- Messages
- 34
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
R6 with 1.5, not experienced any issues. The eye focus on busy backgrounds has always been hit and miss, by its very nature difficult to accomplish as far as I am aware.
Canon EOS R Series Cameras
- Messages
- 941
- Name
- Ed
- Edit My Images
- No
Ok great, thanks.
- Messages
- 3,065
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It’s not all of them?
- Messages
- 1,316
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The longer the focal length, the less effective IBIS is going to be, so while IBIS will work with all EF lenses, it will be more effective with shorter focal lengths. Longer lenses tend to have lens IS which is often combined with IBIS for best effect.
- Messages
- 185
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Since I asked the Q, I thought I’d answer it too as I’ve just set some time aside to RTFM:
It seems that it IBIS does work with EF lenses, but not to the same extent as it would for RF lenses.
Further, if you have a lens with ILIS, the whole IS system—IBIS and ILIS—is controlled by the IS on-off switch on the lens.
It seems that it IBIS does work with EF lenses, but not to the same extent as it would for RF lenses.
Further, if you have a lens with ILIS, the whole IS system—IBIS and ILIS—is controlled by the IS on-off switch on the lens.
- Messages
- 9,183
- Edit My Images
- Yes
talking about ibis in body stabilisation it does work with longer EF lenses as I have found that I can use a lower shutter speed with my EF 300 2.8 on my R5 than I could on my 7D2, it’s especially useful when I use the 2 times converter it’s much easier to handhold
- Messages
- 331
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
I got my R3 yesterday having ordered it back in September. They say patience is a virtue? Not had a chance to use it in anger and with storm Eunice it’s not looking great for football on Saturday but I can say without using it yet it’s a stunning piece of kit!
I am very lucky to be able to own one.
I am very lucky to be able to own one.
- Messages
- 3,065
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Congrats! Enjoy and looking forward to hearing more about it
- Messages
- 653
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Could be a good opportunity to test the weather sealing....
- Messages
- 653
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just tried the Anker PD charger with Neweer batteries and seems to be charging OK.in the camera..... R5........
- Messages
- 1,097
- Name
- Alistair
- Edit My Images
- No
Probably different because it'll be LP-E6 batteries. I've got the RP which uses LP-E17 which may not be as happy with the power input.
- Messages
- 331
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
I’ve hit a slight snag as thought Lightroom Classic v9.4 with Camera Raw 14.2 would be Ok but cannot get the files to upload. Doesn’t help using a mid 2011 iMac so that maybe the cause. Booked an Apple appointment tomorrow so another expensive purchase looks likely.
- Messages
- 5,591
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
I’m looking at a longer reach lens to complement my EF 16-35 and 24-105, replacing my MkI 100-400 which was great on my 5DMkII but doesn’t seem as good on my R5 (some reports on DPReview say the same)
Main use is landscapes with some wildlife but would like to do more of the latter.
Three lenses I’ve been pondering for when the lens coffers are full enough:-
(I) Canon RF 100-500
advantage is no adapter. New technology and works well with Extenders at 300mm+ Plus better IS working with the R5’s IBIS
@Bebop - I believe you own this lens?
(ii) Canon RF 70-200 f4L (perhaps the heavier f2.8L?)
Lens quality is A++ and could add the 2x to give 140-400? Plus better IS working with the R5’s IBIS
or
(iii) Canon EF 100-400 MkII (As mentioned my MkI isnot as good with R cameras)
Good quality / cheaper than RF but continue to use my adaptor and heavier.
All the reviews I’ve read offer no clear winner so I thought I’d ask on here to see what your real world thoughts are?
Main use is landscapes with some wildlife but would like to do more of the latter.
Three lenses I’ve been pondering for when the lens coffers are full enough:-
(I) Canon RF 100-500
advantage is no adapter. New technology and works well with Extenders at 300mm+ Plus better IS working with the R5’s IBIS
@Bebop - I believe you own this lens?
(ii) Canon RF 70-200 f4L (perhaps the heavier f2.8L?)
