Comparison of Canon lens (Page 2): Improve your photos? Maybe.If you are always shooting at 400 and wish you did not have to crop as much in PP, then I would say get it. If you...

DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri

Improve your photos? Maybe.If you are always shooting at 400 and wish you did not have to crop as much in PP, then I would say get it. If you normally used the 100-400 and get frame filling shots, only get it if money is not really of concern.There is an improvement, but not leaps and bounds. The 100-400 II is a great lens. I almost always had a 1.4X on my 100-400, and now I rarely use a converter on my 100-500. But the new 1.4 works extremely well with it. I was not going to upgrade for a while, but a family member wanted the 100-400, so that gave me the excuse to go ahead. The 100-500 has been a pleasure to shoot with.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

ELNikkor wrote:

We're in another transition period where new techn... (show quote)

Many do not have the money.
Most new EF lenses optically are as good as the RF lens replacing them. And the RF lenses are better mostly for pixel peepers.
Yes, RF have some advantages but with the control ring EF lenses take a big step up.
Additionally the EF system was designed to seamlessly go with future developments as obviously seen now with the RF mount.
Nothing wrong with going all RF but for mere mortals being able to use all our EF/EF-S lenses shows how forward thinking Canon was in 1987. RF is amazing and cutting edge but doesn't leave behind anything like others have done.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

IHH61 wrote:

Both are great lenses and you can get excellent results with either. Good take on the Will I miss the 100mm several days ago on bythom.com.
I’m selling my 100-400 to offset what I paid for the 100-500.

Your mileage may vary

Hugh

I thought about the 100-500mm, my stepdaughter has it and it's very good.
But I am sticking with the 100-400mm MII as my 2X III converter lets me use the full range and testing THE AF it seems just as fast with and without.

MountainDave

I made the switch but I use a R5. The 100-500 exceeded my expectations. Mainly the AF works much better with very consistent, precise focusing. The eye detect on birds is amazing. I think the bokeh is better too. The lighter weight is really a joy. I can carry it long distances. All this plus another 100mm. It is pricey. Google reviews and comparisons.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

MountainDave wrote:

I made the switch but I use a R5. The 100-500 exceeded my expectations. Mainly the AF works much better with very consistent, precise focusing. The eye detect on birds is amazing. I think the bokeh is better too. The lighter weight is really a joy. I can carry it long distances. All this plus another 100mm. It is pricey. Google reviews and comparisons.

It is an amazing lens with no peers anywhere at any price.
A great follow-up to the 100-400mm L MII which until the the 100-500mm had no peers.

Arizona Art Loc: SE Florida

MountainDave wrote:

I made the switch but I use a R5. The 100-500 exceeded my expectations. Mainly the AF works much better with very consistent, precise focusing. The eye detect on birds is amazing. I think the bokeh is better too. The lighter weight is really a joy. I can carry it long distances. All this plus another 100mm. It is pricey. Google reviews and comparisons.

Having used both lenses on my R5, I second what MountainDave wrote.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Arizona Art wrote:

Having used both lenses on my R5, I second what MountainDave wrote.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Another good site with lens info is opticallimits.com.

MtManMD Loc: Beaverton, Oregon

With the RF 100-500mm, using an extender with it really limits the zoom range on the lower end of the range. If you do a lot of shooting, like BIF, and want the entire zoom range with extender, it is limiting. I've wished I'd kept my EF 100-400mm and EF 1.4x as an extra lens combo more than once. Other than that, the 100-500mm will probably be the best lens you'll ever own.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

MtManMD wrote:

With the RF 100-500mm, using an extender with it really limits the zoom range on the lower end of the range. If you do a lot of shooting, like BIF, and want the entire zoom range with extender, it is limiting. I've wished I'd kept my EF 100-400mm and EF 1.4x as an extra lens combo more than once. Other than that, the 100-500mm will probably be the best lens you'll ever own.

That is why I didn't jump to the 100-500mm and stuck with the 100-400mm MII and the 2X III.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

LEWHITE7747 wrote:

I have an R7. Would anyone have any advice if it would improve my photos if I went from a EF 100-400 ll to the RF 100-500 lens.

I personally think that you would be disappointed after spending the money. I have never shot with the RF lens but do have the EF and I just can't imagine that the improvement in image quality would justify the additional expense. On your R7 the 400mm lens is a 640mm equivalent, that is a lot of reach and given the high megapixel count on your camera you have a lot of cropping ability. I have both the 300mm f/2.8 IS II and the 100-400 II, there is a difference in IQ but not sure that it is $6500 worth. The 100-400 is an exceptional lens.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Blurryeyed wrote:

I personally think that you would be disappointed ... (show quote)

Especially with the control ring adapter that I really find useful that gives all my EF and EF-S lenses the same feature as RF lenses. Except some RF use it to focus, but EF lenses have the separate focus ring anyway.
My 100-400mm II is better than I can hold I am sure.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Blurryeyed wrote:

I personally think that you would be disappointed ... (show quote)

Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't make it true.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

CHG_CANON wrote:

Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't make it true.

Don't get me wrong Paul, I enjoy your photography and your comments in general, but just because you can does not make it true either, I have read more than one review that suggests that if you already own the 100-400 II that upgrading to the 100-500 may not be worth the expense. I have been shooting an R5 for a couple of years now and have little interest in the 100-500, in my opinion there is not much to be gained by the additional expense.

MountainDave

Blurryeyed wrote:

Don't get me wrong Paul, I enjoy your photography and your comments in general, but just because you can does not make it true either, I have read more than one review that suggests that if you already own the 100-400 II that upgrading to the 100-500 may not be worth the expense. I have been shooting an R5 for a couple of years now and have little interest in the 100-500, in my opinion there is not much to be gained by the additional expense.

For some people, it might not be worth the expense. That doesn't mean there isn't a significant improvement. The 100-400 was one of my most used lenses so an upgrade made sense. I also have a 300 2.8 IS II and was using it more than the 100-400. Now I'm using the 100-500 more than the 300. Don't imagine it, try it before you advise others on what to do.