naturfotografie-fopp.ch/wp/e-book-bird-photography/

[@jakecook716]

I've been trying to come around and give this lens a chance on my choice to upgrade from the ef 100-400 ii. But I'm still yet to be convinced, ive long felt limited by f5.6 so f7.1 doesn't feel enticing. I'm more interested in larger birds like raptors and mammals. 500mm would be good but not essential. I have no doubts its a better lens, but I don't think it's the right lens to serve the improvements I hope for. Handling low light and smooth backgrounds I desire more than anything

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. At 400mm the RF100-500 is at f/6.3 by the way

[@vitaminb4869]

You can get f5.6 with this lens at 363mm. The EF II lens is really only 379mm when compared to the RF at 400mm, so not a true 400mm. If f5.6 is still not enough for you, then you don't really have any lesser expensive and lighter options, I'm afraid. 400/2.8, 400/4, 200-400/4, 100-300/2.8...pick how much money you want to part with and how much extra weight to carry.

[@jakecook716]

​@vitaminb4869 I'm aware that it's not a true 400mm, as with the 100-500 not a true 500mm either. I also know the next options have a huge difference in price, that's why I gave the 100-500 alot of thought but I just see myself wanting to upgrade to a faster prime still. F5.6 is usable, but I find the best photography often happens at its limitations for shutter speed due to low light

[@keikokenziesirasta7086]

I have both the 100-500 and the 200-800mm Canon lensess, but the one I grab first is the 100-500.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks for sharing

[@doug11127]

Thanks for a great video. You’ve made some lovely images with this lens 👏 I have owned this lens for 2+ years now and I love it, so versatile. I prefer using without the 1.4x as it’s much more flexible but sometimes it’s a necessity for the reach. Wouldn’t replace it for the 200-800, it would have to be an addition to the 1-5. Cheers Doug

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks! Happy to hear that you enjoy it

[@andrewkeir2282]

I have had this lens for about months coupled with an R7. Totally love it. Especially with the reach of the crop sensor. I am pondering getting a second hand R5 when the Mark 2 comes out or wait for a R7 Mark 2.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I think a second hand R5 would be a nice option

[@Tomislav1903-ej7th]

Similar thoughts for me here… I’ve been very happy with my R7 + RF100-500 combination, especially as I take it on hikes in the mountains quite frequently and the low weight is brilliant. Not sure what piece of equipment I want to invest in next (and I’m in no rush), but a good deal on a second hand R5 sounds like an interesting option!!

[@DrDblU]

And. I thought it was my inappropriate handling: I ve been using the lens for a year now and recently detected a scratch on the front lens. Not visible but annoying. I am now taking extra care when carrying the lens

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yes, really a bit unfortunate

[@tonyedwin2836]

Was that ISO 25000 at 2:55? 😮

[@vitaminb4869]

Yeah, with Dxo PureRaw it's absolutely not a problem, especially when your subject is so close.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Yep, it was quite dark. But thanks to DXO the quality is still very good. I put a link for a free trial in the video description if you are interested

[@kennethlui2268]

It is a great lens. You take great photos.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks

[@sverreedin4229]

I have it with R5. Use TC 90% of the time and so frustrated that it’s not possible to make it compact with extenders. So I evaluate if I should switch to 200-800…

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Might be worth it

[@12symmo]

Or ditch the extenders and grab an r7

[@ceesnabuursfauna2115]

Together with a R7 it is a great walk around lens.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Have fun

[@dillonencinia2729]

I love my lens! Use it all the time!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that

[@pawetura549]

Great program! Thank you! I use 100-500, but I was tempted by 200-800. Some YT users praise it. Some influencers on YT will point out errors. I did comparative tests on R7, I also added a 1.4 teleconverter. At far points the quality is similar between these two lenses. I think I will sell 100-500. It was my favorite lens. However, when going to the mountains, I want to take a wide angle lens, maybe 15-36 or even 10-20, and one lens that allows for great image compression and approach to wild animals. What do you think about this "non-L" lens? Greetings from Poland!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I did a whole video comparing both of these in the field 😊

[@jerseygirl386]

What is the best camera for using this lens?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Depends on your needs. Everything from an R6 II to a R1 will do a good job

[@arianvangend2536]

Do you use this setup with carrying straps? If so, do you put them on the lens or on the body? The lens seems at the edge of being light enough to still put it on the body, but I'm not sure. Thanks!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I actually put them on the camera since the 100-500 seems quite light. But maybe this is not the ideal solution

[@arianvangend2536]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography that's what I usually do with lighter tele-zooms as well. I figure this will just be light enough for it to be okay. 😅 Thanks!

