Issues with RF100-500

kimster

EOS M50
Jul 9, 2020
33
39
I think I mentioned it was the R5 and that at one point canon Virginia wanted the R5 to “fine tune” it with the lens. However, I sent them more raw images as requested, using a link they sent. For some reason they decided to send the lens back to me before reviewing them. I am still to receive my lens! I have been without it for 4 weeks now and still no closer to a resolution (pardon the pun). After shipping my lens they finally reviewed the raw files and agreed that there is an issue. Who knows where my lens actually was? Canon service is shocking and as far as the R system goes, I don’t think they know what they are doing. I hate to do it but I will be selling the lens to KEH and buying a new copy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,027
114
Here is an example of my disappointment with the RF100-500. About 50% crop, animal Eye AF was locked on, ISO 1000, 500mm, f8, 1/2000 sec.
By comparison I am attaching an image from my RF800. 75% crop (I mean the image is about 25% of original), ISO 1000, f11 obvs, 1/2000 sec.
BTW, that shot with the RF 800 bears mentioning. I am trying to come to terms with whether that lens is worth getting. My EF 1100-400 with 1.4x and adapter or my EF 300 f/2.8 ii with 2x and adapter can give spectacular results but is quite a big setup to carry.

Let us know how the 100-500 repair or replacement works out.
 

Rule556

I see no reason for recording the obvious. -Weston
Dec 19, 2019
98
97
Seattle
www.flickr.com
As I wrote, all the reviews so far state that the AF of the 100-500mm on the R is poor, and we know that in general AF on the R is relatively slow for action.
I mean, I've heard this too, but as an R owner who has the 100-500mm on his list at some point, I'm wondering if it's just that the camera isn't getting the most out of the lens due to the fact it has slower AF acquisition across the board, or if there's a specific limitation inherent with the combination of R and the 100-500mm. I mean, if I purchase this lens will it behave worse than my RF 70-200mm f/2.8, or will it just be that the lens has more ability that the camera can't really access due to it not having the latest AF capability of the R5? Because if that's the case, I'll wait a couple of years until I decide to upgrade my R. If it's the camera, then I can still find many applications for this lens that don't require super fast animal and human eye AF for BIF and action sports.

TLDR: The R is generally adequate for my use, but I do run up against its limitations occasionally. Will this lens be worse, or will it work just as well as my other RF lenses in terms of AF acquisition.

Thanks for the response.
 

Czardoom

EOS 90D
Jan 27, 2020
168
384
I think I mentioned it was the R5 and that at one point canon Virginia wanted the R5 to “fine tune” it with the lens. However, I sent them more raw images as requested, using a link they sent. For some reason they decided to send the lens back to me before reviewing them. I am still to receive my lens! I have been without it for 4 weeks now and still no closer to a resolution (pardon the pun). After shipping my lens they finally reviewed the raw files and agreed that there is an issue. Who knows where my lens actually was? Canon service is shocking and as far as the R system goes, I don’t think they know what they are doing. I hate to do it but I will be selling the lens to KEH and buying a new copy.
If Canon finally agreed there is an issue, then you need to either get a replacement or a refund. Knowing there is an issue and then selling it to KEH is not the solution - someelse will be getting a bad lens and it will be your fault. Presumably, your lens is under warranty. You should not have to buy a new one.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,617
7,957
I mean, I've heard this too, but as an R owner who has the 100-500mm on his list at some point, I'm wondering if it's just that the camera isn't getting the most out of the lens due to the fact it has slower AF acquisition across the board, or if there's a specific limitation inherent with the combination of R and the 100-500mm. I mean, if I purchase this lens will it behave worse than my RF 70-200mm f/2.8, or will it just be that the lens has more ability that the camera can't really access due to it not having the latest AF capability of the R5? Because if that's the case, I'll wait a couple of years until I decide to upgrade my R. If it's the camera, then I can still find many applications for this lens that don't require super fast animal and human eye AF for BIF and action sports.

TLDR: The R is generally adequate for my use, but I do run up against its limitations occasionally. Will this lens be worse, or will it work just as well as my other RF lenses in terms of AF acquisition.

Thanks for the response.
It's something you will have to try for yourself. Here are a couple of reviews:
 

Rule556

I see no reason for recording the obvious. -Weston
Dec 19, 2019
98
97
Seattle
www.flickr.com
It's something you will have to try for yourself. Here are a couple of reviews:
Thank you, I hadn't seen the second link you shared. Gordon's review didn't really answer the question. Frankly I think it's more of "you won't get the most out of it until you upgrade your body" situation rather than a specific issue that makes the lens a non-starter with an R. It's obviously meant to really shine with the animal eye AF of the R5 and R6, but I have a hard time believing that it wouldn't work just fine for applications like telephoto landscapes and aviation photography. I mean, I could do decent aviation photography with my 6D and my EF 70-300mm non L lens, so I can't imagine this would be more limiting than that.

Edited to add: Just started reading the second link, and apparently there was some sort of issue. I'll keep looking to see if that issue has been resolved with firmware, or I'll just wait until it's time to upgrade my R. Disappointing really.