Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 as an upgrade to 70-200mm f/2.8 for sports?

I successfully upgraded my trusty 6D to R6. I have shot several swim meets and a baseball game with the R6 + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II + EF x1.4 converter + EF-R adapter.

Overall, I would say the camera + lens performed about as expected; my expectations were high. In good light, swimming photos were amazing with lots of keepers. In bad light, there was a lot of garbage and a lot of post processing for the keepers. I was still messing with AF settings, and part of it is my fault.

For high school daytime baseball AF performance and overall sharpness was solid, not exceptional, but AE was outstanding compared to both 6D and Sony a6500 I have used in the past.

I found two limitations with my setup. One, it seems the best selling photos (if I am ever to sign up with MaxPreps) are photos with lots of athlete's face. The most desirable photo of a pitcher it seems is head to waist, not head to feet. I can't get that with my 200mm x 1.4=280mm. Everyone wants facial expressions, smiles, reactions, no matter the sport -- football to swim, and I seem to be shooting all of them these days except for track and golf, but that's all to come I am sure.

Two, the 20fps electronic shutter speed that seemed an overkill on paper (as in "too many frames to look at in post") and the much more practical 12fps mechanical shutter did not materialize on practice. Both the David Busch book on R6 and the thread here where I was getting R6 lens advice mentioned that the non-RF lens will reduce the fps, but I had no idea the reduction would be this severe. I am estimating 3-5 fps. I did not get a single frame out of about 800 attempted of a bat connecting with the ball.

Two additional observations. 1/1000s is probably too slow for baseball (at least for batting) and f/4 (the f/2.8 lens with x1.4 teleconverter stops down to f/4) is too shallow to shoot the dugout and any fist-bumps/hand-shakes/hugs, basically anything involving more than one player.

With all that said my eyes are on the $2,899 RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS. It shows 5 stars on Amazon, but when zoomed in, it's more like 4.9 with a couple of people giving a flippant one star and a thoughtful three stars based on some perceived design flaws. Also some of the sample galleries from the reviews reflect better on the lens than on the photographer.

I think the 100-500 will be killer for baseball, soccer, lacrosse and swimming. I think it may be less useful for basketball, but could work for volleyball. I think it will also be killer for early evening early fall football and may even hold up later into the game if the high ISO performance of R6 is as advertised.

My only question is: isn't there a Sigma or another respected lens for half the price? If so, it is probably an EF mount. Am I right in understanding that at present there are no third-party RF lenses? Is there an expectation that there will be?

I think buying a non-RF lens to go with an R camera is a bit shooting oneself in the foot. No need to throw out existing EF lenses if they work well, but one should probably go all in on RF going forward.

What are your feelings and advice, both specific and philosophic? I am a fan of both.

P.S. One argument in favor of acquiring the RF 100-500mm is it will remove the question of buying an RF 70-200mm from the agenda. It's killing me knowing that my favorite EF lens was made even better in the RF version.

atolk wrote:

I successfully upgraded my trusty 6D to R6. I have shot several swim meets and a baseball game with the R6 + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II + EF x1.4 converter + EF-R adapter.

Overall, I would say the camera + lens performed about as expected; my expectations were high. In good light, swimming photos were amazing with lots of keepers. In bad light, there was a lot of garbage and a lot of post processing for the keepers. I was still messing with AF settings, and part of it is my fault.

For high school daytime baseball AF performance and overall sharpness was solid, not exceptional, but AE was outstanding compared to both 6D and Sony a6500 I have used in the past.

I found two limitations with my setup. One, it seems the best selling photos (if I am ever to sign up with MaxPreps) are photos with lots of athlete's face. The most desirable photo of a pitcher it seems is head to waist, not head to feet. I can't get that with my 200mm x 1.4=280mm. Everyone wants facial expressions, smiles, reactions, no matter the sport -- football to swim, and I seem to be shooting all of them these days except for track and golf, but that's all to come I am sure.

