A Remarkable Long Lens

ProDude wrote:

Karl_Guttag wrote:

I was out taking pictures at an airshow last weekend, the R5 and RF100-500. The inability to zoom out to less than 420mm with the 1.4x TC made the TC worthless (I ended up taking it off and putting it away).

A 140mm to 720mm would have been great for things like take-off runs of planes. At 140mm, I could have just gotten the whole plane framed with a little room to spare at its nearest point on the runways. I wanted the 720mm for when the plane was at the end of the runway or when flying. When the planes are flying, 420mm is too long on their nearest approach.

It's a good thing with the luxury of the resolution cropping or running the R5 on crop mode isn't much of a sacrifice.

That is one way to put it, but it still is a significant disadvantage compared to other lenses.

I wouldn't have bought the 1.4x converter to give me effectively 2X the pixels (1.4 squared) where I want them.

The Sony 200-600 is a little too long at the short end based on my recent experience and would have been problematic as well.  I really wanted a 140 to 720mm zoom lens for the air show. I had a second body with the RP that I put a 24-240 lens on for pictures of more stationary things.  I went to the show for three days, and by the 3rd day, I only brought the 100-500 on the R5 and 24-240 on the RP.

pawn wrote:

Thanks ProDude

I have this lens. Agreed that it is very nice lens. Fast AF and sharp, even with 1.4x. Best of all, it is very light.

I too can confirm that the weight difference between this and the EF 100-400 II is not small. Although the 100-400 II did feel sturdier to me. Metal vs plastic? But I don't care, I'm closing in on 60 and appreciate the difference.

William Woodruff wrote:

CWaterston wrote:

Which lens are we talking about?

I'm talking about the EF 100-400L II.

The EF 100-400 V2 is a great lens but some of the comparisons I did with it to the Sony FE 100-400 GM on a Sony A7R ?.? Convinced me the Sony, with its sensor technology offered a higher quality image. Both lenses, the Canon with an adaptor, where compared on the same sensor removing the sensor as a variability I believe.

I am using both Canon R5 and Sony A1 now so I am trying to get my hands on the RF 100-500 so I can do a head to head against my Sony FE 200-600 G. One thing that attracts me to it is its small size. With Sony I am always trading of taking the FE 100-400 GM or 200-600 with me due to their size differences with the FE 100-400 GM being more potable. Something I hope thw RF 100-500 will offer.

AtmaWarna wrote:

YES..... if you get a stellar copy.
but most of the 200-600 copy have similar of sharpness as 100-400mm.
also, mind you canon R5 has light OLPF so it would reduce image sharpness a little bit . while equivalent sony camera eg A7RIII or A1 don't.

here 200-600 and 100-500 at f/7.1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1510&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
similar sharpness with 100-500 perform a bit better in the corner

Yeah, that is an interesting comparison and even in the center those horizontal closely spaced lines in the 200-600 have some sort of ugly color fringing on them that is not apparent in 100-500. I have both the EF 100-400 II and the RF 100-500. Both are highly regarded by forums and they give very similar IQ results on the R5. I have a preference for the lighter weight and seemingly lightly higher keep rate of 100-500 but I keep the the old 100-400mm for a second shooter use case as well as for backup in emergencies or cases where the full wide emd zoom range in valuable shooting with 1.4X or 2X TCs (this 4X zoom range while using TCs can be critical in some of myshooting scenarios)

William Woodruff wrote:

ProDude wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

Lighter would be nice, and an extra 100mm would be nice, but that EF 100-400 mk2 is a spectacular lens, and it is built like a tank. I am confident that if anyone ever tries to take it away from me, I will be able to beat them to death with it, and continue shooting.

I get it. But one has to realize that technology does move on. The RF mount has compatibility with RF lenses that bring some new issues to light. Speed and edge sharpness are the 2 most prominent. Areas in particular you can expect the RF to exceed the EF's performance. I get why folks wish to hang onto their EF glass. But in almost all cases the RF glass has moved on. The 100-500 would be just one perfect example.

No argument there. If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I would probably be in the market for a 100-500.

That said, the 100-400 does have a couple of things going for it. The EF 100-400 has much less vignetting (although the RF lens isn't terrible), but more important (to me) is the fact that the EF 100-400 is internally focusing. That means you don't have to move air in and out when you zoom and/or focus. As a result, the lens is bulkier, but it is also far less likely to get dust or moisture inside. I like that.

