Oooooooh, nice!
Looking forward to seeing the results. Would be a potentially nice replacement for my 100-400
.
Kind regards, Wim
One thing is sure, Klaus either hates Canon or he hates product photography.... from perspective effect, looks like the image was taken from close distance with a phone ?
lol. That's just a quick snap after I picked it up at the rental shop. So it's obviously not the last word in terms of quality ...
I don't expect it to outperform the (different mounts) competition, but it costs more... But who knows.
I suppose diffraction will take its toll at 500mm but it'll be surely as good as the 100-400L IS II.
Hmmh, either I had a very bad day or this is a bad copy ... (or it's a coke bottle > 300mm)
(11-08-2020, 11:36 AM)Klaus Wrote: [ -> ]Hmmh, either I had a very bad day or this is a bad copy ... (or it's a coke bottle > 300mm)
Sounds like a bad copy considering the images I have seen with it ....
It is a rental, you said?
Kind regards, Wim
It's a rental but it's basically new and it looks pristine.
I've only taken field images so far (other than bokeh tests). I can spot a single sharp image at 400mm (out of 20ish). At 500mm things feels soft.
Anyway, I will do the MTFs soon.
There must be an issue with the lens (or camera if it is softness from OOF), as other reviews of the lens do not note AF or softness issues.
https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_rf_100_500mm_f4_5_7_1_l_is_usm_review/conclusion
https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-100-500mm-f4-5-7-1l-is-usm-review/2/