I got the 100-400 RF just last week. Though I haven't used it extensively yet, it is a great lens given the price. AF works amazingly (on my RP - I can imagine on an R5/R6 it would be even better, especially with the animal tracking etc) and it is reasonably sharp (agreed about stepping down at least a stop). As long as the buyer knows that they will be using this outdoors with reasonable light it's a great option and quite useful. It compliments my 24-105 F4 and 35mm STM macro nicely. Now I need a new bag haha
Nice to hear that. I am in a very similar situation. Both the 100-400m Rf for RP and waiting for it to be shipped soon as addition to my humlble set of 24-105 STM and 50mm 1.8. As a beginner I feel spending 2200$ on my camera and lenses is justified and not over the top
I got the 100-400, it was - as much as I wanted/could afford to spend. It is MUCH (imho) physically lighter than the 100-500 (as well as the lightness on the budget). The amount of usage I have for a lens of this range, for me very much in the desirable rather than essential category . I’m using on the EOS R and the results are every bit as good as I hoped for.
After owning the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II and dealing with its weight that meant I rarely took it hiking I decided to buy the RF 100-400mm f5.6-7.1 IS USM lens. I don’t know what the sample variation is like but I’ve found it’s sharp in the centre from 100 to 400mm. It’s not sharp in the corners but liveable for most situations. The Nano motor is fast and the AF between this and my R6 is snappy and way quicker than the EF 100-400mm lens I had before it. The real bonus for me is I can carry this in my medium sized camera back pack along with one body, a RF 20-105mm f4L, RF 70-200mm f4L, RF 50mm f1.8 and RF 16mm f2.8 my filters, water bottle, batteries etc and not break my 68year old back doing it something I could never do with the EF 100-400mm. When I concentrate on wildlife I can turn to the RF 100-500mm but it’s the only lens in the bag.
Nice! Sounds like a wonderful option hiking. I am about your age and often carry the 100-400 4.5-5.6 ii. I know about the back!! I have an ancient cheapo EF 75-300 that I carry sometimes when I really am not expecting to photograph anything, but as a "just in case"! It weighs next to nothing, but isn't a very good lens. Better than nothing!
It’s still on my “nice to have but won’t get many uses” category. For it’s size and price, it’s very tempting, but with my R5 and 70-200 f/2.8 lens, I can still crop in and get essentially a 112-320mm focal length lens at a faster aperture. Still tempted though
The RF 100-400 is actually lighter than the RF 24-105 f/4 L. My wife and I took a supported hiking trip (featuring a bus transfer to each day's trailhead) with a travel group last year. While on the trails, I only carried my iPhone 13 Pro and my Canon R6 with the RF 100-400. With the phone, I could get 13mm, 26mm, and 77mm images, and 100-400mm with the camera. It worked well enough for high-light situations, and the lighter weight and not having to take the time to change lenses were appreciated. For morning and evening shots before and after hiking, I had my L glass. It ended up being a good compromise for my purposes, as it was not a paying gig. That being the case, the RF 100-500 is considerably more likely to help capture images with higher quality under a wider range of conditions.
For me, the 100-400 is just fine! I use it mainly for airplane photography, but 400mm is usefull in street photography too. Its also amaizingly light. Its a good lens for my type of stuff, although if my bank account magically gets a boost of 3000€, ill probably get the L series :). Great video!
I have the RF 100-500. I mostly shoot birds and love the lens. I have ordered an R7 to get more reach. I am seriously considering buying the 100-400mm for travel though. It’s 640mm equivalent on the crop sensor of the R7. Currently I mostly use a M43 system for travel. Occasionally I take my R6 and 100-500 but that requires a much larger bag to fit 2 or 3 bodies and 3 lenses into. I believe that with the R7 and 100-400 I could use my M43 travel bag which allows me to put it under an airline seat and still put both feet under there on each side of the bag.
I watched your review of the Fuji 16-80mm and ordered is from KEH recently of course it was a used lens marked as (E-) but after going out and shooting with it on my XT3 I was disappointed at the long end softness especially on the right side of the lens, it looked fine on the wide end and it was slow to focus on the XT3 body. I decided to return it eventually. Strangely I did compare it to my 18-135mm Fuji lens I used this lens for a while and the images from this lens where sharper even at the long end and it is a variable aperture lens. Anyway I enjoy your reviews are well detailed and concise. Thank you.
