By now some readers interested in this issue have read the fascinating, deep teardown discussion by lensrentals.com. I'm going to take a liberty here to briefly resuscitate this thread with my final thoughts on the issue by copying and pasting what I wrote in reply to some very sharp criticisms of the 100-500mm on another forum:
I agree with every criticism of yours regarding the 100-500mm, but it is an incredibly fun lens to shoot with, and, without an extender, is ergonomically superb and has spectacular image quality. The MFD is very important to me.
That said, wow, the tele-extender limitation is just plain goofy, like some no-name knockoff might come up with. The slower aperture at 500mm is disappointing and frustrating.
But, at this time, there really is nothing comparable that beats it for convenient, easy-to-carry, top performance. I'm very curious about the Sigma150-600mm, but it seems large and unwieldly compared to the 100-500mm, and even without using it, I'm sure it can't match with AF speed and accuracy. So, for somebody who wants something light, quick, and with excellent IQ, the 100-500mm on an R5 just doesn't have any real competition yet.
YET. Yes, I wish something like a 200-600mm f/5.6 had been offered, even a little heavier, but, as others have noted, nothing like that is on Canon's horizon at the moment.
The 100-500mm reminds me a lot of the EOS R, a body which in hindsight seems to have been a bridge, or a stopgap--something designed quickly so Canon could get its new RF lenses into the mirrorless game. And I loved the R despite its burst limitations, its older sensor, and its ergonomic awkwardness.
Compromise is one of the fundamentals of photography. To call the 100-500mm flawless is silly, but to call it a failure is just as ridiculous. If somebody strongly desires a great outdoor lens, the 100-500mm can fit the bill until something better comes along!
BTW, I was the OP of the thread questioning the soundness of the 100-500mm's lack of IS parking. Roger Cicala's exhaustive teardown convinced me to relax and reorder the lens!
I agree with every criticism of yours regarding the 100-500mm, but it is an incredibly fun lens to shoot with, and, without an extender, is ergonomically superb and has spectacular image quality. The MFD is very important to me.
That said, wow, the tele-extender limitation is just plain goofy, like some no-name knockoff might come up with. The slower aperture at 500mm is disappointing and frustrating.
But, at this time, there really is nothing comparable that beats it for convenient, easy-to-carry, top performance. I'm very curious about the Sigma150-600mm, but it seems large and unwieldly compared to the 100-500mm, and even without using it, I'm sure it can't match with AF speed and accuracy. So, for somebody who wants something light, quick, and with excellent IQ, the 100-500mm on an R5 just doesn't have any real competition yet.
YET. Yes, I wish something like a 200-600mm f/5.6 had been offered, even a little heavier, but, as others have noted, nothing like that is on Canon's horizon at the moment.
The 100-500mm reminds me a lot of the EOS R, a body which in hindsight seems to have been a bridge, or a stopgap--something designed quickly so Canon could get its new RF lenses into the mirrorless game. And I loved the R despite its burst limitations, its older sensor, and its ergonomic awkwardness.
Compromise is one of the fundamentals of photography. To call the 100-500mm flawless is silly, but to call it a failure is just as ridiculous. If somebody strongly desires a great outdoor lens, the 100-500mm can fit the bill until something better comes along!
BTW, I was the OP of the thread questioning the soundness of the 100-500mm's lack of IS parking. Roger Cicala's exhaustive teardown convinced me to relax and reorder the lens!
Upvote
0
