I guess pretty much every reviewer and user of this lens (other than you) that finds the image quality to be excellent must be mistaken. Or maybe you are. If you can't get great image quality from the RF 100-500, it's not the lens's fault.
I totally agree with what you say here. That RF 100-300 2.8 and 300-600 f/4 would be a killer combination for low light wildlife photography. I sure wish Canon would come out with an f/4 version of the 300-600, or Sigma would come out with it in RF mount.
If it's based on the $10,000 RF 100-300 f2.8 why would it be well below $10,000 ? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. F5.6!
A f/2.8 lens with 2x extenders = f/5.6
It is the slowest L lens that Canon makes (other than the 1200mm f8) and useless in many low light situations... my copy is not nearly as sharp as my 100-300mm w/ 1.4TC (resolution is only part of the sharpness equation)... if Canon gets it together and produces a 200-500mm L f4 or 300-600mm L f4, I will punt it immediately upon delivery ... I am happy that you find it useful thoughComplete garbage - just look at the crops I posted yesterday of the RF 100-500mm vs the EF 600mm f/.4 iii, RF 100-300mm + 2x TC. And also look at Canon's own MTFs and other reviews. The RF 100-500mm is stellar.
You made a sweeping statement about the lens based on its image quality, not its aperture, slowness or anything else.
So, explain how you can make such a generalized judgement on just your experience and ignore all the evidence out there?
I would generally agree. I have been disappointed with the 100-500 at times but have found it can be critically sharp but that is with critically careful focusing for me. I use it for telephoto landscape and I have to zoom focus to ensure it is tack sharp in focus manually as autofocus tends to produce soft results for me in that scenario. If I manually focus I have found it to be pretty sharp. I trusted autofocus too much in the beginning with this lens and was often disappointed.
Image quality entails much more than resolution... micro contrast and noise in the shadows under copious shooting situations is below the threshold I consider excellent for that lens. There are obviously many others who shoot within conditions and/or have a standard such that they are willing to accept the limitations of the lens and get results that they are happy with.
I don't render opinions based upon the masses. Many aren't willing and/or able to purchase and/or handle large, heavy, expensive lenses to shoot in the conditions that I do. The eye is the great discriminator and we have different standards.
Comparing reviewers and expert opinions to ratings on B&H? Absolutely not the same and not even close to the same level. It´s almost like comparing facts with the current presidents opinion. The latter just misses any kind of prove.