Two, the 20fps electronic shutter speed that seemed an overkill on paper (as in "too many frames to look at in post") and the much more practical 12fps mechanical shutter did not materialize on practice. Both the David Busch book on R6 and the thread here where I was getting R6 lens advice mentioned that the non-RF lens will reduce the fps, but I had no idea the reduction would be this severe. I am estimating 3-5 fps. I did not get a single frame out of about 800 attempted of a bat connecting with the ball.

Two additional observations. 1/1000s is probably too slow for baseball (at least for batting) and f/4 (the f/2.8 lens with x1.4 teleconverter stops down to f/4) is too shallow to shoot the dugout and any fist-bumps/hand-shakes/hugs, basically anything involving more than one player.

With all that said my eyes are on the $2,899 RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS. It shows 5 stars on Amazon, but when zoomed in, it's more like 4.9 with a couple of people giving a flippant one star and a thoughtful three stars based on some perceived design flaws. Also some of the sample galleries from the reviews reflect better on the lens than on the photographer.

I think the 100-500 will be killer for baseball, soccer, lacrosse and swimming. I think it may be less useful for basketball, but could work for volleyball. I think it will also be killer for early evening early fall football and may even hold up later into the game if the high ISO performance of R6 is as advertised.

Great lens. I can only share one experience. I shot a nigh-time football game with with a 7D and 300 F4 IS. That night I learned what the meaning of a fast lens was. What I would have given for one more stop. The shots turned out fine but I really had to work on NR. However toady with all the great 3rd party NR software not big an issue. So if you need speed that is something to consider.

My only question is: isn't there a Sigma or another respected lens for half the price? If so, it is probably an EF mount. Am I right in understanding that at present there are no third-party RF lenses? Is there an expectation that there will be?

Don't think there are any 3rd party RF lenses out yet.

I think buying a non-RF lens to go with an R camera is a bit shooting oneself in the foot. No need to throw out existing EF lenses if they work well, but one should probably go all in on RF going forward.

What are your feelings and advice, both specific and philosophic? I am a fan of both.

How deep are your pockets? Good deals on used EF glass. I sold everything and went all mirrorless. Flange design places the rear lens closer to the sensor which improves IQ. 12 pins instead of 8 for faster glass to camera transmission to speeds. No adapters to deal with. It's the future and I'm glad I did it.

The RF100-500 is a pretty fantastic lens in terms of image sharpness with a 5x zoom range, and focus speed. It also will focus very close for a telephoto lens (3 feet or 0.9m focusing distance with 0.33x magnification). So it is a good outdoor sports lens where the distances can vary drastically such as with baseball (Pitcher, batter in the box, batter running, and the fielders).

My (and many others) only big complaint with the RF100-500 is the way it works with the RF TCs. For example, if you ever get say the 1.4x TC you can't go below 300mm x 1.4 = 420mm. So you are limited to a 700/420 = 1.66x zoom range). On the good side, having the 100-500 is like having an extra 1.2x range over the typical 100-400mm. For people that just want the long focal length, it is OK, but for people that need the dynamic zoom range, it is a big problem.

Thanks to the ISO performance of the R6 (I would highly recommend looking at using RAW/CRAW with DxO with Deepprime for noise reduction), you might get away with it for indoor sports but a 70-200f2.8 would be a better choice indoors. I think the RF100-500 would be better than 70-200 plus a 1.4x TC in overall performance (sharpness and focusing while giving up only 1/3rd to 2/3rd over most of the range).

I don't know about Sigma 150-600 (contemporary ~$900 or sport ~$2,000) other than there have been reports of focusing issues. Some say the new firmware for the R5/R6 and or Sigma lenses might fix it but I have not seen this verified (see: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66153095). I think in any event, the RF100-500 is likely sharper and will focus faster, and is lighter (about 25% lighter than the cheaper/lighter contemporary model) which will help with handling.

