I’ve been a professional photographer for nearly 40 years and the 100-500 is my favorite lens of all time. I use it for wildlife, landscapes, portraits, and even at a wedding!
I’m ‘only’ a keen amateur, and last year I had the opportunity to spoil myself. I bought an R3 last May, and then a 100-500 with 1.4x in the Black Friday bonanza. If you’re a keen amateur like me and wondering whether this lens is for you, just do it. You’ll forget about the price the first time you use it. This lens is almost permanently on my camera now, usually with the 1.4x, and the results astound me. Even I can achieve almost professional photographs! The few negative points are also soon forgotten. Yes, I would love to own an RF 600mm f4, but there’s just no way I can splash out £14k on one, and I’d lose the zoom, and add 2kg!
I went from a sigma 150-600mm with an adaptor on my R7 to the RF 100-500mm and the difference is exceptional! Seriously blown away and honestly don’t care about how much it cost (although I did get a £500 off deal on mine). This is a lifetime lens for sure!
Great review & outstanding images and videos, Harry. When the 100-500mm first came out, I had the reaction, "F7.1? I'd never use that." This past spring, I set up for hummingbirds on my back deck. When I heard another photographer mention the 3 ft minimum focus distance, I thought... "That could work very nicely." And it did. I was really surprised to find out that the F7.1 was pretty much a non-issue. I won't repeat all the positive comments from your video but I will concur with them. ...Jerry
They are some great pictures and videos Harry. Even given your two negatives about the lens no one would notice it in the quality of your shots. I recently upgraded my Canon RF400 to the 100-500 and yes the quality is superb but compared to the little 400, wow it’s heavy.
Great review, I would love to see a video on the topic of how you manage shooting from a Kayak. I'm someone who does a lot of shooting while paddling but event though Kayak is my favourite to ride in, I haven't found a good solution to shooting from it. The actual shooting from the Kayak isn't the biggest problem (though depending on the kayak the maintaining balance through a quick pan can be a big challenge in itself, as you probably know) My main issue is storing the camera when not shooting. I just don't know where to put it. If I mount it to my chest, it interferes with my paddle stroke. If I put it in my lap or lashed to the deck, it gets soaked from water dripping from the paddle. If I put it under the spray deck it takes too long to get out when I need to make a shot quickly. All of this is magnified in choppy water. I'm looking to do a wildlife trip up the coast of Lake Superior soon and its something I'm really trying to solve. ;) I'd love to see what your strategies are for this because I often find myself taking my canoe instead of a kayak for this reason alone even though I'd much rather be in one of my kayaks. cheers!
Thank you! I keep my camera in a zip up dry back under my legs while paddling around and then when I find the birds it stays on my lap It does get wet a little bit from the paddles as you mentioned but being weather sealed, I dont worry too much about it. I also put an extra water catcher ring (don't know what they are actually called haha) that keeps some of the water from riding up the paddles.
Have you tried using a longer paddle? I have a long one that I use and rarely get drippage. I tried a shorter paddle, and because of the higher angle when paddling, I got a lot more water dripping in.
Harry... ... I have owned my RF 100-500mm also for about 2.5 years, and fully agree with everything you have said... I own 5 of Canon cameras with/ 10 of their lenses... including the EF 600mm f/4, and NOW, that lens stays at home because I have the 100-500mm which is much more versatile... For me, my favorite is shooting hummingbirds at a distance of 8 ft on a tripod with this combination... Just love it...
So all of these were shot on the 100-500? Wow. You have a great ability to find good light and know where the animals are going to be. Congratulations on getting to this point. The video of the elks was outstanding, great angle, great details like how they used their muscles. So much better than most documentaries that make it to the mainstream. Light on the puffin was insane. I dream of finding this kind of light. But with kids and a job, my resources are limited. Make sure you pat yourself on the back sometime. Great work.
Excellent review! Everything is a compromise, your 2 knocks, while I agree with you, but then again the compactness and lightness of the lens is what you gain! I'm thinking of investing into the Canon ecosystem, with the new R5II and with this lens, I think it would be a great kit for wildlife and even landscapes too. Your video and photographs are truly wonderful and beautiful see! I subscribed to your channel!
Great review! This inspired me to pair the lens with the R5. I am duly impressed with all aspects of it in the field (image quality - so sharp!, weight, IS for both video and photos, top among them), bar the AF performance in lowlight for photos especially. It really does keep searching around dusk or in dark, forest environments - a noticeable stepdown from the EF 300 2.8II, with TCs.
Thanks for this review! super informative, dynamic and great to learn a bit more for this leans on mirrorless Canon cameras! Simply great to see its results in photo-video and variety on extreme conditions to work with! thanks!
I really love this lens! I do use a 1.4 times extender with it for bird photography and it is extremely sharp! I don’t need anything bigger or anything else! R5. And I absolutely agree about the external zoom. I’m not a fan of it on any lens.
