Stoffer wrote:
Man, I’m really starting to wonder how well the R5 + RF 100-500mm combo will work and what impact the RF 1.4x will have.
While I appreciate the perspective, given that many of us own 100-400 is ii’s it’s hard to compel a switch from a fantastic and versatile lens which gives great IQ and works well with a tc for the 100-500. The 100-500 is nearly twice as expensive for an additional 100mm FL though it is a 1/2 lb lighter.
armd wrote:
While I appreciate the perspective, given that many of us own 100-400 is ii’s it’s hard to compel a switch from a fantastic and versatile lens which gives great IQ and works well with a tc for the 100-500. The 100-500 is nearly twice as expensive for an additional 100mm FL though it is a 1/2 lb lighter.
armd wrote:
While I appreciate the perspective, given that many of us own 100-400 is ii’s it’s hard to compel a switch from a fantastic and versatile lens which gives great IQ and works well with a tc for the 100-500. The 100-500 is nearly twice as expensive for an additional 100mm FL though it is a 1/2 lb lighter.
The RF100-500 "should" provide an additional stop, or two of IS over the EF 100-400 ?
Zenon Char wrote:
Both the 100-400 II and 100-500 are rated a 4 stops.
DPreview is good for getting info quickly. In the top bar Camera and Lenses. Cameras go back to 1996 for Canon. 1992 for lenses with a section of unknown year.
Zenon Char wrote:
Both the 100-400 II and 100-500 are rated a 4 stops.
From Canon Spec.: " With its built-in, 3-mode, and up-to 5-stop optical image stabilization system, and high-speed Dual Nano USM autofocus motors, the RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM will prove its superb optical performance, over and over again."
Sy Sez wrote:
From Canon Spec.: " With its built-in, 3-mode, and up-to 5-stop optical image stabilization system, and high-speed Dual Nano USM autofocus motors, the RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM will prove its superb optical performance, over and over again."
Zenon Char wrote:
Thanks fo the correction. I guess DPreview got it wrong. Now I know why it it costing me $3,500 CND
I reported the error to them. I have seen errors before so I should know better than to rely on them. I still find it very handy to find which out which year gear was released, etc. This was a good reminder.
armd wrote:
Your observations are appreciated and what I am still trying to gauge is whether the same lenses and tc’s applied to the R5 will deliver performance I am not accustomed to seeing from a 5dmkiv? Are you using your IS or turning it off at higher Tv?
With respect to the tc’s it’s a bit of a Frankenstein connection having an ef lens, an R adapter, then an R tc, no? If the ef lens, ef tc and R adapter work fine, why change?
I never used a 5dmark IV but I feel the R5 is better then the 1dx Mark II and Amy agrees with what we have done so far with the R5. The TC's and adapter work great. I do not believe the RF TC with work with the adapter. If using the RF TC then you will have a RF lens to so no need for the adapter. The RF TC will not work with EF lenses. The reason for the change is to migrate everything to RF mount. I leave my IS on all the time.
Hathaway wrote:
I have never worked with a DO lens before. The background blur on this image looks a bit weird to my eye. Maybe it is my display. It does not look smooth/creamy at all. Almost like a paintbrush has been drug vertically across the OOF areas. Is that the lens, the background or my display?
Bob
I can’t speak for Rob but all I see in the egret image background is the rendering of OOF grass blades at a distance that is too close to render without some semblance of vertical definition left. Maybe Rob’s 400/2.8 would have rendered them more OOF.
That said, having owned and shot the 400DOII for many years and having shot the 300/2.8II and 600II alongside it, I never found any bokeh issues related to the DO optic that I could tell.
Hathaway wrote:
I have never worked with a DO lens before. The background blur on this image looks a bit weird to my eye. Maybe it is my display. It does not look smooth/creamy at all. Almost like a paintbrush has been drug vertically across the OOF areas. Is that the lens, the background or my display?
Bob
I think it is more to do with the grasses moving due to wind in the background. I applied nothing to the background in PS.
Hathaway wrote:
I have never worked with a DO lens before. The background blur on this image looks a bit weird to my eye.
I agree, the DO delivers oftentimes odd backgrounds. The mk1 was awful, the mk2 is much better - but it really depends on background distance and contrast, much more so than with a "normal" lens. I have some perfectly in focus photos from my "backyard safari" but I just can't use them because the grass behind the bunny or quail or whatever is inducing seizures in people.
Sy Sez wrote:
The RF100-500 "should" provide an additional stop, or two of IS over the EF 100-400 ?
Of IS yes, but that doesn't help with subject movement, of course. I expect a step up of real world IQ to the 100-500 from the 100-400. And I really like my 100-400.
As a rule when Canon adds substantially to the price, as with the 100-500, they are improving the lens for higher resolution cameras. A $2500 zoom is going to be a really nice lens, regardless of the variable aperture.
dcmiller wrote:
Of IS yes, but that doesn't help with subject movement, of course. I expect a step up of real world IQ to the 100-500 from the 100-400. And I really like my 100-400.
As a rule when Canon adds substantially to the price, as with the 100-500, they are improving the lens for higher resolution cameras. A $2500 zoom is going to be a really nice lens, regardless of the variable aperture.
Canon has posted the MTF curves of the 100-500 on the Japanese website, corrected for diffraction. The values at 500mm are a tad lower than those for the 100-400mm at 400mm, as expected for a lens of very similar IQ but smaller aperture. It seems most likely that the two lens have very similar IQ.