Er, what? I don't know about your EF 100-400L2, but my copy is a telescoping zoom and definitely pumps air when zooming.

quiquae wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

ProDude wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

Lighter would be nice, and an extra 100mm would be nice, but that EF 100-400 mk2 is a spectacular lens, and it is built like a tank. I am confident that if anyone ever tries to take it away from me, I will be able to beat them to death with it, and continue shooting.

I get it. But one has to realize that technology does move on. The RF mount has compatibility with RF lenses that bring some new issues to light. Speed and edge sharpness are the 2 most prominent. Areas in particular you can expect the RF to exceed the EF's performance. I get why folks wish to hang onto their EF glass. But in almost all cases the RF glass has moved on. The 100-500 would be just one perfect example.

No argument there. If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I would probably be in the market for a 100-500.

That said, the 100-400 does have a couple of things going for it. The EF 100-400 has much less vignetting (although the RF lens isn't terrible), but more important (to me) is the fact that the EF 100-400 is internally focusing. That means you don't have to move air in and out when you zoom and/or focus. As a result, the lens is bulkier, but it is also far less likely to get dust or moisture inside. I like that.

Er, what? I don't know about your EF 100-400L2, but my copy is a telescoping zoom and definitely pumps air when zooming.

The removal of the pump approach was one of the major upgrade to th version 2 of the EF 100-400 L II

Steve W wrote:

quiquae wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

ProDude wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

Lighter would be nice, and an extra 100mm would be nice, but that EF 100-400 mk2 is a spectacular lens, and it is built like a tank. I am confident that if anyone ever tries to take it away from me, I will be able to beat them to death with it, and continue shooting.

I get it. But one has to realize that technology does move on. The RF mount has compatibility with RF lenses that bring some new issues to light. Speed and edge sharpness are the 2 most prominent. Areas in particular you can expect the RF to exceed the EF's performance. I get why folks wish to hang onto their EF glass. But in almost all cases the RF glass has moved on. The 100-500 would be just one perfect example.

No argument there. If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I would probably be in the market for a 100-500.

That said, the 100-400 does have a couple of things going for it. The EF 100-400 has much less vignetting (although the RF lens isn't terrible), but more important (to me) is the fact that the EF 100-400 is internally focusing. That means you don't have to move air in and out when you zoom and/or focus. As a result, the lens is bulkier, but it is also far less likely to get dust or moisture inside. I like that.

Er, what? I don't know about your EF 100-400L2, but my copy is a telescoping zoom and definitely pumps air when zooming.

The removal of the pump approach was one of the major upgrade to th version 2 of the EF 100-400 L II

Yes, it became a rotating zoom as opposed to push-pull, but that still doesn’t mean it doesn’t pump air when zooming.

Steve W wrote:

quiquae wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

ProDude wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

Lighter would be nice, and an extra 100mm would be nice, but that EF 100-400 mk2 is a spectacular lens, and it is built like a tank. I am confident that if anyone ever tries to take it away from me, I will be able to beat them to death with it, and continue shooting.

I get it. But one has to realize that technology does move on. The RF mount has compatibility with RF lenses that bring some new issues to light. Speed and edge sharpness are the 2 most prominent. Areas in particular you can expect the RF to exceed the EF's performance. I get why folks wish to hang onto their EF glass. But in almost all cases the RF glass has moved on. The 100-500 would be just one perfect example.

No argument there. If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I would probably be in the market for a 100-500.

That said, the 100-400 does have a couple of things going for it. The EF 100-400 has much less vignetting (although the RF lens isn't terrible), but more important (to me) is the fact that the EF 100-400 is internally focusing. That means you don't have to move air in and out when you zoom and/or focus. As a result, the lens is bulkier, but it is also far less likely to get dust or moisture inside. I like that.

Er, what? I don't know about your EF 100-400L2, but my copy is a telescoping zoom and definitely pumps air when zooming.

The removal of the pump approach was one of the major upgrade to th version 2 of the EF 100-400 L II

Oops, my bad.  You are correct, the 100-400 does extend when zooming.  I was thinking about my 70-200, which is entirely internal focusing.  (Slaps self on the head!)

quiquae wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

ProDude wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

Lighter would be nice, and an extra 100mm would be nice, but that EF 100-400 mk2 is a spectacular lens, and it is built like a tank. I am confident that if anyone ever tries to take it away from me, I will be able to beat them to death with it, and continue shooting.