[@KeithDavies-z6f]

Hi great review l have the R7 with the 100-500 at the moment l am going to get the R5 mark ii but l am bit worried about the reach with R5 and the 100 - 500 as l do birds do you think it will ok as it’s got 45 mp maybe use a 1x4 extender thanks Keith

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

It depends how often you need it at 500mm on your R7. If you shoot it mostly between 300-400mm, then go for it. If you shoot at 500mm all the time it might not be worth it

[@dasaen]

Awesome pictures and very informative with the scenarios where the background gets busy. It’s always about compromise with photography, but this one to me seems like the aperture is not that much of a tradeoff in this day and age. F4 would be too big and at 500mm with what I have used I don’t see that much of a difference between f6.3 and 8, at 300mm f8 does look pretty bad with ugly branches 😂. Manufacturers are making it really hard to buy just one thing.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Haha, true!

[@MS-yk3yu]

Hi! An excellent video as always. Keep them coming. I have a query though. I have r6-2, ef 24-70/2.8, ef 100-400 used lens and ef 200-800. I am debating as to whether i should sell my ef 100-400 and biy a rf 100-500. I am into wildlife. What's your suggestion? Please guide me. Thanks and regards

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Unfortunately I never really used the EF100-400

[@Xirpzy]

Great IQ at all zoom ranges, amazing stabilisation and AF is why this is one of my favourite lenses. The only drawback for me is the use with TCs.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I agree

[@andypandy3736]

hi fabian could you do a canon 100 500mm vs nikon 100 400mm z as ive not seen any on youtube

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks, I‘ll consider it 😊

[@Deak787]

Hoping that Sony updates their 100-400GM to compete.....

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Totally

[@arnaudontrack499]

Hello, i have the 100 500 since a month. I love it coupled with my R7. I've the 1.4 xtender too but i prefer to have it in the pocket just in case rather than always on the lens. I absolutley love my combo for birdings and animal in general. Coming from an EF 300 F4 and EF 400 F5.6 i could see the sharpness difference. I had a feeling i could finally get the sharpness i wanted.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Happy to hear that

[@amagnier]

more sharp than 300f4 and 400f5.6 ?

[@arnaudontrack499]

@ yes. To me it’s a step above

[@amagnier]

@@arnaudontrack499 Good to know ! Thx.

[@KungPowEnterFist]

What's really changed is how good post processing software has gotten at sharpening, denoise, and even adding background blur. This lens itself is not very good. Most of these images are extremely heavy processed. So, that's really the message here. You need to up your game with post processing.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I didn’t do any change of background blur and almost no sharpening. How do you come to the conclusion that the images are heavily processed? And why do you think the lens is not so good?

[@KungPowEnterFist]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Fabian stop. Just stop. There is zero doubt.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Zero doubt about what? I‘m not following

[@stubones]

The image quality seems to be incredible, but in my opinion the lens was a bit of a missed opportunity. I'd rather have a lens that weighed a little more and was f/5.6, or even f/6.3 (at the slowest) at 500mm and be able to take an extender "properly" ie from its widest focal length. Other manufacturers have been making X-600mm f/6.3 lenses for a long time, so f/7.1 seemed a strange decision and was obviously made with size and weight ahead of aperture.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

It’s better to compare it against the 100-400 from Nikon and Sony. The RF200-800 competes against the 180-600 or 200-600

[@stubones]

Yeah true, but still f7.1 can be a hassle. For eg tonight I’m shooting two soccer matches. One will be evening into night and the other will be fully under floodlights. Even at f5.6 I’ll be up at iso 25600 (possibly higher) at 1/1000th. F/7.1 would be a non starter. My point being that if other manufacturers can do f6.3 at 600mm, canon should have at least that at 500mm, or been bold and made f/5.6 at 500mm… even if then then if it had been a 150-500 maybe…

[@vitaminb4869]

@@stubones If you want a 100-500mm f5.6 zoom, then be prepared to pay at least double of what the RF 100-500 f7.1 costs. It will also be a lot bigger too. Other manufacturers making 600/6.3 lenses are of lower quality, bigger, and actually darker at the wide end. Obviously they had to cut corners to get to that 600/6.3. If you’re shooting night sports, then f5.6 won’t cut it for you either. You need a f2.8 lens at the very least. Get yourself the older Canon EF 300/2.8 and you’ll be a lot happier than with a 100-500 f5.6 zoom for night games. Or just go all out on RF 100-300/2.8 or even 400/2.8.

[@hawaiifreespeechnews]

This is the best telephoto lens you can get. The next best thing would be the 12k RF 400mm 2.8

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I also really like my RF 600/4

[@hawaiifreespeechnews]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I bet, your bird video clips in the intro look super sharp with your 600/4! Are you using the sharpener tool in davinci or premiere or are those clips straight out of the camera with no filter? Simply amazing

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

No, I don’t sharpen the video in post

[@hawaiifreespeechnews]

@FabianFoppNaturephotography They say the 600/4 is the best and I can see why.

