I finally received my RF 100-500 after a long wait and I'm having mixed feelings about the lens and considering returnign. I'm wondering if I'm overthinking and hope some others who own the lens might share their insights?
Aperture: Before buying, I assumed the 7.1 aperture at 5000mm was something that could be overcome with stabilization - but forgot to take into consideration movement of my subject. I also noticed my landscape images were a little soft at 500mm when focusing at a distance (30-40 meters) unless I shot above 1/800 or stopped down. I realize I can't defy physics - but I hoped to overcome the aperture enough to get shots of wildlife in a modestly overcast day. I recently shot a bird without cranking my ISO to 20000. Just how practical is this lens at 400-500mm? Is the lens capable of more than I am giving it credit for and I should give it some time to master?
Noise: Related to aperture above. I'm learning to embrace some noise but given some of the high ISOs I've needed at 500mm - I'm wondering if there is a technique that I could exploit. I noticed that some images shot at ISO 10000 were less noisy than shots taken at ISO 4000 because they had been exposed to the right. Is ETTR a good way to combat the aperture restrictions of the lens and are others doing the same?
Range: I own an EF 70-200 L but this RF lens is my first 'real' telephoto and I naively expected more range or distance from my subject (depending on size). I expected I could fill the frame from farther away when shooting a smaller bird. I didn't expect I would still have to be only a few meters away unless I plan to crop into the image. I'm shooting with an R6 and prefer to crop only slightly as required due to fewer megapixels. It would seem my shooting range extends proportionately to the size of my subject? I'm seeing great example images of ducks etc from others - were they much closer to the subject than I realized or of the lens or are they cropping to get the results?
Cost: I bought the lens because I thought it would be a better option than replacing the EF 70-200L with the RF version. Having a fixed aperture is ideal - but I thought 4.5 at the 100-200 focal range was a reasonable compromise to get additional focal range (200-500). I wanted to have the option of shooting birds and other wildlife and the 70-200 didn't have enough range to make it satisfying. Given the low light/aperture restrictions and the modest increase in range from smaller subjects I'm second guessing my purchase. The RF 100-500 is a pricey lens and I could have invested in a 24-70 2.8 or even a 10-24 f4 AND a 24-105 F4 for the same price.
I know the RF 100-500 is a good lens and I expect it comes with a learning curve. I only have 2 weeks from my purchase date to change my mind and I wouldn't even consider it If the price had only been slightly lower. Did I make a good investment? I'm hoping that someone might be able to talk me off the ledge.
Aperture: Before buying, I assumed the 7.1 aperture at 5000mm was something that could be overcome with stabilization - but forgot to take into consideration movement of my subject. I also noticed my landscape images were a little soft at 500mm when focusing at a distance (30-40 meters) unless I shot above 1/800 or stopped down. I realize I can't defy physics - but I hoped to overcome the aperture enough to get shots of wildlife in a modestly overcast day. I recently shot a bird without cranking my ISO to 20000. Just how practical is this lens at 400-500mm? Is the lens capable of more than I am giving it credit for and I should give it some time to master?
Noise: Related to aperture above. I'm learning to embrace some noise but given some of the high ISOs I've needed at 500mm - I'm wondering if there is a technique that I could exploit. I noticed that some images shot at ISO 10000 were less noisy than shots taken at ISO 4000 because they had been exposed to the right. Is ETTR a good way to combat the aperture restrictions of the lens and are others doing the same?
Range: I own an EF 70-200 L but this RF lens is my first 'real' telephoto and I naively expected more range or distance from my subject (depending on size). I expected I could fill the frame from farther away when shooting a smaller bird. I didn't expect I would still have to be only a few meters away unless I plan to crop into the image. I'm shooting with an R6 and prefer to crop only slightly as required due to fewer megapixels. It would seem my shooting range extends proportionately to the size of my subject? I'm seeing great example images of ducks etc from others - were they much closer to the subject than I realized or of the lens or are they cropping to get the results?
Cost: I bought the lens because I thought it would be a better option than replacing the EF 70-200L with the RF version. Having a fixed aperture is ideal - but I thought 4.5 at the 100-200 focal range was a reasonable compromise to get additional focal range (200-500). I wanted to have the option of shooting birds and other wildlife and the 70-200 didn't have enough range to make it satisfying. Given the low light/aperture restrictions and the modest increase in range from smaller subjects I'm second guessing my purchase. The RF 100-500 is a pricey lens and I could have invested in a 24-70 2.8 or even a 10-24 f4 AND a 24-105 F4 for the same price.
I know the RF 100-500 is a good lens and I expect it comes with a learning curve. I only have 2 weeks from my purchase date to change my mind and I wouldn't even consider it If the price had only been slightly lower. Did I make a good investment? I'm hoping that someone might be able to talk me off the ledge.