I sold my other outdoor prime  lenses and kept the Canon RF 100-500. I had used my EF 300 f4 IS for sports and it was great, but stopped using it after I bought my 100-500. Same was true with my EF 400 f5.6 lens. Great lens, just was no longer using the lens.

I bought the Sigma 150-600 c last year, right after I bought my R5. I liked the lens, but it is much heavier and bigger the the Canon. You also have a small AF focal area on the R5 with the Sigma. Sigma also makes a Sports version of the lens, but it is even heavier. I recently sold my Sigma 150-600.

I did keep my EF 70-200 f2.8 II for indoor sports. I thought about upgrading to the RF version, but the lens is expensive. I have tried using the lens for other needs, but for me I find the lens too short for wildlife and outdoor sports and not wide enough for landscapes. This year might be my daughter's last year for basketball. If so I will probably sell the lens.

If you are actively shooting sports both indoor and outdoor I would keep the EF 70-200 f2.8 and add the RF 100-500 (if you can afford the lens). I just returned from a week in Yellowstone and the 100-500 was amazing.

Kokopelli_Rocks wrote:

I sold my other outdoor prime lenses and kept the Canon RF 100-500. I had used my EF 300 f4 IS for sports and it was great, but stopped using it after I bought my 100-500. Same was true with my EF 400 f5.6 lens. Great lens, just was no longer using the lens.

I bought the Sigma 150-600 c last year, right after I bought my R5. I liked the lens, but it is much heavier and bigger the the Canon. You also have a small AF focal area on the R5 with the Sigma. Sigma also makes a Sports version of the lens, but it is even heavier. I recently sold my Sigma 150-600.

Great to hear from someone who has used both lenses and knows the score.

I did keep my EF 70-200 f2.8 II for indoor sports. I thought about upgrading to the RF version, but the lens is expensive.

Same.

I have tried using the lens for other needs, but for me I find the lens too short for wildlife and outdoor sports and not wide enough for landscapes.

Same. I have been told that my 70-200mm f/2.8 is better for portraits than the 24-105mm f/4 I have been using. Waiting to test this theory OR invest in a killer RF portrait lens.

This year might be my daughter's last year for basketball. If so I will probably sell the lens.

Amazing how well they hold value. Am I crazy or did Canon actually raise prices about $100 across the board? The RF and EF lens prices David Busch quotes in his 1.5-2 year old book on R6 are $100 lower that street prices today. I used CamelCamelCamel extension (as I do with most Amazon products) to explore price history on the 100-500 and it shows that the price went from $2,699 in May 2021 to $2,799 in Oct 2021 to what it is now. Crazy stuff.

If you are actively shooting sports both indoor and outdoor I would keep the EF 70-200 f2.8 and add the RF 100-500 (if you can afford the lens).

In the movie "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" a group of friends are going in on a risky high stakes bet. They ask their friend if he can afford the money he is putting up. He says: "That depends. I can if I am going to see it again." Same here. I can afford it as long as I use it a lot and get killer photos. Chances are good for that. The end goal would be to learn to trust my gear enough to start taking fewer photos thus saving time, which, as we know, is money. As it is, I take 2000 photos where 1000 are good and 200 are great, so it would be ideal to take closer to 200 in the first place. An old-timer who shows up to our football games says he takes 400 photos per game. I don't know how that is possible. Experience and top gear I guess.

I just returned from a week in Yellowstone and the 100-500 was amazing.

Would love to see the photos. I clicked on https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_rf_100-500_4p5-7p1_is_usm/sample-photos and ... some photos are alright and then are some great photos but taken with a different lens that somehow got mixed in. And not a lot of photos altogether.

I can't see the 100-500 being worthwhile indoors for action. ISO 12,000 and higher just seems counter productive. However, outdoors, I think it could work for you. Honestly, I would suggest continuing to put a band aid on it until Canon filled out their RF line up. An EF 70-200 with a 2x would likely be my tool of choice. Which is very close in performance to the 100-400 II, which is close to the 100-500L. That way you can remove the 2x and shoot indoors or put it on and shoot at 400mm outdoors at 5.6.

