ldmarsh

I am contemplating breaking the bank and upgrading to the new Canon R5 and the Canon 100-500mm RF lens. I was wondering if anyone on The site has had any experience with these two items. Any input would be appreciated.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

Great R site on Facebook might be a good place to ask as well. That must be some Penny bank.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

There is a LOT of stuff on youtube !

ldmarsh

I am hoping for a response from someone who actually is using this combo.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

MANY on youtube are users .... just sayin'

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You'll hear from people contemplating the idea or those who did. I'm from the contemplating camp. The body is the best Canon has to offer and will remain that way until Canon releases their corresponding 1-series professional mirrorless version in preparation for the next summer Olympics.

The lenses are a different story. The RF lenses are superior as well as integrated with the mirrorless body. That is, they have controls on the lens that let you control the camera's EVF display to your eye. But, the EF to RF adapter is seamless and the more expensive version of the adapter even provides a control ring for somewhat similar control of the camera.

My original plan was to replace all EF lenses with the corresponding RF. After watching a demonstration and comparison of the EF 100-400L II to the RF 100-500L, I've decided it's not worth the additional expense of the change. There is a size / weight hit of the adapter, but that impact is less than the size / weight 'wallet hit' to replace an awesome lens I already own. Online reviews of the two lenses make this same observation. The RF version offers more focal length and native RF extenders, more 'pluses' for the mirrorless version if you're serious about this platform for wildlife.

I can't tell from your posting history if you have a corresponding EF 100-400 lens or anything covering similar. If not, including the RF 100-500L is a superb lens for wildlife photography. Some recent examples can be found here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-673980-1.html

ldmarsh

Thanks for your reply. I always look forward to your comments on this site so thanks again. I have a Tamron 150-600, a canon 70-200 2.8 and a canon 24-70 2.8. My current cameras are a Canon 90 D and a Canon 5D4. I have ordered the R5 . I do a lot of wildlife photography, birds, bears etc. and am contemplating either selling or trading when I upgrade and also may get the 100-500. If you were me what would you keep?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Assuming you purchase the RF 100-500 too, I'd immediately sell the Tamron and the 5DIV from this inventory, and put a mental sticky note on the 90D and the 70-200. My comment earlier about keeping the EF lenses rather than replacing with RF versions forgot the new design of the RF 70-200 zooms. The RF versions (f/2.8 and f/4) are a new design focused on smaller size where the lenses extend rather than internally focus like the EF versions. The new zooms are intended to be light and compact that can be held in one hand and still obtain sharply focused results. The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II would be the lone keeper where you'd be challenged to say the new RF version produces images better than the EF enhanced by the higher pixel resolution of the EOS R5. The RF 24-70 at f/2 is a different discussion and price.

If you're keeping the 90D as back-up or for the crop factor, but sold the relevant lenses it uses, let it go too and live off the mega megapixels of the EOS R5.

ldmarsh

Thanks for the response. You have given me some food for thought.

EMT88 Loc: Lwr Hudson Valley

The best photography purchase I have made so far in 60 years of shooting (primarily canon from the A-1 through 1dx miii). If it will not take food out of your mouth or roof over your head GO FOR IT. I love it. Good luck

mdoing

Just ordered the R6 and 100-500 lens. Lens is back-ordered. Excited to have my life changed by being broke and having a new camera to play with! Good luck with your new mirrorless world!

AFPhoto Loc: Jamestown, RI, USA

I decided that at my age I am not going to wait but rather go “full in” so I sold my 5D mkIII and all of my EF lenses and bought the R5 and nearly all of the RF lenses available ( I did not buy the RF 24 -70, as I hardly ever used the EF version of that lens). So far, the combination of the R5 and the RF 100 - 500 is nothing less than spectacular. The lens IS in combination with the camera IBIS lets me hand hold and shoot 500mm down to 1/60 (probably could have gone lower, but did not try). That is something I could never do. I have only been out a couple of times with the combination but what I have seen in the photos has me very encouraged.

In full disclosure, I moved up from the EF mk1 version of that lens. I think that if I had the Mk 2 version I would have gone with the adapter. The RF lens is quite expensive and the extra reach (500mm versus 400mm) and better optical performance is hard to justify at this price when compared to the EF 100 - 400 Mk2.

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

I recently purchased the R5. While I was shooting some birds with my 100-400 II EF and a 1.4 teleconverter, a buddy lent me his 100-500mm RF and 1.4 teleconverter for comparison purposes. When I got home, I immediately ordered the new 100-500 for the following reasons. The difference in reach is significant for my photography. With a 1.4 TC, the reach of the 100-400 is that of a 560mm lens, but with the 100-500 that reach is of a 700mm lens. Coupled with the 45MP sensor, it pushed several shots that did were not quite acceptable with the EF into acceptable quality with the RF and improved several closer shots. If it is a cropped image, the extra reach may net you additional keepers. A twenty percent increase in reach allows you to put more pixels on your subject and improve the captured detail in an image that does not fill the frame with the 100-400mm.

Additionally there were some subjective matters such as focusing that I did not systematically check and may be just the perceptions of an excited photographer. For example, I think the 100-500 acquired eyefocus earlier (further out.) But since I did not borrow the lens for long enough to test, I will call it an impression of an excited photographer. As I am a big fan of the eyefocusing feature on birds in flight, this is a potential biggie for me.

Whether differences such as those are significant enough to justify the additional $$$ to trade in a wonderful 100-400 remains a personal decision. As for me, I eagerly await my back-ordered lens.

Irwin

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

at this point I will also disclose that the EF MKII has Fluorite and the RF does NOT - hard to imagine that the RF is somehow "better" ....... MAYBE, the AF is better ??

Regarding "reach" ...., If you are shooting most wildlife/birds and are serious about "reach", IMO, you should be on a GOOD crop frame body to begin ... tho, cropping a 45 MP FF is not all that bad - especially if you use AI pixel enlargement software.
.

Pkfish Loc: Wilson Wy

I recently bought the r5 and been using with 100-400 and adapter. I am blown away with it. I have a 5d Mk4 that I been using for several years. I am waiting for my 100-500 to arrive. I have friends that have the combo and could not be happier. My shooting buddy who is 50 year Nikon guy just bought a Canon r5 yesterday. I will be selling all my EF equipment this winter. Good Luck!