Review: Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM by TDP

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,136
2,014
My 100-400 IIL is less than a year old, and I've got no compelling reason to swap even if I could do it for the difference in retail prices--and one good reason not to swap, and that's that my current lens will work on EF-M (and has done quite well on my M6-II). Plus I have extenders for it which would also need replacing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

ScottO

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Sep 16, 2014
22
18
My opinion for what it's worth. Having owned the original 100-400 as well as the 100-400 mk II and a number of versions of 150-600, the RF 100-500 is the best of the bunch. I have only had the 100-500 for a little over a week but to my eye the images are sharper. That along with the extra reach, lighter weight, better balance and faster focusing on the R5 mean I will be packing up my 100-400 mk II, control ring adapter, and extenders and shipping them off this afternoon.

I'm not saying that either of the 100-400's were in anyway bad lenses, the 100-500 is just better for what I do.
 

HenryL

EOS R5
CR Pro
Apr 1, 2020
190
413
My 100-400 IIL is less than a year old, and I've got no compelling reason to swap even if I could do it for the difference in retail prices--and one good reason not to swap, and that's that my current lens will work on EF-M (and has done quite well on my M6-II). Plus I have extenders for it which would also need replacing.
Exactly my situation...the 100-400II and the 100L Macro are the only two EF lenses I intend to keep. The 100-400II + 1.4III is tough to beat, it's just less than a year old and I can use the extender for the full range, not limited like the 100-500. That comes in handy...
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,854
2,999
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Wow.

That’s your situation.

In America it’s virtually the same price. Better lens, longer reach, and RF mount...

Who wouldn’t buy it apart from peasant losers?

Love,

A Rich Poser
I'm not sure a $600 price difference or 30% more ($2,000 vs. $2,600 via CPW) is "virtually the same price" to anyone but "Rich Posers." Plus, if you watch the Canon refurbished sales, you can usually pick up the 100-400 for $1,700 or so. I'm not saying it isn't worth the extra money. That's a personal decision. But let's not pretend it isn't significantly more than the 100-400.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,051
2,305
I'm not sure a $600 price difference or 30% more ($2,000 vs. $2,600 via CPW) is "virtually the same price" to anyone but "Rich Posers." Plus, if you watch the Canon refurbished sales, you can usually pick up the 100-400 for $1,700 or so. I'm not saying it isn't worth the extra money. That's a personal decision. But let's not pretend it isn't significantly more than the 100-400.


A 100-400L II that cost $2200 at launch would cost $2450 today. I paid $2549 for my 100-500L. Virtually the same price considering the longer reach and RF mount. I'm a rich poser, I don't buy refurbs.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: fox40phil

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
141
115
Orewa , New Zealand
Wow.

That’s your situation.

In America it’s virtually the same price. Better lens, longer reach, and RF mount...

Who wouldn’t buy it apart from peasant losers?

Love,

A Rich Poser
Yes we’re ripped off a bit here - I don’t understand why the price difference is so huge here however Canon New Zealand has a 5 year warranty on all cameras and lenses which is much better than the lame Limited 1 year warranty that Canon USA offers
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,051
2,305
Yes we’re ripped off a bit here - I don’t understand why the price difference is so huge here however Canon New Zealand has a 5 year warranty on all cameras and lenses which is much better than the lame Limited 1 year warranty that Canon USA offers


We can buy extended warranties for reasonable prices so that's not an issue at all. My post was purely sarcastic (but true) because I was a little surprised someone would ridicule and call someone a 'rich poser' because of their choice of gear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zim

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,136
2,014
Exactly my situation...the 100-400II and the 100L Macro are the only two EF lenses I intend to keep. The 100-400II + 1.4III is tough to beat, it's just less than a year old and I can use the extender for the full range, not limited like the 100-500. That comes in handy...