Lens quality is A++ and could add the 2x to give 140-400? Plus better IS working with the R5’s IBIS
or
(iii) Canon EF 100-400 MkII (As mentioned my MkI isnot as good with R cameras)
Good quality / cheaper than RF but continue to use my adaptor and heavier.
All the reviews I’ve read offer no clear winner so I thought I’d ask on here to see what your real world thoughts are?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,167
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Interested to hear as I’ve got the RF600 but faintly considering the 100-400..
- Messages
- 1,443
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- No
If you guys are in South East you are welcome to try my EF 100-400mmII. Apart from the additional 100mm on the teleend and another big dip in wallet, I wouldn't consider to change to RF.
Waiting for RF500mm eagerly so I can move my EF500mmII.
Waiting for RF500mm eagerly so I can move my EF500mmII.
- Messages
- 3,065
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
First event complete with R5 and firmware 1.5.1 and it worked well, with no major issues with AF. The light was pretty challenging, especially keeping focus when the only light was from strobes was tricky. I did try electronic focus and it looks good, no banding with the lights at this venue or anything like that. The main problem will be too many pictures!
- Messages
- 7,130
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not sure there is a clear winner. I still have the EF 100-400 ii and the RF 100-500. My plan is to sell the 100-400 ii and the 1.4 iii extender... when I get round to it.
I have taken all the filters off my lenses as I felt the degradation in quality was more noticeable on the R5 than previously.
What tipped me, was an upcoming holiday and getting fed up with the palaver of using the extenders with the adapters. Another factor is that I am getting on a bit (so I want to do everything now while I can), and I can afford it, although I do like to justify my spends with my OH.
Plus sides of the RF 100-500 - extra reach, lighter, more compact. Seems to work well with the extender, but this has been trickier than I anticipated. The field of view at the widest, is that of a 300 x 1.4 = 420 mm lens. When I read the reviews, I had thought it was at its widest at 300mm. It surprised me how tricky it was sometimes to get your target in shot.... more practice needed. I do also use a 300mm (600mm equivalent) Olympus prime, so I should be used to this really.
Down sides of the RF 100-500mm ...for me... is that with the extender attached to lens and camera, I can no longer fit it into my smaller camera bag. Also you're at f/10 with the extender on at the long end (but then you have more reach). Having said that I am happy with my results at f/10, but the ISO creeps up. I can add some shots later, but my computer is struggling at the moment syncing backup files.
When I scrutinise shots with the R5 with the 100-400 + extender and the 100-500 + extender, I think they are both extremely capable to be honest. Perhaps with the extra IBIS I could hand hold the 100-500 at shorter shutter speeds. I accidentally shot a short eared owl at 1/25 second with the extender on the 100-500 and was able to retrieve something. I could have probably done better too if I'd realised I had accidentally changed my shutter speed. I think it's in this thread somewhere already.
I don't use the control ring on the lens - so that makes no difference to me.... at the moment.
Are you interested in the quality with an extender or is it just the lens? I can post up some shots for comparison later. Computer is SO slow...
Edit: I meant hand hold at longer shutter speeds, not shorter!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,591
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 7,130
- Edit My Images
- No
Here are some pics. I'm sure the quality is better without the extenders, and focus snappier too. All taken on the R5.
I know there are much better bird photographers on here than me, but hopefully serve a purpose. All downsized to 900 pixels on the longest edge and 98% quality to downsize.
With EF 100-400 ii + 1.4 iii extender at full extension 560mm f/8
Female blackbird raw converted to jpeg with Photolab and only default processing - full frame and then cropped in.
Then a BIF - tern taken in Scotland - this has been processed
With RF 100-500 + 1.4 extender - at full extension 700mm f/10
Female stonechat in good light in Portugal - not processed other than default Photolab - full frame and cropped in
and a tern in Portugal - oops at 631mm - not the full 700mm, so f/9
I know there are much better bird photographers on here than me, but hopefully serve a purpose. All downsized to 900 pixels on the longest edge and 98% quality to downsize.
With EF 100-400 ii + 1.4 iii extender at full extension 560mm f/8
Female blackbird raw converted to jpeg with Photolab and only default processing - full frame and then cropped in.
