Canon 100-500 RF Lens

Has anyone had an experience with the lens?

f/7.1 on the long end and you typically have to stop down at least 2/3 of a stop to get into an optical sweet spot would rule it out for me.  There are tons of online reviews that might be helpful.

E.J. Peiker wrote:f/7.1 on the long end and you typically have to stop down at least 2/3 of a stop to get into an optical sweet spot would rule it out for me.  there are tons of online reviews that might be helpful.

It looks as if some of your comments were omitted

Hmm, no I wrote what I meant to write...

I don't have first had experience.  However, from what I have seen the lens at 400 is about the same sharpness as the highly regarded 100-400 II.  Yes, F 6.3 rather than 5.6.  At 500 mm and F 7.1 it is faster than the 100-400 with the 1.4 TC which is F8.  While shooting the 100-400 with the extender is not ideal, on the R5 I have achieved great results; better than the on the 7D2 and 5D4.  So, if the 100-500 is at least as good as the 100-400 through 400 ,and the extra 100 mm can be achieved with what sounds like equivalent or better sharpness than using the original lens with the extender and also a faster F stop, why is it not acceptable?

Ed Cordes wrote:I don't have first had experience.  However, from what I have seen the lens at 400 is about the same sharpness as the highly regarded 100-400 II.  Yes, F 6.3 rather than 5.6.  At 500 mm and F 7.1 it is faster than the 100-400 with the 1.4 TC which is F8.  While shooting the 100-400 with the extender is not ideal, on the R5 I have achieved great results; better than the on the 7D2 and 5D4.  So, if the 100-500 is at least as good as the 100-400 through 400 ,and the extra 100 mm can be achieved with what sounds like equivalent or better sharpness than using the original lens with the extender and also a faster F stop, why is it not acceptable?

The new lens which I had in my hands, on the r5 is very fast to achieve focus and a 1/2 pound lighter than the 100-400 II.
Super light setup on the R5 with very fast autofocus.

E.J. Peiker wrote:f/7.1 on the long end and you typically have to stop down at least 2/3 of a stop to get into an optical sweet spot would rule it out for me.  There are tons of online reviews that might be helpful.

I believe it is f 5.6 till 350 mm and 7.1 from 350-500 mm.
So not really able to make my mind, if I should go for this one or not.

This is the range of apertures for the RF 100-500

100-151 F 4.5;  152-254 F 5; 255-363 F 5.6; 364-472 F 6.3; 473-500 F 7.1

If you do not own already the EF 100-400 II, I would go for the lighter, better optics, and  faster AF of the RF 100-500.

From "The Digital picture" review, the Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II at 400 is really around 380 mm.
"Using that number, the 100-400 II's max focal length seems more like 383mm or just slightly wider."
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4403364

So if the EF lens is a 383mm F5.6, and the RF a 363 F5.6, the difference is not so big to rule it out. And in the RF 100-500 you do not have to put in and out the 1.4x teleconverter every time you need more than 400 mm.

The only reason to work with the EF 100-400mm IS II  in a RF camerais if you already have it.

Unless something changes, this will be the lens to replace the 100-400 EF.  While it is slower at the longest end, I think it will replace that lens in my kit going mirrorless.  On the other hand, I never use these with extenders.  If I need more than 500mm, I'll go to my 600 f4.  Time will tell but it may mean I sell my 500 f4.

Clearly canon is moving to slower lenses.  These are going to be popular because of weight and cost.  Whether the more serious will adopt them because of the effect on DOF and shutter speeds time will tell.  Apparently  canon thinks the cameras can focus at f22 and each generation has a higher useable ISO.