NatureScapes.net Forums

Has anyone with Canon R series bodies switched from the EF 100-400 mkii to the RF 100-500 and can offer their experience? I am pondering but as a low light wildlife shooter, not thrilled with the F7.1 but attracted bycweight savings.

Not really what you're asking, but I've spoken to a few people about that lens, and there seems to be a "love it, hate it" sentiment. One person hated the OOF background.

I made the switch and thought it was an improvement. Not a huge improvement, but an improvement, with the additional reach being the big advantage but the lighter weight also very nice. It also handles an 1.4x extender fairly well. But it is a very slow lens, and even in good light I found myself often wishing for more speed. I think if I had it to do over I would keep the 100-400 and apply the saved money to something else.

I switched. For the most part, my 100-400 v2 always had the 1.4 TC on. With the RF 100-500, I have found (slightly) better IQ and definitely quicker and more accurate AF. I am using the. R5. Sold my 100-400 and no regrets.
YMMV

I never liked the 100-400mm simply because it didn't give me enough reach for my needs when photographing birds and with the 1.4x, it struggled to focus on my 7DII. The 100-500mm + 1.4x gives me just enough reach to be a viable carry-everywhere option. I also feel the zoom balances better on the R5/6 bodies. Certainly, the slower aperture doesn't help but there are no Canon options that I can afford or more importantly, that I can carry so conveniently. Canon's 800/11 is interesting as it offers more reach but the limited close focusing, limited focus area and lack of weather sealing make it a non-starter for me. I really wish Canon would offer something equivalent to Nikon's 500PF or Sony's 200-600mm.

I just switched from the 100-400 V2 to the 100-500 (on a R5) and I like it a little better.  In low light I was using Auto ISO, but I wasn't thrilled with the results, but you can use Topaz to knock down the noise.  I started to get much better results in low light when I fixed the ISO to a number below 800, and relied upon IS and IBIS to compensate for the slower shutter speed.

I switched and am not looking back. The extra reach and lighter weight is great. The sharpness is outstanding and the IS super. I was worried about the F7.1 but find that I can shoot my R5 at high enough ISO to make up the difference. I do use Topaz DeNoise AI on the higher ISO images. I have a 500 F4 and, frankly, haven't used it in months due to its weight and need for a tripod and gimble mount. I do use the 1.4 TC more often than I thought I would. Again, f10 is intimidating. However, hand held 700 mm in a light weight package giving me tremendous maneuverability is worth the tradeoff.

I purchased the lens and have used it for birds in flight and static birds for two days. My immediate feeling is that the lens is superior to the 100-400 mk 2 for af tracking and sharpness on my R5. The 500 without an extender desire is fulfilled.

The one downside is at 500 F7.1, a higher ISO means I will have to do more noise removal.