Canceling My Rf 100-500mm Order...Or not?

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,452
1,886
USA
If a lens does what you need it to do, then it is suitable for you. I am always looking for light lenses, the lighter the better, and actually bought the Tamron 100-400 because of its size and weight, and a good review. But, the AF wasn't up to it for flying birds and I sold it after a month at a loss. I also like a lens that it is sharp at the edges because when following erratically flying birds, there are often good shots when the bird is awkwardly at the edge of the frame. So, my requirements are for fast and accurate AF and sharpness all over the frame. The 100-400mm II fitted the bill and the 100-500 I have just bought not only has excellent AF but the best edge performance outside of a prime. None of these lenses is flawlessly sharp - you'll see the difference against a good prime. It's horses for courses.
Hi, Alan, please, could you compare the shifting movement of elements within the 100-500mm and 100-400mm lens barrels? I was startled by how, when the lens is not attached to a body, or when it is and IS has been disabled, the inner elements seem to really flop about! For a second my heart dropped--but then I guessed it just had to be that way for IS. Sure enough, enabling IS not only reduced the shifting, but I could watch the IS working as the elements shifted to react to my movements.

My wife briefly couldn't see it until she held it herself and in pretty good light looked straight down the front of the barrel and then gently tilted the lens in different directions. When she did, her eyes got very wide.

I checked my Rf 70-200mm and see the same type of shifting, but not nearly as dramatic. Of course it is shorter. (How did I miss it before?)

So, just curious...Does the 100-400mm have the same visible shifting about of the inner elements? And the old 70-200mm? If so...HOW DID I MISS IT FOR SO MANY YEARS??? :p

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,452
1,886
USA
A sad, but educational sequel. After sending back an excellent copy of the 100-500mm (great IS and razor sharp at f/7.1) purchased from one of New York's great camera stores, I mulled things over and ordered another one, free of the fear of the free floating IS element. Unfortunately, I did receive, from the world's biggest retailer, a subpar copy of the lens, one which could not get even ef-s kit-lens sharp until stopped down to f/9, and even then seemed to have IS that was way off, perhaps by as much as three stops less effective than the first, under-appreciated copy. Yes, I did send back the second copy.

So, call it sour grapes, but now I'm done (for a time) with my quest for 500mm of reach in a light package. One reason is I just haven't had enough experience with slower lenses, so I was getting very frustrated at Golden Hour: Just as the light was becoming exquisite, I was having to crank up the ISO. And of course as soon as the sun was down completely, during a brightish-gray 20 minutes leading into Blue Hour, up shoots the ISO even more. And we've had so many heavily overcast days the past month. Even the R5 starts doing unpleasant things to colors and details over ISO 3200. Sure--in a pinch, for an event, with some TLC in post processing, I'd take the R5's high ISO without blinking an eye. But for outdoor nature and sports, on a regular basis, I really don't want to be working so often with ISO 5000, ISO 6400, and up and up.

And, to be completely honest here, some of the powerful impulse to buy such a lens came from being cooped up too much this last 12 months! My first love is portrait photography, and then events, which I see as closely related, as a spontaneous, candid version of planned portraits. Also, there are some opportunities locally for real-estate work, as some of the most successful pros have moved away.

I did have the 100-400mm II, and I sold it because I wasn't using it enough, and the temptations of fast, new RF glass were very powerful. But beyond that, the solitude and patience needed for good wildlife photography are hurdles for me to overcome, hurdles on a path I'm not keen to follow at this time.

You may think this is simply buyer's remorse, and you'd be partly right, but I've always tried to be candid here on CR.

Thanks to all who have shared their opinions about the Rf 100-500mm, helpful, harsh, and otherwise!
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
989
1,391
Kentucky, USA
A sad, but educational sequel. After sending back an excellent copy of the 100-500mm (great IS and razor sharp at f/7.1) purchased from one of New York's great camera stores, I mulled things over and ordered another one, free of the fear of the free floating IS element. Unfortunately, I did receive, from the world's biggest retailer, a subpar copy of the lens, one which could not get even ef-s kit-lens sharp until stopped down to f/9, and even then seemed to have IS that was way off, perhaps by as much as three stops less effective than the first, under-appreciated copy.