[@KevinNordstrom]

Until the rumored 200-500 f4 comes out.

[@jasonjong4973]

Thanks for this video. I don't have one yet, I've been relying on an EF300/2.8 with teleconverters and the EF-RF adapter for my wildlife shooting. Getting stuck at the wrong focal length has been frustrating before, a compact zoom with good IQ sounds like it would be perfect as a secondary lens.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Thanks! Yes, I also find that it’s a nice companion to a fast prime lens

[@marcmurison]

I would say too slow (sometimes) *_and_* almost perfect!

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

True!

[@youphototube]

Decent lens but give me the Nikon 180-600. Wide enough, longer reach, bigger apperture, better image quality and much better value for money. No contest.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

I have used both extensively, both have their advantages and disadvantages. The image quality is very comparable, the Canon might have a slight edge, bit I really don’t saw it in real life. For me the Rf100-500 makes a lot more sense

[@youphototube]

You are a Canon shooter so it fits your use case. I predominantly use the Nikon 600mm PF. It is light and easy to carry. I also have the 100-400 for the wider shots. I bought and sold the 180-600, too heavy but amazing value for thje money.

[@alexku3348]

For me the lens hood of RF100-500 is the best one ever made

[@petercarpowitz7007]

Good joke...

[@vitaminb4869]

I really don't see any problems with this lens hood. It's a bit shorter than the one on EF 100-400 II, and actually feels and looks a lot nicer too. The EF one scratches and marks just the same, but because it's black you don't see it nearly as much. Maybe paint the lens hood into black if white is too showing.

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Why exactly?

[@daemon1143]

I keep looking at this lens, then think f7.1 yuck. Then, I see another video like this and can't make up my mind again.

[@vitaminb4869]

Ok, lets see here, what other options do you have to get 500mm? You can go and find a used EF 500/4 lens. It'll cost you double of what RF 100-500 costs, and be big and heavy. You can go for some Sigma/Tamron variant of 150-600 and have 500mm f6.3. Great! Sacrfice size, weight, and image quality to gain 1/3 of a stop! You can try getting a 400/2.8 and put a 1.4x TC on it. Again, huge and bulky, and your wallet will feel very light afterwards. There is a Sigma 500/5.6 recently released, but not for the RF mount. Still, only a 2/3 stop gain, and maybe even 1/3 stop if you just zoom out the RF 100-500 to 471mm where it becomes f6.3. And also give up your zooming ability. Yuck. Do you have any other ideas how you're going to get 500mm at 1 stop or better brighter aperture than f7.1, while being this light and small, and cost under US$3K?

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

😂 I can totally relate

[@daemon1143]

@@vitaminb4869 No, I don't have any other ideas, but then I can always wait for the RF 200-500 f4, since it's not weight or cost that mostly concern me, but I do want the flexibility of a zoom.

[@vitaminb4869]

@@daemon1143 well, if you have extra US$15K laying around and don't mind the size/weight, then soon there will be the lens for you.

[@daemon1143]

@@vitaminb4869 it's a wholly deductible expense for me, so I'd rather give it to Canon than to the government, but that aside, I do appreciate your summary above and your effort to write it and, despite the stop and two thirds, I may still go with your recommendation, but I think I'll hire both when available and give them a run before I decide.

[@haydennettleton3272]

Poor value for money F7.1 is kit lens numbers, nearly 3000usd is ridiculous. Can get the 200-500 from Nikon for half the money and it's faster at f5.6

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

But not nearly as sharp, much slower AF and worse IS. You should compare it rather to the Z100-400 (which is actually more expensive than the Canon)

[@haydennettleton3272]

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3WlhXabmaaAaNksi=VJWWyviqgryM4GaJ No significant difference in sharpness Worse focus breathing on the Canon

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

In my testing the RF100-500 was sharper significantly. It might depend on the copy though

[@glennschiffer1742]

I had the 200-500 from Nikon and I have the 100-500 from Canon and to me the 100-500 seems sharper and the autofocus is so much better

[@СергейКравец-и5ю]

A very overrated lens. Expensive and only 500 mm. I'm not a professional, so I sold it and bought 100-400 rf and 800 mm f 11

[@FabianFoppNaturephotography]

Have fun with these two then

[@vitaminb4869]

LMAO. Tell me you don't know what you're talking about without saying you don't know what you're talking about. Either that or you must be trolling.

[@СергейКравец-и5ю]

@@vitaminb4869 What's the trolling about? I expressed my opinion about the 100-500 mm lens because I have been using it for a long time.