If reach is a problem, I'd stay away from the RF 70-200's none of them can take an extender at all.

What are your feelings and advice, both specific and philosophic? I am a fan of both.

How deep are your pockets? Good deals on used EF glass. I sold everything and went all mirrorless. Flange design places the rear lens closer to the sensor which improves IQ. 12 pins instead of 8 for faster glass to camera transmission to speeds. No adapters to deal with. It's the future and I'm glad I did it.

Good deals on used EF glass, but the "you get what you pay for" adage has some truth to it. EF glass was great on DSLRs, RF glass (reportedly) is even better. EF glass is great on R, but RF should by all accounts be better, and we can keep going in circles on this, and I tend to, and I am trying not to -- getting close to pulling the trigger. I sometimes wait for a price drop for Prime Day or Black Friday, but it does not work that way for Canon lenses. They just go up in price. The 100-500 went up by $200 in a year. Bastards.

How deep are my pockets? Deep enough if I am going to use the lens a lot and get (more) killer photos (with fewer attempts). Not deep enough if the lens underperforms or I cool off on sports shots.

Thanks for weighing in!

I hear you, and I could never give up the 70-200 f/2.8, so the thread subject may be misleading. It originally said "for daylight sports", but then I started picturing it at a volleyball game.

I was seriously thinking about getting the super expensive RF 70-200 and selling the EF 70-200 for close to what I paid for it (used), but reading about the 100-500 made me thing I can keep it. And since I still have the 6D as my (now) second body, that is not a bad option.

Karl_Guttag wrote:

The RF100-500 is a pretty fantastic lens in terms of image sharpness with a 5x zoom range, and focus speed. It also will focus very close for a telephoto lens (3 feet or 0.9m focusing distance with 0.33x magnification). So it is a good outdoor sports lens where the distances can vary drastically such as with baseball (Pitcher, batter in the box, batter running, and the fielders).

Noted.

My (and many others) only big complaint with the RF100-500 is the way it works with the RF TCs. For example, if you ever get say the 1.4x TC you can't go below 300mm x 1.4 = 420mm. So you are limited to a 700/420 = 1.66x zoom range). On the good side, having the 100-500 is like having an extra 1.2x range over the typical 100-400mm. For people that just want the long focal length, it is OK, but for people that need the dynamic zoom range, it is a big problem.

No plans to get an RF TC at this point. So if this is the only complaint, phew.

Thanks to the ISO performance of the R6 (I would highly recommend looking at using RAW/CRAW with DxO with Deepprime for noise reduction), you might get away with it for indoor sports but a 70-200f2.8 would be a better choice indoors. I think the RF100-500 would be better than 70-200 plus a 1.4x TC in overall performance (sharpness and focusing while giving up only 1/3rd to 2/3rd over most of the range).

Thanks! I get my NR for free in Topaz Sharpen AI, but I only use it on 0.1% of the photos because the rest either don't need it (sharpening) or are not worth my time. When shooting JPEG, I get NR also for free with the in-camera high-ISO NR on the assumption that the manufacturer knows their noise best. For RAW, I get NR, when needed, in LR and consider it adequate. I shoot high volume, and my NR has to be mass produced. Does DxO with Deepprime lend itself to bulk processing? This conversation will veer sharply now.

What is your take on CRAW? I tried it briefly. The images are tiny (7 MP on R6), and the remote subject fills the frame nicely at 200mm. But if I shot RAW/JPEG and cropped in Lightroom to the same dimensions as CRAW, what would I see? Same exact quality/resolution? Or does CRAW add anything more than just a 1.6 crop? I understand it is there for anyone using EF-S lenses -- are there really such users? But for an EF or RF lens, is there a use case for CRAW? If you shoot R5 as many who reply here do, you do not have to deal with a drastically reduced CRAW size. I know you only brought up RAW/CRAW in the context of your NR advice, so we don't have to get into the RAW vs JPEG, only CRAW vs RAW.