So, call it sour grapes, but now I'm done (for a time) with my quest for 500mm of reach in a light package. One reason is I just haven't had enough experience with slower lenses, so I was getting very frustrated at Golden Hour: Just as the light was becoming exquisite, I was having to crank up the ISO. And of course as soon as the sun was down completely, during a brightish-gray 20 minutes leading into Blue Hour, up shoots the ISO even more. And we've had so many heavily overcast days the past month. Even the R5 starts doing unpleasant things to colors and details over ISO 3200. Sure--in a pinch, for an event, with some TLC in post processing, I'd take the R5's high ISO without blinking an eye. But for outdoor nature and sports, on a regular basis, I really don't want to be working so often with ISO 5000, ISO 6400, and up and up.

And, to be completely honest here, some of the powerful impulse to buy such a lens came from being cooped up too much this last 12 months! My first love is portrait photography, and then events, which I see as closely related, as a spontaneous, candid version of planned portraits. Also, there are some opportunities locally for real-estate work, as some of the most successful pros have moved away.

I did have the 100-400mm II, and I sold it because I wasn't using it enough, and the temptations of fast, new RF glass were very powerful. But beyond that, the solitude and patience needed for good wildlife photography are hurdles for me to overcome, hurdles on a path I'm not keen to follow at this time.

You may think this is simply buyer's remorse, and you'd be partly right, but I've always tried to be candid here on CR.

Thanks to all who have shared their opinions about the Rf 100-500mm, helpful, harsh, and otherwise!
Sorry to hear that. :cry: I assume you sent back that copy, too.
There are times (framing my cat Ollie) when I use ranges as low as 100mm on the RF 100-500 and am very thankful for having that range, but I find for birding I just set it to 500 and fire away now. Maybe Canon will come out with a 500 f4 or 500 f5 that would be more ideal for me to use, and I'd hope it'd work well with their TC's. One can hope! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,452
1,886
USA
Sorry to hear that. :cry: I assume you sent back that copy, too.
There are times (framing my cat Ollie) when I use ranges as low as 100mm on the RF 100-500 and am very thankful for having that range, but I find for birding I just set it to 500 and fire away now. Maybe Canon will come out with a 500 f4 or 500 f5 that would be more ideal for me to use, and I'd hope it'd work well with their TC's. One can hope! :)
The second lens, sent back too, was worst at between 100-300mm. Better from 300-400mm, then softer again at 500mm. Plus there was, even in very good light from behind me, an odd haze or slight fogginess. Lemons happen! (The shipping and product cartons were pristine.) But, as stated above, my enthusiasm was gone, so I just asked for a refund.

But, I agree, for anybody who knows how to work well with the aperture compromises, the ergonomics, compactness, and quickness of a good copy are amazing. It fit with no problem in the center console of our mini-van.

Enjoy it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron and usern4cr

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,843
1,135
You mention: world's biggest retailer

Does its name begin with A and ends with mazon by the way? :D

I am asking because if I am going to try to get it at one point it will have to be from a place that supports returns...
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,941
709
Davidson, NC
Most obvious advantage for some users, not me :)
I mostly shoot at fairly high shutter speeds (wildlife) so for me IBIS doesn't really matter...It was easy to forget about it if I don't need (use) it.
And supposedly IBIS is not that much of a factor on long lenses.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
989
1,391
Kentucky, USA
And supposedly IBIS is not that much of a factor on long lenses.
Really? I must disagree. IBIS is more important the longer the focal length gets, as is lens IS (even more so). Their only function is to reduce handhold shake, and that shake is magnified by the longer focal distance and so their importance goes up accordingly. Sufficient IBIS + IS can free you from having to use a tripod, which is a wonderful option to have. If you only ever shoot on a rock solid tripod with mostly non-moving subjects then you can get away without it, but you pay the price with reduced freedom of choice in mobility.