I get it. But one has to realize that technology does move on. The RF mount has compatibility with RF lenses that bring some new issues to light. Speed and edge sharpness are the 2 most prominent. Areas in particular you can expect the RF to exceed the EF's performance. I get why folks wish to hang onto their EF glass. But in almost all cases the RF glass has moved on. The 100-500 would be just one perfect example.

No argument there. If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I would probably be in the market for a 100-500.

That said, the 100-400 does have a couple of things going for it. The EF 100-400 has much less vignetting (although the RF lens isn't terrible), but more important (to me) is the fact that the EF 100-400 is internally focusing. That means you don't have to move air in and out when you zoom and/or focus. As a result, the lens is bulkier, but it is also far less likely to get dust or moisture inside. I like that.

Er, what? I don't know about your EF 100-400L2, but my copy is a telescoping zoom and definitely pumps air when zooming.

Yep. I said this a few years ago and for whatever reason I got a bit of a rough ride from a few members here about that. I could feel the air on my chin when zooming in. Before I sold mine I took it to a local repair shop to clean it. I always sell my gear in top notch condition.

Zeee wrote:

quiquae wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

ProDude wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

Lighter would be nice, and an extra 100mm would be nice, but that EF 100-400 mk2 is a spectacular lens, and it is built like a tank. I am confident that if anyone ever tries to take it away from me, I will be able to beat them to death with it, and continue shooting.

I get it. But one has to realize that technology does move on. The RF mount has compatibility with RF lenses that bring some new issues to light. Speed and edge sharpness are the 2 most prominent. Areas in particular you can expect the RF to exceed the EF's performance. I get why folks wish to hang onto their EF glass. But in almost all cases the RF glass has moved on. The 100-500 would be just one perfect example.

No argument there. If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I would probably be in the market for a 100-500.

That said, the 100-400 does have a couple of things going for it. The EF 100-400 has much less vignetting (although the RF lens isn't terrible), but more important (to me) is the fact that the EF 100-400 is internally focusing. That means you don't have to move air in and out when you zoom and/or focus. As a result, the lens is bulkier, but it is also far less likely to get dust or moisture inside. I like that.

Er, what? I don't know about your EF 100-400L2, but my copy is a telescoping zoom and definitely pumps air when zooming.

Yep. I said this a few years ago and for whatever reason I got a bit of a rough ride from a few members here about that. I could feel the air on my chin when zooming in. Before I sold mine I took it to a local repair shop to clean it. I always sell my gear in top notch condition.

Forgot to say. Even if I take a financial hit, l’ll never, ever rip anyone off for anything.

highdesertmesa wrote:

ProDude wrote:

The price of this bad boy sure did give me pause. But having the R5 I needed to add a competent longer lens than my RF70-200 f2.8L. So I managed to find one after months of looking. The build quality is stunningly solid all the way. There is NO play in this lens at all, and it's solid as a boulder. The IS on it is amazingly stable. I even use a RF1.4x on it from time to time with NO loss of sharpness or contrast which is rare. The focus on it is completely instant with NO hesitation. I've even shot with it in my dimly lit living room for fun and found it doesn't hesitate to lock focus across the room. The sharpness is absolutely unreal excellent. I've had many longer lenses from Nikon, Fuji and Sony and NONE have been sharp on this level. Once you've used it you realize just how valuable it is to have one on hand.

On the R6, the 1.4x provides higher IQ than cropping. With the R5, it's a wash, so it's not worth the loss of 100-420mm to use the 1.4x. The only advantage to the 1.4x on the R5 is for eye-AF since the subject is larger in the frame. So for wildlife/birds, the 1.4x can be an advantage for AF, but for landscape or other subjects on the R5, cropping from the bare lens at 500mm provides the same IQ as the 1.4x at 720mm. The other disadvantage to using the 1.4x versus cropping is the reduction in effectiveness of the stabilization shooting handheld. For landscape I found that distant detailed objects (pine trees in my case) are sharper at 500mm cropped since the stabilization isn't quite as effective with the TC attached.

Thank you for your analysis on stabilization considers of cropping vs 1.4X.   I will have to look at that for my shootng.