When using the EF version of the 100-400ii, will the Image stabilization work in conjunction with the IBIS of the R6 ? I bought the cheap RF and so far the only deal breaker for me is the Aperture for my type of photos, it’s why I’m looking at the old version as an alternative, because the new version it’s just way above my budget.
Gordon Laing did a good comparison between the RF100-500 vs EF100-400 F5.6mk2 they were pretty much on par with each other. So another option instead of getting the cheap RF 100-400 get a second hand EF version which is a much better quality lens or even a new one is cheaper. The pricing of R lenses are just ridiculous one reason I'm looking to Nikon and even the Olympus OM-1 for light weight wildlife. Sony also is a better option with a A7IV paired to 200-600mm. Perhaps I could even adapt MC11 the Canon lens on the A7IV but you can't adapt an RF to Sony.
everyone says the corners aren't sharp in the corners on the 100-400 but they look damn sharp to me and the average person isn't going to notice anyway
Looking for a zoom lens for photographing landscapes, not so much into photographing wildlife as yet, maybe in the future. Anyone can recommend a zoom lens for sunrise, sunset landscapes photography?
Thank you, Dustin, very interesting comparison here. I'd maybe also suggest the old but gold EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM (with adapter) as an alternative to the RF 100-500L. One can save a couple of hundred dollars (or even more with a second hand EF version). The EF 100-400L works fully with the EF extenders (1.4x and 2x).
It's a little annoying that the EF to RF adapter doesn't actually fit onto the RF extenders. The hole in the EF to RF adapter isn't wide enough for some reason.
@@Knowbody42 There’s a video on UA-cam of someone who used a file and made the hole bigger to accommodate the RF extenders with EF glass. Works perfectly. I’m sure you could find it if you searched 😊
Thank you so much! This was just the video I was looking for to help me with research on lenses for my Canon EOS R5 camera. I want the L series so bad, I'm saving, so we'll see. 🤷🏾♀️
@Dustin Abbott Me too, I'm very excited about getting my new gear. I've been watching so many videos on settings and everything else, so when I do get it, I don't feel overwhelmed
Somehow i find the pricing of the RF L lenses atrocious. The 100-500 is priced atleast 1000$ more than what it should be. The problem is there are still people willing to pay for it. Am still hanging on to my 80D although the R7 looks sexy. Will move to mirroless once we have enough lense option from Sigma and Tamron. If that is not happening in a year then it's Sony all the way .
Agreed, I picked up an eos-r when they first came out and I love the 24-105 f4. But the prices of their RF zooms combined with how slow the apertures are has me seriously debating moving to Fuji. Love my old x-t20, and I’m wondering how much nicer a proper Fuji would feel.
100-500L is expensive even 2nd hand in HK so I am hoping Canon introduce a mk2 that push its price down in the next couple years. I've sold the Tamron EF 100-400 for RF100-400. Other than the lack of weather sealing. Small aperture prevents it from low light action photography, but that's expected. Everything else I'm pleased with. Handheld 1/40 at 400mm in indoors is something no other full frame solution can do. Maybe 70-350/70-300 on a7r3/a7r4/a1 crop mode.
While it's obvious that the RF 100-400 lens is very small, light, and a greatly less expensive lens in this comparison, the RF 100-500L lens is actually quite compact and light lens in comparison with other long zooms, such as the EF 100-400, 3rd party 150 -600 and 200-600, etc. long zooms. Canon should be recognized for making the 100-500L reasonably easy to hand hold for a long zoom lens.
It is definitely true that the lens is reasonably compact for the focal range. Unfortunately Cannon has accomplished that in part by the lens being such a small maximum aperture on the telephoto end
I have the RF100-400 and the EF 70-300L. I can't afford the RF 100-500, but I really like the 100-400. What I find to be interesting is that the EF 70-300L can be cropped to around 400 mm and still looks better than the non L lens. But I've never thought that the RF 100-400 wasn't good enough. And the IS is noticeably better on the RF lens. I'll just be happy to have both. Just wish the RF 100-400 was 75-400 instead, because I love taking my EF17-40 out with the EF 70-300. The gap is not noticed at 70mm but 100 mm is too much. Maybe we will see an RF 70-300?
Out of interest, do you feel like it is worthwhile to keep both lenses, or would you be selling one soon? I have the EF 70-300L myself, and I was curious as to whether it would make sense to trade it for the non-L RF lens. It's a bit cumbersome when used on an RF body with the adaptor, but as you say, the image quality is really rather nice and after seeing the RF100-400's samples, I'm not convinced I wouldn't regret the trade.
