Відео

I can't assign the zoom function button on r62

I've been really enjoying your ambience uploads! I moved from Maryland to Los Angeles many years ago and I've been missing the cicada songs. Do you think you would ever consider making longer-format videos?

I have both the 100/400 Mk 2 and the new RF 100/400. and its really all about 2 things weight and price. Ive been using a 5D mk 4 and an 80D for the crop factor. Now Ive gone mirrorless and have an R8. and the crop sensor R100. The ONLY reason for me changing was the weight, im no 76 bad arthritis in both hands. The new RF combo against the old EF is H U G E , its half the weight and half the price. Now along with the MK2 70/200 f2.8 the 2 EF lenses are almost unbeatable by any other lens system. I have the ef/RF converters, but that defeats the weight problem as both lenses are heavy. Both the R8 and R100 are unbeleivably small, looking like toys by comparison, but the R8 packs in a huge amount of modern tech, Im not so worried about the R100 as basically i only use it for the crop factor increase with the 100/400. The weight diffference does make a difference in how often i will use it , its so easy to hand hold and can be used for much longer ( for me ). I did worry about the different aperture ranges and so far its not been a real factor , but im sure it will happen. The image stabilisation is great, more so on the new RF version. The real difference is chromatic abberation, which frankly on the new RF version is Terrible as is the shorter 24/105 version, even with lightroom i cant get rid of all of it. Image quality is excellent almost unbeatable with the EF version, even with the mk 3 1.4 converter fitted . Unfortunately it cant be used on the RF version, you need to buy that specific version ( expensive !) I went on a safari , a small group of 7 , 2 of which had the Canon mk 1 version 100-400, cant compete with the mk 2 and there is a huge improvement with the 1.4 converters between the mk 2. and. mk 3. I do do believe the mk 3 converter was designed with both the 70/200 f2.8 and the 100/400 mk 2 in mind. I cant tell the difference with it fitted or not. The newer RF 10-400 has more than acceptable quality , but is not comparible to the older EF version, which is staggering. At twice the price it should be. If your fit and weight is no problem there is no choice, Go for the EF .I found having to add the converter to the old EF lenses a bit unwieldly and wont fit attached in most camera bags. Now i have a few camera bags so yes it will fit in say my Lowpro 400, but i dont want that on a daily hike preferring the 300 version. The larger bags i use for getting to my destination, then transfer what i need to a smaller bag on a daily basis.

Holy hell, give this man his Play Button already UA-cam! Add some music and you're going to give Christopher Frost a run for his money.

Fantastic review. Thank you so much! Excellent in every way.

You got a Link or What's the product called for the Wind Cover on top of camera microphone?

Great info! I think as a newbie hobbyist to DSLR, 100-400 gen 1 should be good enough.

Yo pensaba que el sigma 18 35 era muy superior a las lentes rfs por ser de la linea art ... estaba pensando en adquirirlo pero ahora no se si sea una buena opción 😢

Good work. Thanks for the job

Circle of life

poor caterpillar

Wow - this is an exceptional review of these lenses, the best of all the others I have ever reviewed. It is an excellent guide to anyone seeking to buy any of these lenses. I own the RF 100-400, it was a good way to start BIF, but I ultimately bough the EF100-400 MK II for the fabulous build quality, AF and lens stabilization. The inability to use and travel with the RF100-500 using extenders was unacceptable. It would be a painful daily hassle to constantly having to mount and remove extenders when needed. The EF 100-400 MK II has no such problem, and you can leave the extenders mounted during travel. Thank you for the wonderful work, I have clicked LIKE and Subscribe because you have done such an excellent job.

Thanks for sharing! What ef adapter did u used - Commlite? I also wonder, does R7 IBIS works well with old Ef s zooms like Tamron 17-50 or Sigma? And off course how it works with Speedbooster and 16-35 ii?