It is also true that IBIS + lens IS does not correct for erratic/fast subject motion, so that your shutter speed must also go up as there is erratic/fast subject motion, but that does not mean that you can ignore IBIS + lens IS as if it is not needed - it still will drastically help!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bdbtoys

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,941
709
Davidson, NC
Really? I must disagree. IBIS is more important the longer the focal length gets, as is lens IS (even more so). Their only function is to reduce handhold shake, and that shake is magnified by the longer focal distance and so their importance goes up accordingly. Sufficient IBIS + IS can free you from having to use a tripod, which is a wonderful option to have. If you only ever shoot on a rock solid tripod with mostly non-moving subjects then you can get away without it, but you pay the price with reduced freedom of choice in mobility.

It is also true that IBIS + lens IS does not correct for erratic/fast subject motion, so that your shutter speed must also go up as there is erratic/fast subject motion, but that does not mean that you can ignore IBIS + lens IS as if it is not needed - it still will drastically help!
I agree that the lens IS is especially important in long lenses. I am amazed at how well the 100-400 mm II works handheld. I don’t have personal experience with IBIS in full frame cameras, but it is commonly mentioned here as not being so effective with telephotos. The R cameras with it are supposed to coordinate both methods, so the IBIS may well contribute. And, as you say, subject motion is magnified by longer lenses, so all your stops of IS can be for nought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,846
8,893
The second lens, sent back too, was worst at between 100-300mm. Better from 300-400mm, then softer again at 500mm. Plus there was, even in very good light from behind me, an odd haze or slight fogginess. Lemons happen! (The shipping and product cartons were pristine.) But, as stated above, my enthusiasm was gone, so I just asked for a refund.

But, I agree, for anybody who knows how to work well with the aperture compromises, the ergonomics, compactness, and quickness of a good copy are amazing. It fit with no problem in the center console of our mini-van.

Enjoy it!
You got me checking my 100-500mm at 100mm as I have used solely at 500mm. The Canon MTF charts indicate it should be slightly sharper at 100mm than the 100-400mm II, and I can report mine is. Optical limits finds it to be at prime level sharpness at 100mm, and it appears so. No more scares please.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,843
1,135
The second lens, sent back too, was worst at between 100-300mm. Better from 300-400mm, then softer again at 500mm. Plus there was, even in very good light from behind me, an odd haze or slight fogginess. Lemons happen! (The shipping and product cartons were pristine.) But, as stated above, my enthusiasm was gone, so I just asked for a refund.

But, I agree, for anybody who knows how to work well with the aperture compromises, the ergonomics, compactness, and quickness of a good copy are amazing. It fit with no problem in the center console of our mini-van.

Enjoy it!
Since you returned the second faulty copy you should try something crazy: Ask for the original copy from the N.Y retailer :D
OK probably not possible but you never know :)
 

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,452
1,886
USA
Epilogue. And for anybody with GAS, it is certainly no surprise-ending...

Screwy Squirrel spoke to me this morning, saying, "Three's the charm, Yuenglinger. You've got a keeper. Hold on to it!"
 

Attachments

  • Screwy.jpg
    Screwy.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 52

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,846
8,893
Epilogue. And for anybody with GAS, it is certainly no surprise-ending...

Screwy Squirrel spoke to me this morning, saying, "Three's the charm, Yuenglinger. You've got a keeper. Hold on to it!"
Have you checked whether or not it's decentred and if the IQ changes at different distances from mfd to far, and at different focal lengths?
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
272
189
Waiting for my sample.

If the rumored RF 100-400 L can do the full range together with the two extenders I'll be seriously miffed. If not I think the RF 100-500mm is the better option than both the RF 100-400 L and the EF 100-400 L II with extender which is quite expensive for the little use I would give it.
 

Codebunny

Elil
Sep 5, 2018
783
797
Scotland
Waiting for my sample.

If the rumored RF 100-400 L can do the full range together with the two extenders I'll be seriously miffed. If not I think the RF 100-500mm is the better option than both the RF 100-400 L and the EF 100-400 L II with extender which is quite expensive for the little use I would give it.
Isn't the rumoured 100-400 and non L lens?
 
<-- start Taboola -->