I don't know about Sigma 150-600 (contemporary ~$900 or sport ~$2,000) other than there have been reports of focusing issues. Some say the new firmware for the R5/R6 and or Sigma lenses might fix it but I have not seen this verified (see: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66153095). I think in any event, the RF100-500 is likely sharper and will focus faster, and is lighter (about 25% lighter than the cheaper/lighter contemporary model) which will help with handling.

Thanks, good data! I will probably pull the trigger on the the 100-500 before I finish replying to all who posted on this thread.

Tazz93 wrote:

I can't see the 100-500 being worthwhile indoors for action. ISO 12,000 and higher just seems counter productive.

It does, doesn't it? I was thinking about those close ups of the reactions I am missing, but other than that, every post or video on sports photography calls the 70-200 the most versatile, and isn't that the truth?

However, outdoors, I think it could work for you. Honestly, I would suggest continuing to put a band aid on it until Canon filled out their RF line up.

What would you see as an improvement on the current 100-500 offering in the same price range? Sure, they can make it 1/2 to a full stop faster, but at what cost? $5K? $7K? They keep filling out their line up with beautiful lenses that are all $$$.

An EF 70-200 with a 2x would likely be my tool of choice. Which is very close in performance to the 100-400 II, which is close to the 100-500L. That way you can remove the 2x and shoot indoors or put it on and shoot at 400mm outdoors at 5.6.

If reach is a problem, I'd stay away from the RF 70-200's none of them can take an extender at all.

Right. I was looking at the RF 70-200 to continue doing what I do with EF 70-200, no extenders, but with three areas of improvement:

1. Lighter and smaller

2. Sharper throughout the frame -- there is a well documented post about this, forget whether it's here, on YouTube or FStoppers.

3. True 12/20 fps. I wrote about how slowly (in terms of fps) my adapted EF 70-200 seems to be performing.

4. Control ring. Certainly not a crucial factor, so I did not even count it. And frankly neither is the sharpness around the edges for sports photography. So 3 and 4 are each half a reason as I keep looking for reasons to do it.

While I think the improvements would be real, are they worth the extra $1700? That's my estimated difference between what I can sell the EF 70-200 for and the new RF. While I was pondering this question (and leaning towards a 'no'), the option of the 100-500 came to the forefront. Sure, it's a more expensive overall proposition, but it's a chance to own two great lenses that only partially overlap in use cases.

atolk wrote:

Karl_Guttag wrote:

The RF100-500 is a pretty fantastic lens in terms of image sharpness with a 5x zoom range, and focus speed. It also will focus very close for a telephoto lens (3 feet or 0.9m focusing distance with 0.33x magnification). So it is a good outdoor sports lens where the distances can vary drastically such as with baseball (Pitcher, batter in the box, batter running, and the fielders).

Noted.

My (and many others) only big complaint with the RF100-500 is the way it works with the RF TCs. For example, if you ever get say the 1.4x TC you can't go below 300mm x 1.4 = 420mm. So you are limited to a 700/420 = 1.66x zoom range). On the good side, having the 100-500 is like having an extra 1.2x range over the typical 100-400mm. For people that just want the long focal length, it is OK, but for people that need the dynamic zoom range, it is a big problem.

No plans to get an RF TC at this point. So if this is the only complaint, phew.

I thought that too at first, but then I got the 1.4x TC "just in case I needed it" and found it very frustrating. The RF100-500 with the 1.4x TC is still very sharp, and I wanted the extra length. But the severe loss of zoom range made me take it off the camera and put it in the bag.

Thanks to the ISO performance of the R6 (I would highly recommend looking at using RAW/CRAW with DxO with Deepprime for noise reduction), you might get away with it for indoor sports but a 70-200f2.8 would be a better choice indoors. I think the RF100-500 would be better than 70-200 plus a 1.4x TC in overall performance (sharpness and focusing while giving up only 1/3rd to 2/3rd over most of the range).

Thanks! I get my NR for free in Topaz Sharpen AI, but I only use it on 0.1% of the photos because the rest either don't need it (sharpening) or are not worth my time. When shooting JPEG, I get NR also for free with the in-camera high-ISO NR on the assumption that the manufacturer knows their noise best. For RAW, I get NR, when needed, in LR and consider it adequate. I shoot high volume, and my NR has to be mass produced. Does DxO with Deepprime lend itself to bulk processing? This conversation will veer sharply now.

I use DxO PL5 on a picture-by-picture basis.  There is also "PureRaw" which uses the same underlying technology but is more geared to just RAW conversion. In "shootouts" and the opinions of some pros, DxO PureRaw is probably a little better, but if you already have Topaz, you are probably fine for most purposes. I am highly disappointed by Adobe RAW conversion, which is very noisy even at moderate ISOs (say ISO400 to 1,200).

What is your take on CRAW? I tried it briefly. The images are tiny (7 MP on R6), and the remote subject fills the frame nicely at 200mm. But if I shot RAW/JPEG and cropped in Lightroom to the same dimensions as CRAW, what would I see? Same exact quality/resolution? Or does CRAW add anything more than just a 1.6 crop? I understand it is there for anyone using EF-S lenses -- are there really such users? But for an EF or RF lens, is there a use case for CRAW? If you shoot R5 as many who reply here do, you do not have to deal with a drastically reduced CRAW size. I know you only brought up RAW/CRAW in the context of your NR advice, so we don't have to get into the RAW vs JPEG, only CRAW vs RAW.

You seem to be confusing CRAW with cropping. They are completely different subjects. Normal RAW is "losslessly compressed," meaning that all the original values can be retrieved.  It turns out that allowing for a very little bit of lossless compression can significantly reduce the amount of data with very minimal loss in image quality.

I have not done an extensive comparison but have looked at several comparisons and read/heard pro reviews. It turns out that only in extreme situations such as recovering serious shadow details or very high ISOs and if you look extremely closely can you see a difference in C-RAW versus RAW.

The benefit of C-RAW to me is not the saving of memory as memory is cheap, it is that buffering when bursting data take longer to fill and less time to empty. Also transferring massive numbers of images is easier. With cameras that can take up to 20 frames per second, you can take a lot of pictures in very little time. There is a lot to be said for "spray and pray" when shooting action. You will get that one great shot in the middle of a sequence, but you need to download and sort through them all to find that shot.

I don't know about Sigma 150-600 (contemporary ~$900 or sport ~$2,000) other than there have been reports of focusing issues. Some say the new firmware for the R5/R6 and or Sigma lenses might fix it but I have not seen this verified (see: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66153095). I think in any event, the RF100-500 is likely sharper and will focus faster, and is lighter (about 25% lighter than the cheaper/lighter contemporary model) which will help with handling.

Thanks, good data! I will probably pull the trigger on the the 100-500 before I finish replying to all who posted on this thread.

You seem to be confusing CRAW with cropping.

Indeed I was. I conflated the 1.6X Cropping/Aspect Ration option available in R6 and required for EF-S lenses with the reduced size sRAW format I briefly used on my 40D. I don't think I ever used it on 6D if it is even available.

I have to re-read about cRAW and then read some more. Sounds like a good option for sports.

I tend to milk the JPEG option (with the picture profile adjusted to the subject, high-ISO NR, lighting optimizer, etc.) under favorable lighting conditions and not just for space, but for the look of the photos coming out of the camera. However, when switching to RAW in bad light (such as being forced to the wrong side of the pool and shooting into the sun), it sounds like I might want to give cRAW preference over both JPEG and RAW.

Thanks for the clue!

atolk wrote:

You seem to be confusing CRAW with cropping.

Indeed I was. I conflated the 1.6X Cropping/Aspect Ration option available in R6 and required for EF-S lenses with the reduced size sRAW format I briefly used on my 40D. I don't think I ever used it on 6D if it is even available.

I have to re-read about cRAW and then read some more. Sounds like a good option for sports.

I tend to milk the JPEG option (with the picture profile adjusted to the subject, high-ISO NR, lighting optimizer, etc.) under favorable lighting conditions and not just for space, but for the look of the photos coming out of the camera. However, when switching to RAW in bad light (such as being forced to the wrong side of the pool and shooting into the sun), it sounds like I might want to give cRAW preference over both JPEG and RAW.

Thanks for the clue!

C-RAW is typically a little less than 3x the size of the highest quality Camera JPEG and about half the size of full RAW.

That ~2x decrease in size of RAW means double the buffer size and 2x the download speed.

Using C-RAW over JPEG means you get all the big advantages of RAW, particularly:

•  "Saving" a slightly overexposed picture (impossible to do with JPEG)
• Pulling out shadows (which will reveal JPEG artifacts)
• Fixing white balance. Usually, the camera does a great job but once in a while, it gets fooled by a tricky lighting situation. 
• Noise reduction of higher ISOs

Most of the time when you have exposure or ISO noise problems you won't know it until you are back looking at the result on your computer.

All the software I use, including my photo shorting and editing programs as well as even  Windows 10 file manager (you may need to download an update for it) can show C-CRAW files so there is little or no need for me to keep JPEGs. By keeping CRAW, I or my descendants can decades from now go back with some whizzy new software and improve the images (as I am doing with DxO PL5 on some images I took 20 years ago).

A small study on fStoppers about the quality difference of RAW vs C-CRAW: https://fstoppers.com/education/there-any-quality-difference-between-raw-and-craw-new-canon-mirrorless-cameras-527209

Quoting their conclusion:

"By conducting this experiment, I have found cRAW to have little to no decrease in quality, despite the smaller file size. Perhaps a closer look will show some difference, especially if something like a color checker is photographed.

But I found this experiment a more realistic comparison, resembling a real-life situation. I think it is safe to say cRAW shows a negligible decrease in quality. I feel it is very safe to use the cRAW file format when shooting important events like weddings, even with extreme post-processing."

Another study on PentaPixel with a similar conclusion: https://petapixel.com/2020/09/05/canon-r5-and-r6-comparing-the-file-formats-raw-craw-jpeg-and-heif/

Jan Wegener video on using CRAW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9NzemVc6NU

The RF 100-500mm L is great for outdoors...I use it for birding on my R5 and it just blows me away. I also have a Sigma 150-600mm C which is also good...I use it on a Nikon Z6. I'm posting a shot (cropped) that I took with the RF lens that I don't think I could have gotten as easily with the Sigma lens. Of course the exceptional focus on the Canon is a big reason for this, however the Sigma, I'm guessing, isn't as fast focusing as the Canon and it is heavier for sure. If you can afford it I would definitely choose the Canon 100-500 over the Sigma 150-600 unless however most of your photos are stationary, then the Sigma would probably suffice. Good luck to you

Note: I changed the water color from green to blue and it created several yellow and blue splotches, even around the birds bill.

Thanks, Tom
my Instagram gallery...
https://www.instagram.com/tom.sicora

atolk wrote:

Kokopelli_Rocks wrote:

I sold my other outdoor prime lenses and kept the Canon RF 100-500. I had used my EF 300 f4 IS for sports and it was great, but stopped using it after I bought my 100-500. Same was true with my EF 400 f5.6 lens. Great lens, just was no longer using the lens.

I bought the Sigma 150-600 c last year, right after I bought my R5. I liked the lens, but it is much heavier and bigger the the Canon. You also have a small AF focal area on the R5 with the Sigma. Sigma also makes a Sports version of the lens, but it is even heavier. I recently sold my Sigma 150-600.

Great to hear from someone who has used both lenses and knows the score.

I did keep my EF 70-200 f2.8 II for indoor sports. I thought about upgrading to the RF version, but the lens is expensive.

Same.

I have tried using the lens for other needs, but for me I find the lens too short for wildlife and outdoor sports and not wide enough for landscapes.

Same. I have been told that my 70-200mm f/2.8 is better for portraits than the 24-105mm f/4 I have been using. Waiting to test this theory OR invest in a killer RF portrait lens.

This year might be my daughter's last year for basketball. If so I will probably sell the lens.

Amazing how well they hold value. Am I crazy or did Canon actually raise prices about $100 across the board? The RF and EF lens prices David Busch quotes in his 1.5-2 year old book on R6 are $100 lower that street prices today. I used CamelCamelCamel extension (as I do with most Amazon products) to explore price history on the 100-500 and it shows that the price went from $2,699 in May 2021 to $2,799 in Oct 2021 to what it is now. Crazy stuff.

Yes, the price of the RF 100-500 has gone up two times last year and is now $200 more than when I bought my R5. I wish last year I had just bit the bullet and bought the 100-500. Instead, I bought the Sigma 150-600 c and a 1401 TC. Both worked good on my R5, but had limitations and did not really wow. I also bought two used EF primes, a 300 f4 L IS - beautiful lens, and a EF 400 f5.6 - great image quality. The problem is I just don't like shooting with Primes. Prime shooters, I am glad you enjoy your primes. I know all of the advantages, I have been doing photography for over 45 years. For me I prefer good zooms. I have now sold all three lenses mentioned above.

When I first started down the RF route with the R5, I used a lot of EF lenses. I think EF lenses work fantastically with the R5 despite what a Sony rep tried to tell me ( story for later). Over the last year, I have been slowly moving my active kit to RF. I just recently added a RF 15-35 f 2.8. Now most of my travel kit is RF, except for my Sigma 14 f1.8 for astrophotography. I do have my EF 70-200 f2.8 II that I use for indoor sports, but I don't travel with the lens - too heavy. I am pretty satisfied with my kit. I would like Canon to add some fast wide primes like the Sony 14 f1.8. Amazing small and light lens. Right now I don't see myself adding any new lenses to my kit anytime soon.

If you are actively shooting sports both indoor and outdoor I would keep the EF 70-200 f2.8 and add the RF 100-500 (if you can afford the lens).

In the movie "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" a group of friends are going in on a risky high stakes bet. They ask their friend if he can afford the money he is putting up. He says: "That depends. I can if I am going to see it again." Same here. I can afford it as long as I use it a lot and get killer photos. Chances are good for that. The end goal would be to learn to trust my gear enough to start taking fewer photos thus saving time, which, as we know, is money. As it is, I take 2000 photos where 1000 are good and 200 are great, so it would be ideal to take closer to 200 in the first place. An old-timer who shows up to our football games says he takes 400 photos per game. I don't know how that is possible. Experience and top gear I guess.

I just returned from a week in Yellowstone and the 100-500 was amazing.

Would love to see the photos. I clicked on https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_rf_100-500_4p5-7p1_is_usm/sample-photos and ... some photos are alright and then are some great photos but taken with a different lens that somehow got mixed in. And not a lot of photos altogether.

Here are some of my Yellowstone NP images. I am still just learning to shoot wildlife. I spent years generally doing people photography and landscapes.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shropshirefamily/with/52056780961/

This is great. I think the max aperture on the 100-500 is there to save us from ourselves. A lot of my bird and sport photos lack DoF at f/2.8 using the 70-200. Sometimes you "need" that extra stop indoor and at night and sometimes you really appreciate the shallow DoF with the busy background, but for most subjects the DoF based on f/4.5-7.1 I am thinking I am going to like more than tolerate.

Excellent! Didn't nail focus 100% of the time, but where it's good, it's great. Thank you for sharing. I am enjoying the conversation, but the lens is on the truck out for delivery. Waiting for the doorbell.

Thank you, I found the PetaPixel article, too. I am sufficiently convinced.