Then a BIF - tern taken in Scotland - this has been processed
With RF 100-500 + 1.4 extender - at full extension 700mm f/10
Female stonechat in good light in Portugal - not processed other than default Photolab - full frame and cropped in
and a tern in Portugal - oops at 631mm - not the full 700mm, so f/9
Last edited:
Sorry to report some bad news for this idea as neither of the RF 70/200’s accept the x1.4 or x2 converters. Lord knows why ?
Specifications & Features - RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM
This high-performance F2.8 telephoto zoom lens offers exceptional image quality in a compact body, designed to work in all conditions.
www.canon.co.uk
Specifications & Features - Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM - RF Lenses
A portable telephoto RF zoom lens that delivers professional performance, with 5-stop IS, fast USM focusing and a constant aperture of F4.
www.canon.co.uk
i am also looking for a long lens but cannot find one that suits the bill, I like the idea of the Sigma 120/300 2.8 with a x2 extender but it will be heavy. The RF 100/500 looks great but costly and can’t help feeling Canon will release something with a similar focal length but better f stop In time?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,591
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
ThankS @Bebop That does help. I’ll take another look tomorrow but the stonechat one looks to show some lovely detail vs the 100-400 but the blackbird one is still good at that resolution.
- Messages
- 392
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not sure there is a clear winner. I still have the EF 100-400 ii and the RF 100-500. My plan is to sell the 100-400 ii and the 1.4 iii extender... when I get round to it.
I have taken all the filters off my lenses as I felt the degradation in quality was more noticeable on the R5 than previously.
What tipped me, was an upcoming holiday and getting fed up with the palaver of using the extenders with the adapters. Another factor is that I am getting on a bit (so I want to do everything now while I can), and I can afford it, although I do like to justify my spends with my OH.
Plus sides of the RF 100-500 - extra reach, lighter, more compact. Seems to work well with the extender, but this has been trickier than I anticipated. The field of view at the widest, is that of a 300 x 1.4 = 420 mm lens. When I read the reviews, I had thought it was at its widest at 300mm. It surprised me how tricky it was sometimes to get your target in shot.... more practice needed. I do also use a 300mm (600mm equivalent) Olympus prime, so I should be used to this really.
Down sides of the RF 100-500mm ...for me... is that with the extender attached to lens and camera, I can no longer fit it into my smaller camera bag. Also you're at f/10 with the extender on at the long end (but then you have more reach). Having said that I am happy with my results at f/10, but the ISO creeps up. I can add some shots later, but my computer is struggling at the moment syncing backup files.
When I scrutinise shots with the R5 with the 100-400 + extender and the 100-500 + extender, I think they are both extremely capable to be honest. Perhaps with the extra IBIS I could hand hold the 100-500 at shorter shutter speeds. I accidentally shot a short eared owl at 1/25 second with the extender on the 100-500 and was able to retrieve something. I could have probably done better too if I'd realised I had accidentally changed my shutter speed. I think it's in this thread somewhere already.
I don't use the control ring on the lens - so that makes no difference to me.... at the moment.
Are you interested in the quality with an extender or is it just the lens? I can post up some shots for comparison later. Computer is SO slow...
Edit: I meant hand hold at longer shutter speeds, not shorter!
Hi Bebop, do you prefer the results with the Canon or Olympus gear? I have the Olympus Em1 mk3 and the 100-400 but I have been considering the Canon R6+the 100-500. The other option now of course is the OM-1 with the 100-400 or the 300 f4.
- Messages
- 7,130
- Edit My Images
- No
One advantage of the R5 is the ability to crop, and the R6 doesn't have that, so that's a trickier decision. I only have the 300 F/4, and being prime makes it less flexible - though I love it for its size and weight! Noise reduction software is brilliant, but in low light the Canon wins.
The R5 for me has blurred the lines as I really like it's eye detect and getting the 100-500 has extended my reach, which combined with the crop-ability makes it a match for the Oly on framing. It will be interesting to see how good the eye detect is on the OM 1, so it might be worth waiting to see how that pans out in real life, and maybe try one out. There's also the Canon test and Wow, so maybe you could try them both against each other?
I've tried to find some comparable pics, bif, similar light, similar framing. No sharpening applied or processing other than in the default conversion.
R5, RF 100-500@500 raw file, not processed other than default Photolab conversion, full frame and roughly cropped to 900 pixels long side and 98% quality
Oly em1iii, 300mm F/4 as above (actually bird is smaller in frame now I see them side by side)
Apologies for the long posts.
Edit: Note on Canon I use the compressed RAW format - so perhaps greater quality could be attained without the compression?
Another Edit: also the quality of the cropped pics definitely looks worse on here. Perhaps I would have done better to crop them a little larger before downsizing them. The heron in particular looks blurry compared to the one on my computer.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 392
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for the reply Bebop no apologies needed for the long post, all info/images are useful. Like you I like the flexibility of a zoom and the 100-500 looks good. I hired the Oly 300 f4 over xmas and liked the quality of the images much better than the Oly100-400. As regards any cropping the R6 should be better than the Oly MK3. I think you are right about waiting to see the eye detection and some real life shooting on the OM-1, thanks for the information about the Canon test and Wow that seems a good way to go.
- Messages
- 5,591
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
Some of you may have read this article but it’s a good insight into the design and build of the new RF lenses. This is the 70-200 f2.8 one:-
The Not Very Long Awaited Teardown of the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS
Long ago, a visiting Canon engineer put a box on my workbench, grinned, and said: "You're going to like this." Then he pulled out a mock-up of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens, and my jaw dropped. I've been doing this stuff for a long time. My jaw drops very infrequently. My only comment was...
www.lensrentals.com
- Messages
- 3,065
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That’s murder…Some of you may have read this article but it’s a good insight into the design and build of the new RF lenses. This is the 70-200 f2.8 one:-
The Not Very Long Awaited Teardown of the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS
Long ago, a visiting Canon engineer put a box on my workbench, grinned, and said: "You're going to like this." Then he pulled out a mock-up of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens, and my jaw dropped. I've been doing this stuff for a long time. My jaw drops very infrequently. My only comment was...www.lensrentals.com
- Messages
- 3,065
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for letting me know I couldn’t bear to watch
- Messages
- 3,065
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I ran out of camera bodies at the weekend so put my unsold 1DXM2 back into service. I think the AF of the R/R5s has made me lazy, or I’m out of practice with the 1DX, as the results are were a little disappointing, or my expectations have increased…
- Messages
- 322
- Name
- Gez
- Edit My Images
- No
Converting to DNG does the trick for me with older versions of LR.
- Messages
- 331
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Converting to DNG does the trick for me with older versions of LR.
It didn’t help trying it on my 2011 iMac so there comes a point when the hardware struggles. I bit the bullet and bought a MacBook Pro. It’s been an expensive week
Thanks for the tip though.
It didn’t help trying it on my 2011 iMac so there comes a point when the hardware struggles. I bit the bullet and bought a MacBook Pro. It’s been an expensive week
Thanks for the tip though.
- Messages
- 7,130
- Edit My Images
- No
I decided I needed more practice with the extender on the 100-500 so headed out for a local walk this morning. Oh my goodness that was a good decision... a white tailed eagle flew over and the sun was behind me Happy days...
At this size it was obviously a lot easier to find it in the frame at 700mm, although it is still a crop.
I was immediately regretting leaving my half full, third party battery in the camera, but it did the job - phew!
Happy days... At this size it was obviously a lot easier to find it in the frame at 700mm, although it is still a crop.
I was immediately regretting leaving my half full, third party battery in the camera, but it did the job - phew!
- Messages
- 8,318
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
That second one with the gull(?) in the background is fab.
- Messages
- 7,130
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks Ian. I have a few with crows and gulls in, but they're mostly distant. At first I thought I was watching crows mobbing a buzzard and then realised the wing shape and it flew nearer
Edit: I say thanks, but actually it was just a matter of luck- very little skill!
Last edited: