I've never heard of any problem with weather sealing with the 100-500L. If you're thinking of an extendable lens vs a fixed internal lens, it's been documented by others (lensrentals etc) that it's not a problem. As for personal experience, back when the R5 came out I got the 70-200 f2.8L on a tripod to take photo quality videos of hummingbirds (a poor mans motion trap since Canon is too dense to offer motion trap firmware), and once I forgot it and left it in a downpour for ten or so minutes - but there was absolutely no problem with it. All my subsequent use with it (or other extending RF lenses) has had absolutely no issues, and I've come to love the shorter/lighter size and wouldn't want a fixed internal zoom version if it was longer & heavier. As far as TC's go, I don't want to use them due to loss of IQ and the availability of cropping and good up-rezing software available, but for those that use TCs then I could see that being an issue. And keep in mind that pushing optical quality/size/weight to the max limits is why that RF designed lens has the back optics so close to the sensor that the old-style TCs had no room to be inserted - a brilliant tradeoff for me.
I'm just referring to it being an extending zoom which absolutely impacts sealing for water and dust. I've personally had no issues.
Yes, having a TC on the 100-500L precludes being able to fully retract the lens, so unless you remove that 2x TC you are stuck carrying a lens that's...still 3 cm shorter than the proposed internal zoom 100-500.
As stated above, that misconception has been debunked by Roger Cicala, and given that he's disassembled more lenses than most of us will even touch in our lives, I trust his judgement on the matter.
Awfully similar to the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 though, perhaps a 300-800mm f/4-5.6 instead but that'll be very expensive of course
Roger is the man, but I certainly don't enjoy using any extending lens with a rain cover or in inclement weather at all. I guess I'm the only one who thinks the design is a liability? Something feels wrong about having water on the lens barrel and then zooming back in to me that I just wont do it, no matter what.
Weather sealing is fine on external zooms but sand and salt can be problematic as I found on the EF 100-400 ii I used to have, however using a raincover like the Lenscoat one I use protects them just fine at beaches and estuaries
You are not the only one, just one of many who think that their opinion outweighs evidence and direct observation.
You're not the only one - there are many who share your view and for reasons that seem obvious to them. Roger's testing surprised me, but made me much happier with my moving design lenses to see careful testing proof on the subject. But when it is raining, I tend to not take photos. In the times I really want a unique (to me) photo in a drizzle or rain I will go ahead and take it quickly and carefully and I no longer worry about a telescoping or fixed design. Just as I wouldn't want to take photos on the beach with the wind blowing sand into the air - I just wouldn't do that with any design of lens.
It’s a personal choice. I’ve spent plenty of time using extending L-series zooms in the rain with no issues. The foam sealing ‘squeegees’ the water off the barrel as it is retracted.
Just have to think about seals on hydraulic rams which easily stop low viscosity oil at a pressure differential of 3000 psi from leaking from a sliding cylindrical mechanism or motorcycle front forks which do this at a lower pressure but at high speeds
That is good to know; I'll check out 'Uncle Rog'. I've not had any problem with dust in mine. As far as f7.1, I mainly shoot birds, usually at distances of less than 4 or 5 meters, so I need some depth of field to get the whole bird in sharp focus and am perfectly happy with f7.1. If the light is low, I'll use ISO 800 or even 1600 and if sharpening in post is needed due to cropping, I use Topaz Photo AI to clean up any grain and get a crisp result.
No no no!
Never had an issue with my beloved and still internally mostly clean EF 100-400 L II, despite using it under quitte adverse conditions (rain-unprotected in Scotland, dust and sand in Western US States, snow in Norway). But psychology rules...
I’m probably an outlier, but I’d prefer the 100-300/2.8 as an extending zoom to save on space in the bag. Regardless, it’s a stellar lens and while I was initially disappointed Canon launched a zoom instead of an RF 300/2.8 prime I ended up really benefiting from the flexibility of the zoom. Plus it makes a great 140-420/4 zoom for outdoor use.
Agreed, however my 100-500 has severe zoom creep. It's starting to creep even on "tight" now, kind of defeating the point.
Anecdotally, I’ve seen over the years several used prime (non-extending) L lenses advertised as having fungus but I don’t recall any L extending zooms. Could be many reasons for that, of course, including the primes being abused more by owners who think that their weather resistance means weather proof and the zoom owners not letting theirs get wet. But, the fact is that all lenses get ingress of dust, and WEX’s description of their used lenses invariably includes the disclaimer that there is dust that won’t affect the image.