I own a couple of Tamron EF-S lenses I should probably evaluate to decide whether I want to dump 'em, in particular the 10-24mm. If it's no better than the EF-M 11-22 I should unload it. The 18-400 makes a good walk-around lens on an M, though, but the 18-200 (which is actually an EF-M mount) might just be enough for that purpose (and it's much smaller). My EF lenses (other than the 100-400) are inexpensive primes; I've gotten some use out of the 85, and the very first pictures on the R5 were from the pancake 40.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,854
2,999
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
A 100-400L II that cost $2200 at launch would cost $2450 today.

So what? No one is traveling back in time to buy a lens.

I'm a rich poser, I don't buy refurbs.

I don't throw money away.

I never understand, when people make a statement that is clearly a mistake, why it's so hard on the internet to just admit it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
321
169
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
I think you are missing the point. All of that R&D createsd developing those “enormous & expensive” lenses can be leveraged across the entire product line. With that knowledge and experience, they can continue to expand the capabilities of lower priced options. We see this in camera bodies, cars , computers, etc. Where do you think the lens tech for the RF 600/800 originated - two generations of $7k EF 400 DO lenses. The original discussion was could a 200-500 be sharper and the answer is probably yes based on Canon’s capabilities. I think it is more a question if that type lens fits in their product strategy.

None of us know if it can/can’t be done. Let’s all just enjoy a little optimism. I think this type zoom is coming, but it will probably be the expensive version. The 300, 500, and 200-400 did not get the EF III weight loss / update and my bet is they will be the first RF big whites. I know a RF300 patent has been mentioned on CR.

Btw - I paid $7,500 for a 200-400 Canon factory refurb about 8 months after launc, not $12k. Sold in the move to R/RF.
All I was saying was that apples and oranges were being compared. From what I have read, the 100-500 improves on the 100-400 II. To me, that's the lens it should be compared to in the Canon lineup. I never said it couldn't be done, or wouldn't be done.
 

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,051
2,305
So what? No one is traveling back in time to buy a lens.



I don't throw money away.

I never understand, when people make a statement that is clearly a mistake, why it's so hard on the internet to just admit it.

No, intelligent people understand that to measure the true cost of a lens you must compare apples to apples. 100-400L II at launch as compared to the 100-500L at launch. A $100 increase over 6 years is a bargain.

As for throwing money away, I can buy a used 100-400L or I can buy a new 100-500L. One could argue that buying the old lens and adapting it to the new mount is throwing your money away.

As for admitting mistakes, pot meet kettle.
 
Last edited:

Danglin52

Wildlife Shooter
Aug 8, 2018
289
274
All I was saying was that apples and oranges were being compared. From what I have read, the 100-500 improves on the 100-400 II. To me, that's the lens it should be compared to in the Canon lineup. I never said it couldn't be done, or wouldn't be done.
I actually agree that it should be compared to the 100-400 II, but you also need to step back and look at the macro view if you are to anticipate what is possible / not possible. The higher end capabilities typically filter down over time and at a lower price. The bigger question is Canon product strategy.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
141
115
Orewa , New Zealand
We can buy extended warranties for reasonable prices so that's not an issue at all. My post was purely sarcastic (but true) because I was a little surprised someone would ridicule and call someone a 'rich poser' because of their choice of gear.
I actually agree that it should be compared to the 100-400 II, but you also need to step back and look at the macro view if you are to anticipate what is possible / not possible. The higher end capabilities typically filter down over time and at a lower price. The bigger question is Canon product strategy.
I think they would be a poser to pay double here in New Zealand or just so rich it doesn’t matter, in other countries where the price difference is modest it would be fair enough and why should you be expected to pay extra for a warranty when such an expensive device should last much longer than 1 year ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,051
2,305
I think they would be a poser to pay double here in New Zealand or just so rich it doesn’t matter, in other countries where the price difference is modest it would be fair enough and why should you be expected to pay extra for a warranty when such an expensive device should last much longer than 1 year ?