Interesting timing. I just purchased my first vintage "bargain" lens from KEH last week. I've avoided buying anything but top condition lenses from KEH in the past because you can't see photos of the exact lens, but in this case, they had the precise lens I wanted and nobody else did. I got pretty much what you did. Moderate, acceptable, wear on the lens body and very clean optics. I'm thrilled with it. And, there was simply no way that lens would have been in my budget in better condition. A year or so ago, I ordered an "ugly" spot meter attachment for my Sekonic light meter, after calling and asking if they had any information on exactly what was wrong with it. I crossed my fingers and bought it - and it came up in absolutely mint condition - there is a dark spot in the center of the image, but it's part of the design, not an optical flaw. So ... I got a win there for sure.

Those are some really good close ups you have. Beautiful birds and squirrel

Fast question for Canon R8 RF100-400 or EF100-400 Mark 1? Footbal and 1-2 times in year airshow.

Pity though that the RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 is now selling for 3349 euro, of the equivalent of about 3650 US$. It is a great little machine, but not sure of they are *that* great. They are even becoming gradually more expensive with time. No fun anymore.

This digital zoom only work for video? Can i used digital zoom in Photography too?

Very useful information, and well documented. Can't an extender be used with the "RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM" model? Can only crop mode be used on a Cano R as a way of expansion?

Thanks for this well balanced review. I was struggling between the used copy of EF100-400 II and RF100-500, and I already have the RF100-400 which I enjoy using for birds around my living quarters. The problem with the RF100-400 is that when it rains, I don't dare to bring it out as it lacks the water sealing, and that the other two has a small advantage of letting in a little more light, besides a lot better built wiith weather protection. With your review, I am more inclined to get the EF100-400 II

Laptop???

Truly excellent work. Thank you. I have the RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 - a local vendor had a sale going, and I got a used one for $400 US. 'nuff said. I also find the size/weight shockingly good. The one time I've had an issue was shooting an osprey at the limit of the lens's range wide open on an R7. There was enough "glow" that I didn't care for any of the shots. Later testing showed me that stopping down from f/8 to f/11 gave me razor clarity - and in bright sunlight, that was OK. That issue was not apparent at all with the less dense sensor on the EOS-R I used to use the lens with. At that price, I have less than nothing to complain about! At some point, I might go for one of the more expensive options, but whenever I think I'm going to pull the trigger on that, I keep coming back to that light weight and small size. So far, I'm still using it.

In the last experiment comparing optical zoom to digital zoom, it would be fun to adjust the iso to keep the same exposure level on both cameras and see how similar they are. I bet they are very close. it looks like canon is cropping the sensor to achieve the zoom which is good because it means up until about 4x zoom, it's still optical zoom in a way. Also, there goes the only advantage of having an APS-C camera against a full frame camera. Well done canon!

Can you compare them with the sigma ef 150-600???

Hay quá anh ỏi👍👏🇻🇳🔔🇻🇳🔔

For birding, I love my R7 with RF 100-500 zoom. While I can't speak to the Canon EF lenses, I experienced "focus pulsing" with the EF 100-400 Vi DC from Tamron and the 150-600C from Sigma, and others have described similar with some older Canon lenses, perhaps because the AF has trouble keeping up? In any case, I am thrillred with my setup for birds and wildlife: the dual focus motors are fast and accurate, the OIS works well with the R7 IBIS, the minimum focus distance (MFD) is less than 1m at all focus lengths, and the image quality is simply spectacular. In my experience, the 1.4x TC doesn't compromise AF, image quality, or MFD, and the weather resistance is a comfort. If you can manage the price, I am sure you will be pleased,

Excellent work. My take, if you have a R7 or similar and are on a budget, get the RF100-400. If you have loads of dough, get the RF 100-500. The end. And thank you for doing this!

I drove by it today, I think the ship's name is Gary I. Gordon. Very cool video with a great view of a ship passing under the Key Bridge that is now gone.

