Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM confirmed, likely in Q4 [CR3]

[Czardoom]

Just put $100 down on the lens. Could some of the canon guys or even yourself tell me the negatives of this lens. I’d be shooting non canon for the first time in my life so there is that. How does it compare to a “big white” not factoring in stuff like weight and size

Alan has already given you some good info. The major factor is not the lens (which in my limited usage has no negatives to speak of) but in the fact that you are shooting micro four thirds. So, you have the 2x crop factor with its various plusses and minuses compared to FF. The 150-400 on the OM-1 is probably pretty comparable to the R7 with the RF 100-500. (I have no Canon big white primes, so can't compare to any of them.) Both are giving you the effective reach of 800mm. Both are excellent lenses. The R7 and RF100-500 is lighter and the lens smaller when retracted. R7 is a higher MP sensor. Those are plusses for the Canon system. The 150-400 lens has a built in TC (but only 1.25x). It is a constant f/4.5. It has customizable buttons on the lens compared to the RF100-500, which does not. It also has a button to preset a focus distance. For those that think it matters, it is an internal zoom. The OM-1 has the ability to set multiple AF limits in-camera (a big plus in my experience). OM-1 also has a stacked sensor, so little or no rolling shutter. Those are the advantages in my opinion of the OM-1 plus 150-400. The lens is a bit heavier than the RF100-400, but seems well balanced so I do not find it as big a deal as I thought i would. Obviously, my comparisons are with the R7, and, of course, things are a bit different with the R5.
I have been shooting with both Olympus (now OM System) and Canon for many years, so equally familiar with both. For those shooting Canon only, it's hard to say how much of a learning curve is necessary when using the OM system.
Obviously, I would recommend renting the camera and lens to anyone interested in the Olympus camera and lens. Perhaps more than once, to really get to know how it works for you.

EDIT: Just want to add for anyone interested in the Olympus/OM System offerings, that there is a cheaper, smaller and lighter lens that may be of interest, and that is the 300mm f/4 prime. Very sharp, and works well with the Olympus teleconverters. New, it around $3,000, but used copies are available for $1800 or less.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Alan has already given you some good info. The major factor is not the lens (which in my limited usage has no negatives to speak of) but in the fact that you are shooting micro four thirds. So, you have the 2x crop factor with its various plusses and minuses compared to FF. The 150-400 on the OM-1 is probably pretty comparable to the R7 with the RF 100-500. (I have no Canon big white primes, so can't compare to any of them.) Both are giving you the effective reach of 800mm. Both are excellent lenses. The R7 and RF100-500 is lighter and the lens smaller when retracted. R7 is a higher MP sensor. Those are plusses for the Canon system. The 150-400 lens has a built in TC (but only 1.25x). It is a constant f/4.5. It has customizable buttons on the lens compared to the RF100-500, which does not. It also has a button to preset a focus distance. For those that think it matters, it is an internal zoom. The OM-1 has the ability to set multiple AF limits in-camera (a big plus in my experience). OM-1 also has a stacked sensor, so little or no rolling shutter. Those are the advantages in my opinion of the OM-1 plus 150-400. The lens is a bit heavier than the RF100-400, but seems well balanced so I do not find it as big a deal as I thought i would. Obviously, my comparisons are with the R7, and, of course, things are a bit different with the R5.
I have been shooting with both Olympus (now OM System) and Canon for many years, so equally familiar with both. For those shooting Canon only, it's hard to say how much of a learning curve is necessary when using the OM system.
Obviously, I would recommend renting the camera and lens to anyone interested in the Olympus camera and lens. Perhaps more than once, to really get to know how it works for you.

EDIT: Just want to add for anyone interested in the Olympus/OM System offerings, that there is a cheaper, smaller and lighter lens that may be of interest, and that is the 300mm f/4 prime. Very sharp, and works well with the Olympus teleconverters. New, it around $3,000, but used copies are available for $1800 or less.

Or shoot with an R7, a 300mm f4 LIS and crop a bit. Same thing. In fact get a R7, don't crop and use a ef 100-400 f5.6 LIS II pretty mch covers the 160-640mm range natively giving an Equivelant Dept of field as a F8 on a full frame camera.

