Initial impressions on RF 100-500 for birding

You're welcome. And I agree about 500 vs 560, though in practice I haven't found it a significant difference when trying to get a shot.  I deliberated a long time before I made the switch, the 100-400/1.4x is still a great combination.

Thanks, And Ha, yes sorry for tempting you, but I really feel it's that good. I had a stupid grin on my face the first couple of times out with it.

JayLT4 wrote:

Nimonus wrote:

2.7 grand for an f/7.1 lens, too much.

I see this and always find it a little odd considering the EF 100-400L MKII has an MSRP of $2399. The RF 100-500 is $300 more, but adds 100mm of reach, lighter weight, faster AF, etc. The optical formula is basically the same, so the 100-400 lens would be right around 7.1 at 500mm as well

I think the used market prices, rebates etc have made people forget that the 100-400L MKII is also a quite expensive lens at MSRP, I don't remember how it was received when it was introduced as I wasn't in the market for one at the time so maybe people said the same thing about it.

In any case the RF 100-500 is a great lens, and one that lives on my R5 for the majority of the time.

You are lucky when the price is just 300 more than EF100-400 mk2.

We have to pay:

* 4300 USD for RF100-500

* 2600 USD for a new EF 100-400mk2

* 2000 USD for a used EF100-400mk2

I have to ask with these prices what's your choice??

Brilliant review EBCowboy, I echo everything you and the other guys say about the RF 100-500.

I have the EF100-400 II and 1.4 III TC and I also use the RF100-500 and the RF 1.4 TC and I can say the RF set up beats the EF set up for quality and speed of AF.

Using the two lenses without TC's I would say the RF 100-500 just edges it in terms of sharpness but there isn't much in it.

I would like to add what most people don't factor into the mix is the superior "IS" the RF 100-500 gives you compared to the adapted EF lens, I can hand hold shoots at silly slow speeds using the RF100-500 compared to the EF100-400.

People seem to be hung up on the max f7.1 aperture at 500mm but lets face it isn't to far away from the max f5.6 of the EF100-400 its just about 1 stop? If I'm shooting a bird from a distance at 500mm its really no difference to shooting at f5.6 plus you are gaining another 100mm.

To me the RF100-500 is the lens of choice if you don't have the EF 100-400mm but if you are new to the RF system and have the money the RF 100-500 is the better choice if you shoot wildlife or sports where the extra reach is nice.

1. BirdShooter7 wrote:

Chimpy boy wrote:

Brilliant review EBCowboy, I echo everything you and the other guys say about the RF 100-500.

I have the EF100-400 II and 1.4 III TC and I also use the RF100-500 and the RF 1.4 TC and I can say the RF set up beats the EF set up for quality and speed of AF.

Using the two lenses without TC's I would say the RF 100-500 just edges it in terms of sharpness but there isn't much in it.

I would like to add what most people don't factor into the mix is the superior "IS" the RF 100-500 gives you compared to the adapted EF lens, I can hand hold shoots at silly slow speeds using the RF100-500 compared to the EF100-400.

People seem to be hung up on the max f7.1 aperture at 500mm but lets face it isn't to far away from the max f5.6 of the EF100-400 its just about 1 stop? If I'm shooting a bird from a distance at 500mm its really no difference to shooting at f5.6 plus you are gaining another 100mm.

People pay a lot of extra money for one more stop and sometimes it’s the difference between getting a shot or not. Does everyone need the faster aperture all the time? Definitely not, but it’s not right to dismiss the difference. If f/7.1 works for you, fantastic, if not that’s totally legit too. If you’re trying to stop action then 2/3 stop can matter a lot.

To me the RF100-500 is the lens of choice if you don't have the EF 100-400mm but if you are new to the RF system and have the money the RF 100-500 is the better choice if you shoot wildlife or sports where the extra reach is nice.

Funny conversation. I love the 100-500 but am sitting here turkey hunting right now and have reverted to the 28-300L. I am guilty of relying on Fv with the R5 and find that, with the 100-500, I am always being thrown into higher ISOs and, when not paying attention, lower shutter speeds. Don't have this problem whatsoever with the 28-300L as it is f3.5-5.6.

Dont get me wrong. The 100-500 is amazing for those bright wide open spaces...not so much so with changing light patterns in the woods...

Oh and I build my strength significantly with this lens weight...