A $5000 TV that hangs on your wall only comes with a one year warranty at best. A one year warranty on a camera that is having rice shoved up it’s butt by ELiTe HaCkERs seems reasonable.

You don’t have to be rich to buy nice things. You just have to be able to prioritize. Over the course of my life I watched people drink their savings away in bars or smoke them away in cigarettes. I saved and invested and retired at age 48. I don’t drink, smoke, have cable, or use a cellphone - it saves thousands and thousands a year. Two packs a day = $20 in Washington. The same money I invested in a nice lens is wasted by a smoker in less than three months.

It’s all about the priorities.

Rich poser sounds like language used by a jealous person.
 
  • Love
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,692
4,249
A $5000 TV that hangs on your wall only comes with a one year warranty at best. A one year warranty on a camera that is having rice shoved up it’s butt by ELiTe HaCkERs seems reasonable.

You don’t have to be rich to buy nice things. You just have to be able to prioritize. Over the course of my life I watched people drink their savings away in bars or smoke them away in cigarettes. I saved and invested and retired at age 48. I don’t drink, smoke, have cable, or use a cellphone - it saves thousands and thousands a year. Two packs a day = $20 in Washington. The same money I invested in a nice lens is wasted by a smoker in less than three months.

It’s all about the priorities.

Rich poser sounds like language used by a jealous person.
When I bought my 2 1DX II’s via CPW they came with a free third party 3 year warranty to supplement the 12 month Canon one. I never asked for it, they just came with them, I was very impressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,051
2,305
When I bought my 2 1DX II’s via CPW they came with a free third party 3 year warranty to supplement the 12 month Canon one. I never asked for it, they just came with them, I was very impressed.


I’ve gotten things like that as part of package deals from Adorama over the years. It was appreciated and like you, I was impressed.

I was merely drawing a parallel based on what the OP said - that something so expensive should come with a longer warranty.

I guess it depends on your perspective and location.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,692
4,249
I’ve gotten things like that as part of package deals from Adorama over the years. It was appreciated and like you, I was impressed.

I was merely drawing a parallel based on what the OP said - that something so expensive should come with a longer warranty.

I guess it depends on your perspective and location.
Oh I agree, I was just relaying a personal experience not getting into nitty gritty of the conversation otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,339
3,660
Irving, Texas
A $5000 TV that hangs on your wall only comes with a one year warranty at best. A one year warranty on a camera that is having rice shoved up it’s butt by ELiTe HaCkERs seems reasonable.

You don’t have to be rich to buy nice things. You just have to be able to prioritize. Over the course of my life I watched people drink their savings away in bars or smoke them away in cigarettes. I saved and invested and retired at age 48. I don’t drink, smoke, have cable, or use a cellphone - it saves thousands and thousands a year. Two packs a day = $20 in Washington. The same money I invested in a nice lens is wasted by a smoker in less than three months.

It’s all about the priorities.

Rich poser sounds like language used by a jealous person.
It isn't necessarily how much one earns, but how one manages it. There are thousands of ways to just flush money away and then wonder where it went. Death by a thousand cuts. ;)
 

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,051
2,305
My opinion for what it's worth. Having owned the original 100-400 as well as the 100-400 mk II and a number of versions of 150-600, the RF 100-500 is the best of the bunch. I have only had the 100-500 for a little over a week but to my eye the images are sharper. That along with the extra reach, lighter weight, better balance and faster focusing on the R5 mean I will be packing up my 100-400 mk II, control ring adapter, and extenders and shipping them off this afternoon.

I'm not saying that either of the 100-400's were in anyway bad lenses, the 100-500 is just better for what I do.


I’m keeping my 100-400L II and 1.4x III at the ready in case I want to throw it on my 5D4 or 7D2 or EOS-R or even R5. My wife likes to shoot now and again as well!
 

snappy604

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 25, 2017
541
409
probably not in my near future buy, I have a 150-600 Sigma.. seems like less range, is the image quality that much better?
 
<-- start Taboola -->