Great review and all fair points. The one you undersold was the weight of the RF100-400. It deserved a section too. I went for the 100-400 II L as the mounting options were great with extenders and mounts not to mention the deals one gets on the used market. £800 for a mint if you are patient otherwise it’s £1k.

Nice and beautiful video.Thanks for sharing & big like

Beautiful Eagle 🥰

What’s the point of testing lenses made for full frame cameras on an APS-C sensor, specially when want to find out image quality differences?

Very nice review. I’m sure you did this, but I wish you had mentioned that you updated all firmware on both bodies and lenses before testing. I recall that the RF 1-5 had firmware updates that specifically addressed IS behaviors.

I’m on a serious budget right now and have a m50 and a r50. Use the r50 mostly. With the 100-400 RF. The price jump is holding me back to the 500. But the lack of tripod collar is probably slightly messing with my tracking mount for Astro photos. Really useful video. Thanks again such a detailed analysis.

Congratulation! I look for this kind comparation so much! Do you have any news about of use 300mmf4IS in mirroless cameras? I have my, most of time with 1,4sigma extender. I”d consider chance my 7D for R7, but keep my okd lens.

8:20 Thank you for shortening the names for the sake of your voice and our sanity and it looks like I am buying the Mark 1 its sharp enough for my use and that price is do able.

This single test is interesting, but not sufficient. What if a filter substantially cuts wind noise, but also does so to all sound waves? I'd suggest some kind of a repeatable test that would help get a better idea of signal to noise ratio, such as playing a recording somewhere near while blowing air at the microphone.

Superb Bro! Well explained, completely with putting too much of time and effort to produce such a good information to viewers. Good Job bro keep the good work.

Great video! Thank you

Thanks very well done scientific review. If I had to nitpick, I would onlybadd to include the distance to subjects on the video, I think you mentioned in audio. I find distance is very important, as many lenses will do fine at 5m, but less so at 10m or 20m (reality when shooting birds, not always close). Lastly, for your flare test, I imagine they were done without hood, since the audio says the hood can fix this (though nice if written on video), which is nice since I am lazy to carry/put hood though I think often improves quality. Regardless, thanks again for very thourough comparison!. For my next wish, I would like to learn more about the 800mm f11 less as this could be the "long hike" lens compromise (If one owned the 100-500, the 600 would be less of an advantage)

I have the R7 and used my trusty EF 400mm F5.6 L. Mostly for birds. It works great except that you dont get the full 30 FPS. I then got a used EF 100-400 L ii. Very impressed, even with 1.4x iii. I got both for $1000. I will sell both for the RF 100-500 soon I think. But in no hurry

Much appreciate the group test here, very useful and particularly thorough. Do you have any experience with the Sigma 100-400 f/5.6-6.3?

Awesome detailed review. Surprised to learn that the IS on the ef100-400 ii out performs the rf100-500. I use the ef100-400 ii with my Canon r3, and one of my complaints is the IS often is a second or two too slow to settle. I'm torn about upgrading to the 100-500, the f7.1 aperture doesn't have me excited. Based on other reviews I was under the impression the IS on the rf100-500 was rock solid.

Great info, well-organized! Thank you!

No venia incluido un cortaunñas en la mochila?

Thank you very much mate for saving me 150$.

beautiful thanks for sharing.

Just the video I need. Thanks. I can't see a difference between ef 100-400mm II and rf 100-500mm at 400mm. What is your opinion? Is there a difference in video outputs?

Nice video. Wish you can post more video on EF 100-400mm II vs RF 100-500mmL.

good video, but a WARNING, most manfrotto and other tripod columns use a screw jam locking feature, you need to raise the column FIRST to see if a locking screw is present (manfrotto 190/ 058 & 075 studio tripods), the aforementioned models use a ratchet tooth design on the ball or gear head base, the screw jams the head here, to stop it turning off during use!!- you need to losten the screw/s until 1-2mm show below the flange on the column, then the tapered pencil tip is retracted safely, so you can then exchange heads, without damaging the head, or screw.