Canon R5/100-500

[Tom Reynolds]

Ginnie and I shot with a professional guide this week that used a Canon R5 + 100-500 lens. This combination is roughly the same weight as our d500/500pf primary setup, is 45mp, has eye tracking and is about the same price as the D500/500pf. It seems a viable alternative for Nikon users desiring a single camera/lens configuration. On the flip side the lens is f/7.1 on the long end.

Ginnie and I found the zoom configuration attractive because we found that the 500pf on a DX body is often too long. We needed to carry a second body in a quickdraw config with a shorter lens attached. To accomplish this, we purchased two 300PF lenses from forum members who indicated that they rarely used the 300pf once they obtained a 500pf. Our experience was different, possibly because we are using a DX camera as opposed to a D-850 and possibly because we typically carry two cameras. On the other hand, the 300pf clearly showed us the benefit of a f/4 lens. We now know why some are willing to carry those 600mm f/4 monsters.

For those like us who desire a 5# maximum setup, the canon R5/100-500 is worth considering. That being said, Ginnie and I concluded that we would continue with our D-500/500pf-D-500/300pf dual setup.

 

[bleirer]

I crave that combo, R5 with 100-500. Trusted review site linked below.

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[bleirer]

The 35 inch minimum focusing distance and .33x max magnification is appealing. This gets roughly a 3 by 4 inch object filling the frame using 500mm if you can get close enough. More if you compare crop mode to the DX.

 

[FB101]

I shot with that combo for a week and although outstanding in many areas I decided to not go for it and here were my reasons:

‘Although the R5 is actually attractively priced, building a useful set of native lenses was far more expensive than on Sony. And it got even worse with the price increases just announced.
‘The 100-500 is super sharp but it has 2 flaws (in addition to price) that I didn’t like. First you can’t zoom easily from 100 to 500mm, the throw is too long. And it doesn’t handle the 1.4x TC easily (only above 300mm which means you can’tkeep it on and put the lens + TC on camera into a bag. Yes, f:7.1 on paper seems a drawback but honestly in practice it never bothered me.

The R5 itself has a few flaws too. The well known over heating if you do video, and it has blackout and lag and slide show effect when panning.

If there was no other option, the R5 would be a king, and it still is at its price point, but there are other options and as a new system it’s actually very expensive.

Of course it’s different if you have canon EF lenses but I was looking at it as a Nikon shooter.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

This is one of the shots that showed me the value of f/4. Compared to shooting this with a 500pf the subject separation is noticable and I suspect would be worse at F/7.1

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Backdoor Arts]

I was out on Thursday shooting with a couple of wildlife shooters and Canon pros who were doing a week-long outing with paid guests, and except for one R3 that a host was using everybody had an R5 and a 100-500mm. A Canon Pro Rep was there with a bag of goodies to try and while I loved the 400mm f2.8 and 600mm f4, and will likely land one of them after I sell off some things, when I switched back to the zoom I saw no loss in image quality and loved the flexibility. Sure, the ability to really narrow the depth of field is nice, but I don't know that it's 5-figures nice. LOL

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.