@@colinjudge1261 I recommend keeping the EF 70-300 L. That lens is so good. I literally love it on my RP and my 70D, and it almost always travels with my EF 17-40 (FF) or my Sigma 18-35 f1.8 on my crop sensor cameras. I don't think I will ever sell the 70-300. Plus it fits in my bag attached to the camera or upright by itself (you don't have to lay it down like most telephoto lenses). The RF 100-400 is great for when you want to travel light though. I don't regret either one! But the 70-300 is in another league, and it holds f4.0 out to 150 mm which is why I don't have a 70-200 f4. But yes, I am keeping both. I think you should too. They are different enough. And the RF 100-400 makes a really nice travel kit with the RF 24-105 (either version L or non L), I went the cheap route so as to afford both RF lenses. I have the EF 24-105 f4 L so I can use that for better IQ and a brighter lens. I'm waiting for Sigma or Tamron to make an RF mount 24-70 f2.8 though.
@@johnherzel718 Thanks so much for that great reply! I'll likely not go for the RF lens unless I find myself really missing the 70-300 on the occasions I can't take it. I recently bought the RF24-105L as my "travel lens", while my RF28-70 is my workhorse beast. Obviously, travel has been a little curtailed recently, so it's not a great time to make the most use of a travel lens, but I have found that I've barely touched the 24-105, always opting to just put up with the weight and carry the Canon-ball because I love the images it produces! In all likelihood, Canon will release an RF version of 70-300L in the next couple of years. If it can do what the RF70-200s did and make a significant size and weight saving without compromising image quality, that'll be when I bite the bullet and fork out the cash. By the way, do you use half-stops for apertures values? The 70-300L only holds f/4.0 until approx 100mm, then it's f/4.5 until 150mm, f/5.0 until 225mm, and finally f/5.6 for the remainder.
@@colinjudge1261 your correct, it is f4.5 @ 150mm. I had to check. I wonder how I got that wrong 🤣. But it doesn't change my opinion of the 70-300. As an unrelated side note I would love to try the RF 28-70 f2, but that's even further out of my budget. Maybe I will rent it...
@@johnherzel718 Be careful about renting it. I rented it, and the next thing I knew I was buying it 😂. Very dangerous for your bank account. But seriously, it is a remarkable lens, if you shoot in that range. I previously owned the EF 24-70 f/2.8L ii, and while it was a very competent lens, I was never excited to use it, because nothing about the rendering really impressed me. I checked my shots in Lightroom and found that I truly almost never shot wider than 28mm, so I knew I wouldn't be sacrificing anything if I switched. Now, having shot with the 28-70 f/2 for over 2 years, I can say that if the price and the weight are not issues, it's basically perfect. It really is like having half a dozen prime lenses attached to your camera. Colours and contrast are wonderful, the bokeh transition is very nice, and from f/2.5 it gives an extremely sharp and well corrected image. Wide open it can show a little (but not a lot) of CA, relatively strong vignetting (though you might actually enjoy the effect), and slightly reduced sharpness. The overall effect, though, makes it excellent as a portrait lens, avoiding looking clinically "perfect". I shoot about 90% of my work with either the 28-70 f/2, or the EF 100mm f/2.8L. Two very special lenses.
Low light for this kind of high aperture lens is disastrious when doing birding etc. So it can be great on fine days, on overcast days it's not recommended. Usable, but difficult.
thanks, you said pretty much what I figured but sometimes you just have to hear it from an expert ☺ I went with the 100-400 and I'm loving it as a beginner.. and I will work on my skills while I save up for the 100-500.
I rented RF 100-500 L and the image quality is spectacular. It is very hard to find RAW files for RF 100-400. I found a few and the image quality looks like from a cheap kit lens. It is clearly evident on my 55 inch OLED display through Capture One Pro software. Thank you Dustin for another great comparison and I won't be getting the RF 100-400. You have saved me time and money.
Why, exactly? These are the two telephoto zooms available on the platform. People are cross shopping them even if the price point is significantly different.
I bought an 100 400 RF lens, as I now have an R6, I used to have a 90D paired with a 70 300L, I sold the 70 300L because I had to for reasons at the time, and I sold the 90D to buy the R6, the combination of the R6 and the RF 100 400 vs the 90D with the 70 300L is poor for what I was using it for, I'm not happy with the RF 100 400 and I'm going to sell it, I'd rather not try to struggle with it, knowing that I had older cheaper gear that was better for air shows than what I have now. I got an R6 for low light performance and it kills the 90D in that regard, maybe adapt an ef 100 400 II, can't afford the big boy 100 500 RF yet, bit of a bummer really. But the bottom line is that it's a cheap lens, and for me it shows.
The 70-300L is a MUCH better lens than this one. You probably would be much happier with the EF 100-400L II if you can't afford the 100-500L (which many can't!)
How much does the image quality of the 100-500 L help with its worse magnification ratio when compared to the 100-400? Perhaps they would produce similar results on a high res body from an image quality perspective
I have never seen a canon consumer lens rival an L lens in sharpness at wide open aperture. Also to pixel peepers like me, i suggest you only zoom in at 50% with the cheaper lens 🤣
Why do you keep swapping information about the 100-400? You data is titled "EF" with "RF" information. The EF is NOT f4.5 to f5.6 as you indicate. Your title says it's RF 100-400 vs RF 100-500L, but the price you quote is for the "EF" 100-400. This is a terrible review.
One thing that I find annoying on RF 100-400 is that camera (RP in my case) can't focus while you're turning the zooming wheel- it made me miss quite a few shots! It doesn't happen with EF mount lenses including 100-400L and 70-200L... Wondering if it happens to RF 100-500?
I had collected over time the RF 100-400, RF 800mm F11 and even used the sigma 150-600 C (really doesn't work properly adapted for RF cameras) for a bit. Although the 100-400 is pretty good, feels cheap and nasty and its weak away from the centre of the frame, and the R5 really highlights its weaknesses... in the end I sold them all and got the RF 100-500. Not a decision I have regretted either :D
Have heard a lot about the 150-600 (would love Canon to make something like this!) I don't own one so don't know, but some have said that doing a firmware update on the lens helps????
the rf 100-400 true value is $1,200 USD. After buying one from the store, it will feel like you have made a robbery. Also, a crop sensor camera (R7) is using only the very sharp center portion of the lens. What else can I ask for that kind of money.
Thanks for the excellent reviews Dustin! I'm curious how you would compare this lens on an RP or R6 to Canon's 55-250mm STM on one of their 24mp bodies. Would it be a noticeable upgrade in terms of image quality?
@@DustinAbbottTWI 99% of my telephoto photography is landscape, so AF performance is of relatively low importance to me. Appreciate the response, thank you.
I guess everyone could figure out that a $3,000 lens is definitely better than a $650. Not sure these "comparison videos" make any sense, primarily when obviously conclusions are stretched for almost 10 minutes. Sorry for being direct. Regards, Stefano
In general people actually really appreciate comparison videos, because, believe it or not, there are many people who want to know if the cheaper lens is "good enough". I try to spend a little time detailing what is and is not good enough so people can make an informed decision.
I found the comparison helpful. In fact, it pushed me to yesterday buy the 100-500, because I like the idea of peak performance at wide open apertures, which I hadn't expected. Thanks for the push, Duncan, as my initial results confirm your assessment. I can't wait to go owl "hunting" this week :)
Not caring for the fact that Canon has no middle ground for a lot of their lineup. The 100-500 is excellent, very but pricy. The 100-400 is a consumer lens, slow, and not something I would want. Starting from new, I would go with Nikon, but Sony is looking excellent also. I am still using a 6D, and would not want to give up my 300 f4. An old lens, but excellent. Yes, I could adapt. I would consider a Nikon Z6II and an S 24-120 but keeping only the 6D and 300 lens. At any rate, really enjoying your excellent and honest reviews. Yours are the best reviews.
A 10-400mm lens would be amazing.
I'd like a 8-1200mm/f2
@@sulev111 that weighs 1kg
LOL - yes it would!
@@sulev111 good luck if you go hiking 🤣
Nikon do a 24-3000 on a bridge camera
I got the 100-400 RF just last week. Though I haven't used it extensively yet, it is a great lens given the price. AF works amazingly (on my RP - I can imagine on an R5/R6 it would be even better, especially with the animal tracking etc) and it is reasonably sharp (agreed about stepping down at least a stop). As long as the buyer knows that they will be using this outdoors with reasonable light it's a great option and quite useful. It compliments my 24-105 F4 and 35mm STM macro nicely. Now I need a new bag haha
Fair feedback, for sure.
Nice to hear that. I am in a very similar situation. Both the 100-400m Rf for RP and waiting for it to be shipped soon as addition to my humlble set of 24-105 STM and 50mm 1.8. As a beginner I feel spending 2200$ on my camera and lenses is justified and not over the top
i grabbed 100 to 400 because of price just cant afford a 2k lense yet but i think its gonna get the job done i wanna use it at indoor sporting events!
I'm so happy to see this comment. These exact 3 lenses are the ones that I'm considering to get along with an R6II
@@profvvv😊
I bought the RF 100-400 for taking wildlife videos for which it works very well.
Glad to hear it.
I got the 100-400, it was - as much as I wanted/could afford to spend. It is MUCH (imho) physically lighter than the 100-500 (as well as the lightness on the budget). The amount of usage I have for a lens of this range, for me very much in the desirable rather than essential category . I’m using on the EOS R and the results are every bit as good as I hoped for.
That's great.
After owning the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II and dealing with its weight that meant I rarely took it hiking I decided to buy the RF 100-400mm f5.6-7.1 IS USM lens. I don’t know what the sample variation is like but I’ve found it’s sharp in the centre from 100 to 400mm. It’s not sharp in the corners but liveable for most situations. The Nano motor is fast and the AF between this and my R6 is snappy and way quicker than the EF 100-400mm lens I had before it. The real bonus for me is I can carry this in my medium sized camera back pack along with one body, a RF 20-105mm f4L, RF 70-200mm f4L, RF 50mm f1.8 and RF 16mm f2.8 my filters, water bottle, batteries etc and not break my 68year old back doing it something I could never do with the EF 100-400mm.
When I concentrate on wildlife I can turn to the RF 100-500mm but it’s the only lens in the bag.
The lightness of the lens is a definite advantage.
Nice! Sounds like a wonderful option hiking. I am about your age and often carry the 100-400 4.5-5.6 ii. I know about the back!! I have an ancient cheapo EF 75-300 that I carry sometimes when I really am not expecting to photograph anything, but as a "just in case"! It weighs next to nothing, but isn't a very good lens. Better than nothing!
It’s still on my “nice to have but won’t get many uses” category. For it’s size and price, it’s very tempting, but with my R5 and 70-200 f/2.8 lens, I can still crop in and get essentially a 112-320mm focal length lens at a faster aperture. Still tempted though
Everyone has different needs, for sure.
The RF 100-400 is actually lighter than the RF 24-105 f/4 L. My wife and I took a supported hiking trip (featuring a bus transfer to each day's trailhead) with a travel group last year. While on the trails, I only carried my iPhone 13 Pro and my Canon R6 with the RF 100-400. With the phone, I could get 13mm, 26mm, and 77mm images, and 100-400mm with the camera. It worked well enough for high-light situations, and the lighter weight and not having to take the time to change lenses were appreciated. For morning and evening shots before and after hiking, I had my L glass. It ended up being a good compromise for my purposes, as it was not a paying gig.
That being the case, the RF 100-500 is considerably more likely to help capture images with higher quality under a wider range of conditions.
Interesting feedback, Dane.
For me, the 100-400 is just fine! I use it mainly for airplane photography, but 400mm is usefull in street photography too. Its also amaizingly light. Its a good lens for my type of stuff, although if my bank account magically gets a boost of 3000€, ill probably get the L series :). Great video!
LOL - that's probably true for us all.
Would love to see a comparison of the Canon RF 100-400 with the Tamron 100-400 4.5-6.3
Unfortunately I have neither lens on hand right now.
Ditto
the RF 100-400 makes a lot of sense when I get my Canon R7..
That will be an interesting application, to be sure.
I have the RF 100-500. I mostly shoot birds and love the lens. I have ordered an R7 to get more reach. I am seriously considering buying the 100-400mm for travel though. It’s 640mm equivalent on the crop sensor of the R7. Currently I mostly use a M43 system for travel. Occasionally I take my R6 and 100-500 but that requires a much larger bag to fit 2 or 3 bodies and 3 lenses into. I believe that with the R7 and 100-400 I could use my M43 travel bag which allows me to put it under an airline seat and still put both feet under there on each side of the bag.
Sounds like a reasonable plan
That is what I did. I take the 100-400mm on trips where birding isn't the main focus so that I can still bird a little.
I watched your review of the Fuji 16-80mm and ordered is from KEH recently of course it was a used lens marked as (E-) but after going out and shooting with it on my XT3 I was disappointed at the long end softness especially on the right side of the lens, it looked fine on the wide end and it was slow to focus on the XT3 body. I decided to return it eventually. Strangely I did compare it to my 18-135mm Fuji lens I used this lens for a while and the images from this lens where sharper even at the long end and it is a variable aperture lens. Anyway I enjoy your reviews are well detailed and concise. Thank you.
When using the EF version of the 100-400ii, will the Image stabilization work in conjunction with the IBIS of the R6 ? I bought the cheap RF and so far the only deal breaker for me is the Aperture for my type of photos, it’s why I’m looking at the old version as an alternative, because the new version it’s just way above my budget.
I think the answer is yes to some degree, though frankly there is little difference when you add the IBIS to a lens with stabilization already.
Very interesting review, even for those not in the market for Canon long glass.
Thanks, Robert
Gordon Laing did a good comparison between the RF100-500 vs EF100-400 F5.6mk2 they were pretty much on par with each other. So another option instead of getting the cheap RF 100-400 get a second hand EF version which is a much better quality lens or even a new one is cheaper. The pricing of R lenses are just ridiculous one reason I'm looking to Nikon and even the Olympus OM-1 for light weight wildlife. Sony also is a better option with a A7IV paired to 200-600mm. Perhaps I could even adapt MC11 the Canon lens on the A7IV but you can't adapt an RF to Sony.
The 100-400L II remains a good option.
Tamron also can make same 100-400mm even lighter for Nikon, Sony and other brands camera.
True.
everyone says the corners aren't sharp in the corners on the 100-400 but they look damn sharp to me and the average person isn't going to notice anyway
As long as you're happy...that's what matters the most. It's your money.
Looking for a zoom lens for photographing landscapes, not so much into photographing wildlife as yet, maybe in the future. Anyone can recommend a zoom lens for sunrise, sunset landscapes photography?
Thank you, Dustin, very interesting comparison here. I'd maybe also suggest the old but gold EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM (with adapter) as an alternative to the RF 100-500L. One can save a couple of hundred dollars (or even more with a second hand EF version). The EF 100-400L works fully with the EF extenders (1.4x and 2x).
It's a little annoying that the EF to RF adapter doesn't actually fit onto the RF extenders. The hole in the EF to RF adapter isn't wide enough for some reason.
@@Knowbody42 Yes, that's annoying. The only solution is to use EF lenses with EF extenders (plus the adapter), I suppose.
I do mention that as a part of my 100-500L review.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you, I'll check it out.
@@Knowbody42 There’s a video on UA-cam of someone who used a file and made the hole bigger to accommodate the RF extenders with EF glass. Works perfectly. I’m sure you could find it if you searched 😊
Thank you so much! This was just the video I was looking for to help me with research on lenses for my Canon EOS R5 camera. I want the L series so bad, I'm saving, so we'll see. 🤷🏾♀️
Glad I could help!
@@DustinAbbottTWI 😊
@Dustin Abbott Me too, I'm very excited about getting my new gear. I've been watching so many videos on settings and everything else, so when I do get it, I don't feel overwhelmed
very helpful! I have the 100-400 but this helped me decide to upgrade. Im hoping for more sharpness and less noise in low light. 🤞
Somehow i find the pricing of the RF L lenses atrocious. The 100-500 is priced atleast 1000$ more than what it should be. The problem is there are still people willing to pay for it. Am still hanging on to my 80D although the R7 looks sexy.
Will move to mirroless once we have enough lense option from Sigma and Tamron. If that is not happening in a year then it's Sony all the way .
To me Canon is giving the Sony platform such a big advantage because of their lens policy and pricing.
@@DustinAbbottTWI true that... i feel the same...
Ufff. Still no rf lenses yet from those two
Agreed, I picked up an eos-r when they first came out and I love the 24-105 f4. But the prices of their RF zooms combined with how slow the apertures are has me seriously debating moving to Fuji. Love my old x-t20, and I’m wondering how much nicer a proper Fuji would feel.
100-500L is expensive even 2nd hand in HK so I am hoping Canon introduce a mk2 that push its price down in the next couple years.
I've sold the Tamron EF 100-400 for RF100-400. Other than the lack of weather sealing. Small aperture prevents it from low light action photography, but that's expected.