Hi Harry, very useful video and great images and a 3-year review in just 6.5 minutes is really appreciated . I've been looking at the 1-500 for use on an R6/R7 back-up when travelling. The 2-800 is tempting but the R7/1-500 combo will give 800mm max if needed so you've really helped in my decision. Thanks a lot!
Hey there, both are great options but I prefer the 100-500 in my personal opinion. I think the image quality, IS and weather sealing are superior. The 200-800 is great for what it is at that price point. But me personally I’d take the 100-500 every time myself.
@@HarryCollinsPhotographyif you had the 200-800 in the instances of low light that the 100-500 were would it be able to compete? looking to pair one of these with my R5 and im torn which to get
Amazing shots! And I wish I would have kept my 100-500, but traded it in for a 400mm prime. I wanted that smaller aperture, but someday I hope I will get one again! Great review of it and I agree with everything you said about it!
Great video, thanks for posting. I have the R6 Mark II and I shoot with the Canon EF 100-400. Ive been thinking about upgrading to the RF 100 - 500. Is there a lot of difference in image quality? Btw, I also love shooting from a kayak.
Thanks! I don’t think you will see a big difference in image quality necessarily over the 100-400 but where the 100-500 really shines is the stabilization. The RF lenses are noticeably better in that area over EF.
Thank you for another great video, so well spoken. I am heading to Africa on a bucket list trip this fall and wondering if I should get the 1.4x extender for my RF 100-500mm lens? Also, do you shoot in autofocus? I am reading so many are doing this with the new mirrorless cameras. I am used to shooting in manual focus with all but birds, but have my camera on a tripod and won't have one while traveling in Africa due to weight. I am so afraid of missing out on key shots while over there. I may just be overthinking.
The autofocus of the mirrorless camera systems are amazing. So much so that I have even started using it for video which takes a lot for me to trust an AF system to rely on it.
Thank you! If budget is an issue then I would go for the Canon R8, If not then the R5 (High megapixel) or R3 (Low megapixel) are what I use. The R6 is a good option too and priced mid range.
It's messy. I don't think I'm the best example of how to do that. I have more hard drives than I can count with backups of each in many different fireproof safes. But it works for me and it's tough to change.
Hey there, I do not. I have more bad experiences with filters like that than positive. I’ve seen many soften images. Not a fan of clear or UV filters myself. But that’s my own experiences and opinion.
@@HarryCollinsPhotography This is the best camera gear video I have seen. Just the right amount of info and no comparison with other gear, which I find is a meaningless approach to deliver on video media. I photograph wildlife and landscape when travelling cross-country on my MTB, so compact and lightweight is essential. I have been using a RX10IV. I would pay $10k for a bridge camera on super steroids (Super fast optics and AF, great IS and a much better viewfinder and flip out / rotating screen) but I don't expect anyone to make one. So, I'm looking at A1 & 200-600 (which I have heard has compatibility issues in some cases) or R5 Mk2 & 100-500. Therefore your VT was just what I needed to give me the heads up, before I go for a demo/hire trial (which I know is probably next year for the R5 Mk2). Finally, what body did you use in this vid, please? Didn't look like an R series(?) Thank you, Rob
@@HarryCollinsPhotography Thanks Harry, appreciate you taking time to reply. Viewed your 2 years with R5 vid just now - stunning results. The detail on the super zoomed Puffin head is incredible. Take Care, R
I totally get the complaints about external zooms in general. However, you can't praise the size and portability on the on hand, while on the other hand complaining about it being an external zoom. You simply can't have both, can you? 😅 Also, why would you zoom a lot when the lens is on a gimbal? You don't do that with a 600 mm f4 either. Just take the 500 mm shots mounted to whatever, and shoot the rest handheld. The variable aperture is the only small downside to me, but if it were any better, the thing would weigh a ton again and cost four to five times as much. So again, we have to sacrifice something here, and I think, Canon made the right choices. Apart from this minor contradiction, a very informative video. Thank you, and have a good one!
Sonys 200-600 is 100mm longer with a better f stop and is only slightly larger being an internal zoom. So no it’s not out of the question that this could have been done with just a slight compromise in size. Also I never heard anyone say why are you zooming on a gimbal. That is a very odd comment to me. Even more so on a fluid head where I truly have the issue. What a strange comment that is honestly. I would love to follow up on that. Have you ever filmed wildlife before? Not everything is fixed at one focal length.
Well yes of course, but the sony 200-600 is manageable as well and based on focal length and aperture both being smaller than that lens, an internal zoom would be smaller than the sony. I would take that trade off happily for me personally.
That still pisses me off that it froze on me. I think about that often! Nothing exciting on the lens, just a bad fall and it came off the tripod and hit hard
