topic Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife? in Gear Guide

Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

Lanner — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 02:13:23 GMT

My main questions are this:
1. Is 500mm enough length? This is my primary concern coming from a Sigma 150-600.
2. Do you feel restricted by f/7.1?
3. How is the image quality at the various focal lengths? Is it sharp? Are there obvious issues?

I shoot with the Canon R5 Mark II and am using a Sigma 150-600 with an adapter (with control ring). I want to shoot wildlife, primarily birds and am struggling to find a good lens option that isn't too expensive (Im not willing to spent like $10k lol).

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

shadowsports — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:29:26 GMT

Greetings ,

There's a few shots from my trip to Alaska here

RF 100-500

Bella Eagle Eye

Hubbard Glacier

Others have posted fantastic shots too, but I don't know if they were using a 100 500. I took that glacier photo with my 100-500 as well.

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

March411 — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:39:46 GMT

Hello Lanner,

I use the RF100-500 on an R6 Mk II and an R5. It is a great hiking lenses and does a nice job hand held with the combined IS/IBIS. The only occasions where I feel any challenges are early dawn and dusk, the lens obviously needs light. To your point though it is probably the best lens at this price point, a fixed f4 is going $10K or more and at f4 is still going to be somewhat challenge.

I also have the RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM and it is also a very nice lens at it's price point. When the ISO increases I use DXO or Topaz to wash the noise and still get very good detail shooting up to 12800 ISO.

Either of these lenses will serve you well in most wildlife settings. But like any lens, including the high cost L series there are always some limitations.

Significant crop (distance) , overcast day R6m2 500mm f7.1 1/2500 ISO 5000

R6m2 f7.1 1/2000 ISO 800

R5 RF200-800 f9 1/640 ISO 200

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

Tintype_18 — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:43:49 GMT

I have the Sigma Contemporary 150-600mm lens. I find it to be good but requires a monopod or tripod due to the weight.

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

ebiggs1 — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:59:48 GMT

"I shoot with the Canon R5 Mark II and am using a Sigma 150-600 with an adapter (with control ring)." "Is 500mm enough length? This is my primary concern coming from a Sigma 150-600."

IMHO, I would take the Siggy. I hate to give up FL. I have not personally used the Canon RF 100-500mm which I am sure it is a wonderful lens. I do own and use a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM Lens and, yes, it works well but I still feel the lost 100mm is something I really want. I would rather see you buy the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens if you feel the need for a different lens but going down in FL would not be my first choice. The old saying, you can never have too much focal length rings true.

Otherwise just use the 150-600mm. By the way if you think you may not need the big Canon after the trip you can sell it on and probably not lose much money investment. It should sell easily, I've done that a lot.

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

Lanner — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:25:28 GMT

My major issue with the 150-600 is that obviously it is not built to be used with the R5 Mark II, and as a result, I often miss the focus on otherwise good photos. And I promise you, its not me whose missing the focus as the camera is clearly focussing on the eye of the bird or whatever the subject is. The lens is just not able to take full advantage of that and therefore misses the focus.

I will definitely look into the 200-800mm though, as I agree that one of my worries was the loss of focal length. The f/9 is a tad worrisome though, especially for wildlife. I could just use lower focal lengths in that case so its certainly not a major deterrent lmao

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

March411 — Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:42:14 GMT

Lanner, just so you some point of reference I grabbed this shot today. I'm in Chicago and it was overcast, I grabbed this frame in between showers. I used my R6m2 and the RF200-800 and it just so happened that I shot @ f10

RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM @ 800mm with a 50% crop - f10 @ 1/500 - ISO 500

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

TomRamsey — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:30:36 GMT

Disclaimer, I do not have the Sigma 150-600 or the RF 100-500, but I have an opinion the native mount Canon lens will outperform the Sigma in every way, which may make the 100mm somewhat moot. BUT, the Canon lens with a TC would give you more reach. Myself, I have the RF200-800 and R6 II, I bought into Canon specifically to get this lens for wildlife. I was not as hesitant on the lens because most of my shooting is in the salt marsh, on the beach, or in a long leaf pine savanna, where the canopy is not as dense as a deciduous forest. The photo below was taken on a very foggy day, 800mm, 1/1000, f8, ISO 25600, and run through Denoise in Lightroom. I probably would not have bought the lens if my primary shooting was in dense forests, but now I think that may have been OK anyway, especially with the low klight ability of the R6II. This is just my opinion without having an actual comparison

Great Egret in the Fog

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

March411 — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:46:07 GMT

I'm sorry Tom but I am going to have to respectfully disagree. I have a fairly decent stable of Sigma lenses that perform every bit a good as the Canon counterparts on both my DSLR's and MILC.

These images are from my Sigma EF 60-600mm, the thing is a beast hand held on my R6m2 and these images are pretty much SOOC.

I did update the firmware when I moved to MILC as Canon support suggest. The focus was fast and clean on BIF or bird simply roosting. I do use the can EF to RF adapter but this lens as well as all the others perform excellently. On my R3 with the larger battery the EF 60-600mm sings. I can post images off of my 5D Mk IV that are just as clean. Sigma fills a gap in Canon's lineup with some very nice lenses.

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:44:50 GMT

Sounds like you answered your own question.

"The f/9 is a tad worrisome though, especially for wildlife."

Although the numbers may look large in f-stop land it isn't. The different between the Tammy and the Canon isn't even a stop. I will offer, but perhaps not a help to you, the G2 model of that lens is a lot better than the original which I put it in fourth place behind the G2, the SIgma S, the Sigma C, and perhaps even below the Sigma 150-500mm.

I guarantee you, you will be 100 times, no 1000 times happier with the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens on your R series camera(s).

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

March411 — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:52:28 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I guarantee you, you will be 100 times, no 1000 times happier with the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens on your R series camera(s).

ebiggs nailed it, the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM is very nice lens with an even better price point. I would also add that outside of the IQ the lens, the lens is an easy carry and the 5.5 stops in combination with your R5 Mk II IBIS will be a great match.

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

TomRamsey — Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:01:33 GMT

You've proven your words with results, well done. Especially with the great detail on the red-winged blackbird.

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:42:24 GMT

"I have a fairly decent stable of Sigma lenses that perform every bit a good as the Canon counterparts on both my DSLR's ..."

As well as I do plus some Tamron lenses and I totally agree. You would not want to bet your life on the difference. And the very much advancements in editing software like Photoshop 2025. I think especially true with the Tamron G2 series.

I did not take to the Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens although I came close. I still prefer my Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens which has seen lots of use by me. But I am still all DSLR and if buy today it would be the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens without second thought.

My thought is nobody buys a super zoom for the short end so 60mm or even 150mm isn't a selling point to me. Canon very much more wise, IMHO, set that at 200mm. However if they had done a 300-800mm and perhaps given us another half stop in return, I would be good for that.

I can probably count the number of times I needed or used the 1500mm FL on my Sigma Sport on one hand. But in defense of folks that do use the short end more than I, I have the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens which I sometimes carry or have at least it is close.

Re: Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:50:23 GMT

I have a good friend who worked with me at Hallmark. He has the fantastic and beautiful Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. We are always going on about which is the better lens and of course IQ is at the top of the list. Build is similar so that's not an issue and, yes, I will give a bit of IQ to the big Canon but it is a prime it should win. But it does not have the ability to zoom down to 120mm. And again I would not want to live on the difference in IQ.

Both are a fixed f2.8. Both are big and both are heavy. Both are very expensive.