MORE AFFORDABLE AND REASONABLE FAST CANON RF TELE LENSES PLEASE...

When I changed from Nikon Z6 & Z7 to Canon back in 2020 because of the incredible R5 I could live with the RF lenses available.
Now, 3 years later I notice that the Canon RF tele lens range is still whether affordable with F8-F11 aperture whether in the +€ 10.000 price range with nothing in between, whereas Nikon Z offers a great Z 100-400/4.5-5.6 VR S @ € 2750 and a Z 400/4.5 VR S @ € 3300...
The old EF 300 F4 and stoneage EF 400mm F5.6 are no options to me, the 100-400 F 5.6 II neither (had one, too bulky/heavy for my liking)...
The RF 100-500 got my attention but it's F 7.1 @ 500mm.
No third-party RF lenses allowed doesn't help either...
Your opinion, please...
Kindest regards,
Stany
www.fotografie.cafe

Why dismiss the RF 100-500 because it's F7.1 at 500mm? You say that the Nikon 100-400 is great. That's F5.6 at 400mm. That, of course, is only an approximation. Variable aperture zoom lenses actually vary continuously as they zoom. The RF 100-500 shows F5.6 at 400mm when the camera is set to 1/2 stop increments, and F6.3 at 400 when set to 1/3 stop increments. Probably, the actual aperture at 400mm is about F6. For all we know, the Nikon could be F5.9 at 400. In any case, the Canon's maximum aperture at 400mm is no more than, and probably less than, 1/3 stop slower than the Nikon at 400mm. If the Nikon is great, it's hard to see how the Canon could be disqualified by at most 1/3 stop slower aperture at the same focal length. And, you get an extra 100mm with the Canon. You don't have to use it, if you don't want to, but I can't see why you'd reject the lens for actually offering more. And, by all accounts, and judging by numerous samples, the optical quality of the RF 100-500 is top notch, at least as good as the Nikon 100-400.
But, not only does Canon offer what is at least a match for the Nikon 100-400, at a similar price, but they also have a unique lens in the RF 100-400. It's between 2/3 and one stop slower than other 100-400 lenses, but it's so much lighter, smaller, and cheaper. It's a sheer joy to use. In my opinion, that lens alone is a reason to switch from either Nikon or Sony to Canon. My view is that Canon's RF lens lineup is actually far better and more interesting than what is available from other manufacturers (there are also gems like the 70-200 F2.8, 16 F2.8, 85 F2 IS, 600 and 800 F11, etc). For me, it's not about sheer number of lenses available, but what those lenses are. I have been delighted with every RF lens I've bought so far (I currently own nine of them and the 1.4X extender).

Interesting approach. Thank you.
BTW, I have the RF100-400 F4.5-F8 and the RF800 and I love them in good light.
I will rent the 100-500 for a weekend.
Thanks and kindest regards,
Stany

Hi Stany,
Big congrats. I have seen a number of wildlife shooters on the forums make the switch from Nikon to Canon for the R5. It is indeed a superb body for wildlife and birding (I own the R5, R6, R6ii, and R7 too). I myself made the jump from a Canon 7Dii DSLR to the R5 when it was first released (and have loved it ever since). I also picked up the RF 100-500 (+ RF 1.4x TC) at the same time to match it with. I still own the EF 100-400ii and EF 400 f/5.6 (used to own the EF 300 f/4 IS), and though they are fine lenses, the 100-500 is absolutely my lens of choice. It’s razor sharp, focuses like a dream, and like you mention, it is substantially lighter than the 100-400ii it replaces for me.

I agree with Alastair on all of his points too. I actually shoot the 100-500 with the 1.4x tele-adapter mounted nearly 100% of the time (that’s f/10)! And I don’t have a worry in the world about doing so. Mainly because I shoot (full) RAW and made the switch to DxO Photolab (with its superb Deep Prime noise reduction) as my RAW converter (I used to use Topaz and DPP for this). I also have Adobe’s latest, and DxO PL6 stands head and shoulders above all of them (IMHO). It’s really what enables me to shoot at such a “small” max aperture. Note: it’s really the size of the lens’ Entrance Pupil (objective) that matters 😉 .

I hike with a number of Nikon shooters on pretty much a daily basis. Two have Z9’s with the Z 100-400 (one shoots regularly with the excellent 500 PF too), but my setup (again just IMHO 😁 ) still kicks their butts. The R5 combo acquires BIFs faster, is better at picking out subjects in the brush, and focuses much closer than the 500 PF (the reason one of my buddies also bought the Z 100-400). Maybe the (vaporware) Z 200-600 will even up the playing field at some point (along with the new competitive Z8), but Nikon STILL has ground to make up with their Subject Detect AF analytics out in the field.

I can’t properly express how much I love the 100-500 (+ 1.4x) as my birding/wildlife lens. It’s light, nimble, sharp as heck wide open, AF’s in truly horrible light, and simply produces excellent results time and time again. Highly recommend trying one soonest!
J&H

A couple of samples using DxO Photolab...

change to Nikon - vote with your $$$

I think it is somewhat a problem as well.

The 100-500 L is as good as they get up to a certain price threshold. Canon has the 600 & 800mm f/11 lenses… cheap, but they are f/11.

Canon just announced a 100-300mm f/2.8, which is fabulous for sideline sports photography but too short for most wildlife. And it costs about $10K.

Of course, there is 600mm f/4.0 for $12,000 or so. With a teleconverter, it’s a 1,200mm f/8. So there’s that.

The EF adapted lenses work perfectly as long as they are Canon brand lenses. No promise of AF accuracy if the EF lens is non-Canon. Not worth the risk in my opinion.

I think Sony and Nikon have 200-600mm but Canon does not. If there’s a specific special lens you want and you can’t get it in Canon, unfortunately, your only choice is to switch.

Thanks. Very interesting. I'm obsessed about F5.6 max @ 400mm...😳

Thanks for your reaction.
No switch back. My Nikon to Canon was a one-way ticket. R5 is the best camera I ever handled.(Had Z6,Z7,D850 & D4 before that)
R7 is not at all in the same league as my R5 but it's much better than using a TC on my beloved RF 100 macro and some other lenses for more magnification.
I'll go for the RF 100-500.
Kindest regards,
Stany