 

[AlanF]

Or shoot with an R7, a 300mm f4 LIS and crop a bit. Same thing. In fact get a R7, don't crop and use a ef 100-400 f5.6 LIS II pretty mch covers the 160-640mm range natively giving an Equivelant Dept of field as a F8 on a full frame camera.

I think the R7 + RF 100-400 is a marriage made in heaven!

 

[birdman916]

I think the R7 + RF 100-400 is a marriage made in heaven!

I have the r5 and 100-500. I use the crop option sometimes but somehow my brain always thinks the results are less desirable so I only use it for id shots of rare or “significant “ birds

 

[AlanF]

I have the r5 and 100-500. I use the crop option sometimes but somehow my brain always thinks the results are less desirable so I only use it for id shots of rare or “significant “ birds

Less desirable than what?

 

[birdman916]

Less desirable than what?

Oh I just mean lower iq and thus less likely to be “keepers”. I find as I progress more with photography I find it harder to be satisfied with photos that once I thought were good. Cropping or using a Teleconverter now is tough for me to do

 

[AlanF]

Oh I just mean lower iq and thus less likely to be “keepers”. I find as I progress more with photography I find it harder to be satisfied with photos that once I thought were good. Cropping or using a Teleconverter now is tough for me to do

You clearly have the highest possible personal standards. It would be lovely to see some of your shots in our bird threads. I'm at the other extreme and crop like mad - if I restricted myself to filling say half of a full frame with the image of bird I would hardly ever take shots in my style of shooting (in the wild and on safari) and have to give up bird photography. For example, with a 500mm on an R5, the average small warbler would have to to closer than about 4-5m or 12-16ft and proportionately further for larger birds. As for fast or erratic birds in flight, my keeper rate would be zero. That's why I like 45 Mpx and higher sensors so I can crop more.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Oh I just mean lower iq and thus less likely to be “keepers”. I find as I progress more with photography I find it harder to be satisfied with photos that once I thought were good. Cropping or using a Teleconverter now is tough for me to do

There really is not a reason not to wait until the edit to crop unless you are trying to keep the image files small or for video.
I would not really compare it to a teleconverter.

 

[AlanF]

There really is not a reason not to wait until the edit to crop unless you are trying to keep the image files small or for video.
I would not really compare it to a teleconverter.

I took it that he meant that anything smaller than the full full-frame output lost too much IQ.

 

[birdman916]

I took it that he meant that anything smaller than the full full-frame output lost too much IQ.

Correct

 

[birdman916]

I took it that he meant that anything smaller than the full full-frame output lost too much IQ.

 

[birdman916]

You clearly have the highest possible personal standards. It would be lovely to see some of your shots in our bird threads. I'm at the other extreme and crop like mad - if I restricted myself to filling say half of a full frame with the image of bird I would hardly ever take shots in my style of shooting (in the wild and on safari) and have to give up bird photography. For example, with a 500mm on an R5, the average small warbler would have to to closer than about 4-5m or 12-16ft and proportionately further for larger birds. As for fast or erratic birds in flight, my keeper rate would be zero. That's why I like 45 Mpx and higher sensors so I can crop more.

I misspoke I definitely crop heavily in post processing. I meant hitting the 1.6 crop button on the R6. It’s nice but it really does degrade quality

 

[AlanF]

View attachment 210485View attachment 210486

They are indeed very fine.

 

[scyrene]

I misspoke I definitely crop heavily in post processing. I meant hitting the 1.6 crop button on the R6. It’s nice but it really does degrade quality

I would quibble the wording, as the quality is the same, you've just discarded the edges of the image. But clearly it's a much lower resolution image. Fwiw I use crop mode a lot but I tend only to view on my phone and share downscaled for social media so even 7MP is more than enough for my purposes.

 

[AlanF]

I would quibble the wording, as the quality is the same, you've just discarded the edges of the image. But clearly it's a much lower resolution image. Fwiw I use crop mode a lot but I tend only to view on my phone and share downscaled for social media so even 7MP is more than enough for my purposes.

A sharp 7mpx close up shot usually gives excellent feather detail. I also don’t understand the difference between cropping in camera and in post.