RF 100-500 where are the doubters now?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
Bhotoz Senior Member • Posts: 1,412
Re: those grapes... came with a caveat

lawny13 wrote:

Marco Nero wrote:

panther fan wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

How often are you really going to use the TC?

Well if you don't the discussion is pretty meaningless for you

Caveat: "...a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations."
If I'm shooting surfers on a beach with any of my DSLRs or mirrorless cameras, I simply won't change the lens. It's not worth the risk of what salt-laden air can do to the interior of a camera. Not to mention the damage sand will do if merely a few grains of sand are blown into the mount aperture. If I'm in the mountains and there's mixed weather or high wind, it's not worth the trouble there either. So I'll squeeze my gear into my Lowepro backpack and move on when I'm done. Imagine being forced to remove the Extender just to be able to collapse the lens so you can get it into your backpack? Canon could have designed around this but chose not to. I'm not going to justify their logic here. I'm sure they had great reasons to let the 'tail wag the dog'.

The way I see it, the new RF 100-500mmL lens was very exciting when previewed/leaked and even when it was announced. But very little attention has been focused on this lens at the announcement party. We know that the EF version works beautifully on the R system. Image quality remains unaffected. Now that we look closer, we can see that there's a caveat attached to this new gear: Canon released a matching set of RF Extenders, just as they did with the EF 100-400mmL II lens. But you can't collapse the new RF 100-500mm lens with an Extender on it because... reasons. This isn't ideal. It's not an improved design with this flaw and the focal length of 1000mm (R+RF500mmx2) is outmatched for reach alone by an APS-C camera with 1280mm equiv (APS-C+EF400mmx2).
Has anyone looked closer at the new RF 800mm lenses? You end up with f/22 with a 2x Extender attached... I'm not kidding: F/22. Sure, you get 1600mm but at f/22. But don't worry, the new R5 + R6 can handle it with "less noise" and therefore higher ISO. DPAF II allows for considerably less noise than DPAF 1. And that's nice.
The bottom line for me is that I expected much more from Canon with the RF 100-500mmL lens. I'm sure it will take great pictures all by itself without any extenders. I was quite keen to consider this new RF lens. I'll be interested in reading what people make of it when it's in the hands of the public. The Demo/Sample models of this lens... were pre-production models. For some reason, Canon were unable to supply any functional versions for the reviewers I spoke with. How interesting?\.

All of your points are valid. And though I agree with all of it there are simply more than one way to skin a cat.

1. if you absolutely have to you can put the TCs on the 100-500. So that is an addition to its functionality though not ideal when looked at it through your requirements.

2. Canon seems to be all about expanding their lens line up options and bringing something new. So where I in hour shows that 100-400 and TC simply seems like the way to go. Why not? For the price of the RF you can get it and the TC new, right? So users have those two choices.

3. Some people may not ever get the TC, in which case the RF as standalone seems to actually be very good. The Sigma 150-600 is huge and heavy. As I said, I will probably keep it since it is fairly cheap. I will likely get the sigma TC and use it for when I really do need the reach and can be bothered with a tripod.

4. So again... though I agree with you the RF 100-500 will serve me well when it comes to.. vacation trips, out and about with kids, and sort of a general purpose telephoto lens when paired with the R5. I should be able to easily crop in to get similar results @500 as when it was cropping @600 with the R.

Canon really seems to be trying to give a little extra with the RF lenses rather than the same ol’ same ol’. Smaller lighter 70-200, 1mm wider on the 15-35, faster and sharper primes etc etc. But from what I can see with the R6 and R5 I really don’t see any reason now why consumers can’t just buy and adapt EF lenses for even better than DSLR performance, at a significantly reduced cost if they want the same,

Like I am quite tempted to get the EF 70-200 f4, 16-35 f4, and maybe even the EF 100-400 (after reading your points, though I have to think about it some more), all second hand or grey market for some significant savings. The again 8 stops IS is a tempting point to go RF. But is is with all that $$$?

I'm so happy I have managed resist to not to  buy EF 100-400ii. If I had it now, especially if I had bought it new, it would be harder to sell and loose money. Instead I've bought those older 300 and 400 primes and Sigma zoom used, so I can get my money back from them when I'm buying RF 100-500. 😀

BUT. Those ptices... RF extenders are waaay too high at this point, 1.4x is 660€ and 2x 830€. Crazy prices! EF extenders (iii) are both 530€. I cannot understand how RF 600mmf11 can be cheaper (800€) than RF 2x? 🤔 RF 100-500 is not cheap either, as I expected: 3400€, yakes! The good thing is that prices go down if you can wait a bit...

When I use extender, I use it only to get more reach. I don't mind if I cannot get 140mm with extender and RF 100-500.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow