RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM and RF extenders

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 14,912
Re: $2299

BirdShooter7 wrote:

For what it’s worth, the 100-400 with 1.4x TC is extremely sharp.

not extremely sharp

on FF sharp enough

on crop - it looses its luster

check out TDP

It’s just the AF takes a hit and f/8’s fairly limiting.

my 55-250 was definitely sharp enough but it definitely wasn’t any sharper than my 70-200 IS a/1.4x TC. I ended up dumping both lenses.

TDP shows it's sharper than my L but slightly behind the L II

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EOS RP +12 more
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: $2299

I checked out the one I owned on my 80d and 7d mk2.  If the focus is nailed and you aren’t at high iso it’s damn sharp with the TC.  The problem is that it very frequently misses focus slightly.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 14,912
Re: $2299

BirdShooter7 wrote:

I checked out the one I owned on my 80d and 7d mk2. If the focus is nailed and you aren’t at high iso it’s damn sharp with the TC. The problem is that it very frequently misses focus slightly.

we'll have to see with the new 100-500 lens on mirrorless

my prediction: it will be f5.6 at 400 mm

and on mirrorless focus grab will be much better than dslr

and it will be lighter

ie, providing reasons to buy the new RF over the older gear

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EOS RP +12 more
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: $2299

I can pretty much guarantee that it won’t both be f/5.6 at 400mm and also be lighter.  Honestly, I’ll be very surprised if it’s f/5.6 at 400mm and I’ll also be very surprised if it isn’t lighter.  Of course if I’m wrong that will be a pleasant surprise.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

lawny13 Senior Member • Posts: 2,159
Re: $2299

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Well we already know for sure it won’t be better in every way because Canon has officially said it’s f/7.1 at the long end.

But we have no idea what f# it will be at @400. If it is as fast as the 100-400 @400 then it will be better in every way, because you have an extra 100 on the long end even if it is 7.1 @500.

gimp_dad Senior Member • Posts: 1,868
Re: $2299

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Well we already know for sure it won’t be better in every way because Canon has officially said it’s f/7.1 at the long end.

I don't consider F5.6 at 400 to be "better" than F7.1 at 500. Quite the opposite. Max FL of 500 is hugely better than 400. We don't know how they compare at 400 but I'm standing by my prediction.

That said, as you've pointed out, the one compromise is quite possibly a smaller aperture at 400 than F5.6. That would certainly be some  level of compromise, though likely not enough to cause me to choose 100-400/LII ever over the 100-500.

Erwann Loison Regular Member • Posts: 316
Re: $2299
1

I'm perplexed by how much some people are trying to prove this lens to be a good news. It's nothing I've ever seen requested or wished by the users. It's slower and probably going to be more expensive than the tradeoff people wanted (something along the lines of a 200-500/5.6L or 200-600/6.3 non-L).

The only people I see satisfied with such lens are dads not knowing much about what f/7.1 will translate to in actual use.

I understand that it's better attitude to see the glass half full than half empty, but this lens is not even close to half full ?

I would rather keep my 400/5.6 or the 100-400 II if I had it than "upgrading" to this lens. It doesn't inspire me much confidence that the R system will provide a balanced set of bodies/lenses for the people between entry level and full steam pro. I'm not upgrading anything anytime soon anyway so there will be time to wait and see but I see that move as very Canon-way and I don't like it.

BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: $2299

That is one way to spin it.  It’s still f/7.1 at the long end so a step down.  I wonder what the 100-400 + 1.4x is at 500mm. Maybe f/7.1?

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: $2299

Canon ALWAYS has some gotcha, they NEVER give you everything.  My money’s on lighter but with the slower aperture.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

GatanoII Regular Member • Posts: 373
Re: $2299

MAC wrote:

GatanoII wrote:

MAC wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

They charge that much because that’s the price point for that segment of the market (slow telephoto zoom).

well, I have a 55-250 stm that cost me $170 that is 400 mm fov that is pretty terrific on my t7i for what it is - it is actually sharper at 250 mm than my 70-200 f2.8 L with 1.4 II ext at long end - therefore I sold the TC

I have the 55-250 stm, it's good, versatile and compact, also very sharp for this cheap zoom category, but I find my 70-200mm IS II with TC is sharper, also the 70-200mm is so sharp that I can crop 200mm at 250mm "equivalent" and still get sharper images than the 550-250mm at real 250mm, so the TC can make a difference if the glass attached is very good, but the size and weight difference is so big that is good to have both.

slightly for the L II with TC

I have the L

also FF vs 7dII crop IQ becomes factor

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=856&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=856&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=856&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=856&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

I already know about that test results, I bought my 55-250mm after I saw the review on the digital picture website   a lightweight  "replacement" for my 70-200mm F2.8, as in the review I find the results from the F2.8 zoom(my version not yours) better than the F5.6 zoom when cropping or using the TC, but the difference is marginal in most cases, so I enjoy my 55-2500m when I want to travel light and I don't need a fast aperture.

The existence of such an optically good 55-250mm gives me hope that Canon could do a great(better) job with this new 100-500mm zoom.

 GatanoII's gear list:GatanoII's gear list
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Tamron SP AF 60mm F2 Di II LD IF Macro Kenko Teleplus MC4 AF 1.4 DGX Kenko Teleplus MC4 AF 2.0 DGX +2 more
GatanoII Regular Member • Posts: 373
Re: $2299

BirdShooter7 wrote:

That is one way to spin it. It’s still f/7.1 at the long end so a step down. I wonder what the 100-400 + 1.4x is at 500mm. Maybe f/7.1?

from 435mm to 560mm is F8

 GatanoII's gear list:GatanoII's gear list
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Tamron SP AF 60mm F2 Di II LD IF Macro Kenko Teleplus MC4 AF 1.4 DGX Kenko Teleplus MC4 AF 2.0 DGX +2 more
gimp_dad Senior Member • Posts: 1,868
Re: $2299

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Canon ALWAYS has some gotcha, they NEVER give you everything. My money’s on lighter but with the slower aperture.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. Maybe F6.3 at 400. I'll take that for the overall size and flexibility. I already have bigger glass along with much bigger glass for the cases I want the ultimate.

lawny13 Senior Member • Posts: 2,159
Re: How about the long game?

BirdShooter7 wrote:

that’s sort of like saying it’s thinking outside the box to say that a 500mm f/5.6 is going to be smaller than a 600mm f/4.

Oh? You don't think they are bringing lenses to the market that isn't essentially the same ol same ol but just improvements in AF motor and sharpness? I guess you can always just go to sony.

NowHearThis
NowHearThis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,827
3 words
1

Yay! More stuff.

-- hide signature --

NHT

 NowHearThis's gear list:NowHearThis's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Panasonic Lumix G 25mm F1.7 ASPH
Ed Rizk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,897
Re: $2299

It could be cheap.

I don't see a lot of reason to upgrade from the EF 100-400.  I'm really happy with that lens on the R.

For someone without a 100-400, if this lens is cheaper, it might be a good solution.  It's also a good solution for those who are adapter phobic.

The only real advantage will be the high speed VF function.   My bursts are fairly short, so the VF freezing hasn't been much of a problem for me.  If you do long bursts, it could be a big deal.

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +4 more
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: $2299

Where is the f/7.1 range out of curiosity?

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: $2299

Well I expect you get a tad on size (probably not significant but numbers to argue about in debates around here on spec sheets.  It’s a wash on flexibility.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: $2299

If it was gonna be cheap they wouldn’t have put a red ring on it.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,271
Re: How about the long game?

I look at it this way. Making a slow lens and bragging that it’s smaller is not out of the box thinking. Now making a 600mm f/4 that’s smaller than lighter than the current 500mm f/4, that would be.

The 28-70 f/2 is pretty much for this forum and others like it.  Wow impressive numbers on spec sheets to generate excitement.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

gimp_dad Senior Member • Posts: 1,868
Re: $2299

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Well I expect you get a tad on size (probably not significant but numbers to argue about in debates around here on spec sheets. It’s a wash on flexibility.

I don't consider it a wash at all on flexibility.  100-500 is tremendously more flexible than 100-400 to me. But that's just me.  Everyone has their own preferences in terms of feature set.  As I've said, I am not viewing this as a replacement for large aperture glass.  This is probably why I'm not disappointed like some who were hoping it was a $2000 replacement for a $12000 lens.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads