Issues with RF100-500

[YuengLinger]

I actually just saw this 2 minutes after happily ordering the lens after I got a very rare 15% discount offer - and the seller still had one lens in stock . Now I'm in doubt if it was wise to be lured by the otherwise excellent reviews.

Yes, it is possible to get a lens that is subpar, but you very likely have nothing to worry about!

Linked below is a shot of two birds bickering about a feeder full of bird seed. I took it with the 100-500mm. You will get shots like this. If for some reason you can't within the first ten days of owning it, and you are using an R5 or R6, then just send it back and try again.

When properly functioning and used correctly, the lens is amazing and RELIABLE. Anything else you might read is due to user error or the rare bad copy. Otherwise, somebody is blowing smoke. (And the same is true for the R5/R6, no matter how many "other stories on other forums" we might be peppered with.)

Cheers!

Show your Bird Portraits

Beautiful shot. Well done, ERHP.

www.canonrumors.com

 

[kimster]

Yes, it is possible to get a lens that is subpar, but you very likely have nothing to worry about!

Linked below is a shot of two birds bickering about a feeder full of bird seed. I took it with the 100-500mm. You will get shots like this. If for some reason you can't within the first ten days of owning it, and you are using an R5 or R6, then just send it back and try again.

When properly functioning and used correctly, the lens is amazing and RELIABLE. Anything else you might read is due to user error or the rare bad copy. Otherwise, somebody is blowing smoke. (And the same is true for the R5/R6, no matter how many "other stories on other forums" we might be peppered with.)

Cheers!

Show your Bird Portraits

Beautiful shot. Well done, ERHP.

www.canonrumors.com

If you read my posting, you will see that I took images with the RF100-500 and the RF70-200. These clearly show a problem with the RF100-500. Why they are asking for my R5 again I have no idea. Canon themselves say that there is an issue. It is NOT user error in this case. I also added that the lens seems to be amazing. Just not my copy. And yes, I highly recommend that people test new lenses as soon as thy get them. That was not the case with my purchase, sadly. But hey, have some fun at my expense Yeng.

 

[SteveC]

If you read my posting, you will see that I took images with the RF100-500 and the RF70-200. These clearly show a problem with the RF100-500. Why they are asking for my R5 again I have no idea. Canon themselves say that there is an issue. It is NOT user error in this case. I also added that the lens seems to be amazing. Just not my copy. And yes, I highly recommend that people test new lenses as soon as thy get them. That was not the case with my purchase, sadly. But hey, have some fun at my expense Yeng.

He was responding to Fischer, not to you.

 

[unfocused]

If you read my posting, you will see that I took images with the RF100-500 and the RF70-200. These clearly show a problem with the RF100-500. Why they are asking for my R5 again I have no idea. Canon themselves say that there is an issue. It is NOT user error in this case. I also added that the lens seems to be amazing. Just not my copy. And yes, I highly recommend that people test new lenses as soon as thy get them. That was not the case with my purchase, sadly. But hey, have some fun at my expense Yeng.

I really don't understand why people feel the need to be sarcastic when someone provides a well-documented post about an issue with a Canon product. Obviously Canon knows there is a problem and they are trying to figure it out. It's unfortunate that you are the unlucky one, but since this is clearly an anomaly or a one-off, hopefully they will get it resolved or replace the lens.

 

[Quattrocoupe]

I was one of the first to buy the RF100-500. For various reasons I was unable to use the lens for some weeks..
In my first shoot I was very disappointed with the images as they were soft, particularly at the long end of the zoom.
I have been out twice since and my pictures are rubbish.
It must be a lens issue as I also have the RF800 and those images are the proverbial tack sharp.
Today I spoke with Canon and I am preparing to send the lens in for service. (Dealing with Canon service by telephone wasn't the best or fastest process sadly).
Before I package the lens and send it off, has anybody else experienced issues with the lens?
(I have the latest firmware installed and I have tried stabiliser on, stabiliser off).
I am gutted because especially during my first outing I had what should have been awesome bird pictures.

I have had great luck with the lens I received in January. Sharp, fast and accurate with birds. However, this past week an internal lens element cracked in the exact pattern shown in the teardown by Lens Rentals. Will be picking up the repaired lens in a day or so after a week in Canon repair.

 

[canonmike]

Just a quick comment that I am very pleased with photos taken with my RF100-500, attached to my R6 body. You know the feeling, arriving home, quickly popping your SD card into your computer and being mostly wowed by the results. Quick, tack sharp auto focus throughout the zoom range. I should preface my comment with the fact most of my photos were taken on mostly bright sunny days, where the F7.1 aperture at the long end is more than capable. Will update when I get a chance to ck performance in low light. For now, I am very happy with this combo, especially knowing I haven't needed a tripod or monopod to get sharp photos. Now, I mostly take this lens and leave my heavy EF500 F4L and EF70-200 F2.8L lenses at home. If I were to find fault with it, at all, it would be the long throw of the zoom ring, when racking from 100-500mm but you quickly adjust to it. I should also, mention that I have been very impressed with the most affordable RF24-105mm F4 lens, as well, finding it to be most capable. I am so glad I made the decision to migrate to the R/RF camp, as I work to tweak my R6 auto focus settings, to fit my personal photo shooting style. I'm still working on applying dual back button auto focus, sometimes stumbling on its use, until such time as I develop enough muscle memory to make it work consistently and without my current hiccups. It is definitely a learning process, as occasionally, I forget to back button focus before hitting the shutter release. My bad but I'm working on it.

 

[StandardLumen]

I rented a 100-500mm a while back, and was pretty disappointed with it. It was functional, but the 600mm F/11 was significantly sharper than the 100-500 was at 500mm, and my in-focus hit rate was at least twice as high with the 600mm as well.

There are enough people satisfied with the 100-500 that I assumed it was an isolated case, and I recently (and maybe foolishly) ordered the lens, as I really want a long zoom lens. Hopefully when it arrives I will think it performs better than the one I had rented.

 

[Centofanti]

I was one of the first to buy the RF100-500. For various reasons I was unable to use the lens for some weeks..
In my first shoot I was very disappointed with the images as they were soft, particularly at the long end of the zoom.
I have been out twice since and my pictures are rubbish.
It must be a lens issue as I also have the RF800 and those images are the proverbial tack sharp.
Today I spoke with Canon and I am preparing to send the lens in for service. (Dealing with Canon service by telephone wasn't the best or fastest process sadly).
Before I package the lens and send it off, has anybody else experienced issues with the lens?
(I have the latest firmware installed and I have tried stabiliser on, stabiliser off).
I am gutted because especially during my first outing I had what should have been awesome bird pictures.

I know this is an old post but I too have soft images with this lens over 300mm shooting wildlife and fighter jets. I have tried all kinds of settings and I am not impressed. Curious did it get any better when you got it back from Canon?

 

[AlanF]

I know this is an old post but I too have soft images with this lens over 300mm shooting wildlife and fighter jets. I have tried all kinds of settings and I am not impressed. Curious did it get any better when you got it back from Canon?

If it's soft send it back as there are very few complaints about it and all the published reviews praise how sharp it is. Mine is very sharp, and yours must be defective if it isn't.

 

[rpg51]

I guess I should report that my copy of the RF 100-500 is sharp. I love it. I hope the OP reports back about the ultimate outcome.

 

[LogMeCode3]

I was one of the first to buy the RF100-500. For various reasons I was unable to use the lens for some weeks..
In my first shoot I was very disappointed with the images as they were soft, particularly at the long end of the zoom.
I have been out twice since and my pictures are rubbish.
It must be a lens issue as I also have the RF800 and those images are the proverbial tack sharp.
Today I spoke with Canon and I am preparing to send the lens in for service. (Dealing with Canon service by telephone wasn't the best or fastest process sadly).
Before I package the lens and send it off, has anybody else experienced issues with the lens?
(I have the latest firmware installed and I have tried stabiliser on, stabiliser off).
I am gutted because especially during my first outing I had what should have been awesome bird pictures.

I know this is an old thread and there’s not really enough information to determine if the following could be the cause. But for those reviewing this thread later, don’t forget about heat distortion. Heat distortion can easily affect shots in this way, especially with long lenses. It can happen from shooting over a warm road, field, water, parking lot, over a warm vehicle hood, out a car window (especially when the inside air is hotter or colder than the outside air or the hot air from under a running vehicle is rising around the vehicle), or even from a large lens hood that is heating up or cooling down. Basically anywhere you have a decent temperature difference causing heat waves to move through pockets of cooler air. Sometimes it’s easy to see, like over a very hot road, but sometimes it’s not so easy to notice, but can still wreak havoc with your shots. It can seem like everything is dialed in: aperture not wide open and not closed enough for diffraction, shutter speed is high. IS/IBIS working properly, ISO is low, focus appears to be locking properly and yet you still have shots that are out of focus. Just something to think about and remember. Sometimes avoidable, sometimes not.

 

[koenkooi]

I know this is an old thread and there’s not really enough information to determine if the following could be the cause. But for those reviewing this thread later, don’t forget about heat distortion. Heat distortion can easily affect shots in this way, especially with long lenses. It can happen from shooting over a warm road, field, water, parking lot, over a warm vehicle hood, out a car window (especially when the inside air is hotter or colder than the outside air or the hot air from under a running vehicle is rising around the vehicle), or even from a large lens hood that is heating up or cooling down. Basically anywhere you have a decent temperature difference causing heat waves to move through pockets of cooler air. Sometimes it’s easy to see, like over a very hot road, but sometimes it’s not so easy to notice, but can still wreak havoc with your shots. It can seem like everything is dialed in: aperture not wide open and not closed enough for diffraction, shutter speed is high. IS/IBIS working properly, ISO is low, focus appears to be locking properly and yet you still have shots that are out of focus. Just something to think about and remember. Sometimes avoidable, sometimes not.

I read an article a few weeks ago where a photographer discovered that when shooting from your car in proper winter, the lens hood will trap heat and create heat distortion. Removing the hood or having the lens chill down for a few minutes helped tremendously.
We rarely get proper winter here, so I haven’t tested it myself.

 

[Andy Smith]

I was one of the first to buy the RF100-500. For various reasons I was unable to use the lens for some weeks..
In my first shoot I was very disappointed with the images as they were soft, particularly at the long end of the zoom.
I have been out twice since and my pictures are rubbish.
It must be a lens issue as I also have the RF800 and those images are the proverbial tack sharp.
Today I spoke with Canon and I am preparing to send the lens in for service. (Dealing with Canon service by telephone wasn't the best or fastest process sadly).
Before I package the lens and send it off, has anybody else experienced issues with the lens?
(I have the latest firmware installed and I have tried stabiliser on, stabiliser off).
I am gutted because especially during my first outing I had what should have been awesome bird pictures.

I was one of the first to buy the RF100-500. For various reasons I was unable to use the lens for some weeks..
In my first shoot I was very disappointed with the images as they were soft, particularly at the long end of the zoom.
I have been out twice since and my pictures are rubbish.
It must be a lens issue as I also have the RF800 and those images are the proverbial tack sharp.
Today I spoke with Canon and I am preparing to send the lens in for service. (Dealing with Canon service by telephone wasn't the best or fastest process sadly).
Before I package the lens and send it off, has anybody else experienced issues with the lens?
(I have the latest firmware installed and I have tried stabiliser on, stabiliser off).
I am gutted because especially during my first outing I had what should have been awesome bird pictures.

I have exactly the same problem, twice. I found the same issue when the lens was launched and traded it back on an EF 300 f2.8, I then stupidly assumed that it was the first issue and tried again with the same lens. Soft pic's, slow AF, having to zoom the lens close to me to get it to react and the zoom outwards. Soft pics, very noisy. Used on an R5 and a R6 MK II. Plenty pics available if required.

 

[AlanF]

I have exactly the same problem, twice. I found the same issue when the lens was launched and traded it back on an EF 300 f2.8, I then stupidly assumed that it was the first issue and tried again with the same lens. Soft pic's, slow AF, having to zoom the lens close to me to get it to react and the zoom outwards. Soft pics, very noisy. Used on an R5 and a R6 MK II. Plenty pics available if required.

It's a faulty one - send it back. There are zillions of happy users and yours must be an exception.

 

[Andy Smith]

It's a faulty one - send it back. There are zillions of happy users and yours must be an exception.

Thanks for the reply Alanf, I’ve now had two bad lenses, so I just keep going until I get a good one? I have to say I had the same issue with a Sigma 150-600mm, at lens number 4, I had a good one.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for the reply Alanf, I’ve now had two bad lenses, so I just keep going until I get a good one? I have to say I had the same issue with a Sigma 150-600mm, at lens number 4, I had a good one.

If you want one, keep trying. But maybe there is a specific fault with your body. A third bad lens would suggest that.

 

[Andy Smith]

I also have the 600 f4, the pic attached was take with the 1.4 converter, the R5 or 6 Mk II are not the issue. I have my cameras and lenses checked and serviced by Canon before I go away on a trip.

 

[Click]

Great shot!

 

[AlanF]

View attachment 213179

I meant a specific problem with a RF 100-500mm and your body. But, if they are problematic with two bodies, then it is the lens.

 

[Andy Smith]

I meant a specific problem with a RF 100-500mm and your body. But, if they are problematic with two bodies, then it is the lens.

View attachment 213190

AlanF, agreed, however the same problem is common to both bodies which indicates the problem is with the lens I think. I’ll give it a thorough test tomorrow.