Everything else I'm pleased with. Handheld 1/40 at 400mm in indoors is something no other full frame solution can do. Maybe 70-350/70-300 on a7r3/a7r4/a1 crop mode.
I'm with you. I love the 100-500L but can't really justify the expense.
Hi, How do you still like the switch from tamron to rf 100-400mm 6 months later, I am thinking about the switch also.
@@darrensmith7949 I'm loving it. It's a low key powerhouse.
Looking at the-digital-picture lens comparison tool the 100-400 is very soft at 400mm. The other focal lengths are better.
It's definitely not at the L-series level, but many find it acceptable.
400mm is good enough if you stop down a tiny bit to f9. it proved to be the sweet spot for this lens
While it's obvious that the RF 100-400 lens is very small, light, and a greatly less expensive lens in this comparison, the RF 100-500L lens is actually quite compact and light lens in comparison with other long zooms, such as the EF 100-400, 3rd party 150 -600 and 200-600, etc. long zooms. Canon should be recognized for making the 100-500L reasonably easy to hand hold for a long zoom lens.
It is definitely true that the lens is reasonably compact for the focal range. Unfortunately Cannon has accomplished that in part by the lens being such a small maximum aperture on the telephoto end
I have the RF100-400 and the EF 70-300L. I can't afford the RF 100-500, but I really like the 100-400. What I find to be interesting is that the EF 70-300L can be cropped to around 400 mm and still looks better than the non L lens. But I've never thought that the RF 100-400 wasn't good enough. And the IS is noticeably better on the RF lens. I'll just be happy to have both. Just wish the RF 100-400 was 75-400 instead, because I love taking my EF17-40 out with the EF 70-300. The gap is not noticed at 70mm but 100 mm is too much. Maybe we will see an RF 70-300?
Out of interest, do you feel like it is worthwhile to keep both lenses, or would you be selling one soon? I have the EF 70-300L myself, and I was curious as to whether it would make sense to trade it for the non-L RF lens. It's a bit cumbersome when used on an RF body with the adaptor, but as you say, the image quality is really rather nice and after seeing the RF100-400's samples, I'm not convinced I wouldn't regret the trade.
@@colinjudge1261 I recommend keeping the EF 70-300 L. That lens is so good. I literally love it on my RP and my 70D, and it almost always travels with my EF 17-40 (FF) or my Sigma 18-35 f1.8 on my crop sensor cameras. I don't think I will ever sell the 70-300. Plus it fits in my bag attached to the camera or upright by itself (you don't have to lay it down like most telephoto lenses).
The RF 100-400 is great for when you want to travel light though. I don't regret either one! But the 70-300 is in another league, and it holds f4.0 out to 150 mm which is why I don't have a 70-200 f4.
But yes, I am keeping both. I think you should too. They are different enough. And the RF 100-400 makes a really nice travel kit with the RF 24-105 (either version L or non L), I went the cheap route so as to afford both RF lenses. I have the EF 24-105 f4 L so I can use that for better IQ and a brighter lens. I'm waiting for Sigma or Tamron to make an RF mount 24-70 f2.8 though.
@@johnherzel718 Thanks so much for that great reply! I'll likely not go for the RF lens unless I find myself really missing the 70-300 on the occasions I can't take it. I recently bought the RF24-105L as my "travel lens", while my RF28-70 is my workhorse beast. Obviously, travel has been a little curtailed recently, so it's not a great time to make the most use of a travel lens, but I have found that I've barely touched the 24-105, always opting to just put up with the weight and carry the Canon-ball because I love the images it produces!
In all likelihood, Canon will release an RF version of 70-300L in the next couple of years. If it can do what the RF70-200s did and make a significant size and weight saving without compromising image quality, that'll be when I bite the bullet and fork out the cash.
By the way, do you use half-stops for apertures values? The 70-300L only holds f/4.0 until approx 100mm, then it's f/4.5 until 150mm, f/5.0 until 225mm, and finally f/5.6 for the remainder.
@@colinjudge1261 your correct, it is f4.5 @ 150mm. I had to check.
I wonder how I got that wrong 🤣. But it doesn't change my opinion of the 70-300.
As an unrelated side note I would love to try the RF 28-70 f2, but that's even further out of my budget. Maybe I will rent it...
@@johnherzel718 Be careful about renting it. I rented it, and the next thing I knew I was buying it 😂. Very dangerous for your bank account. But seriously, it is a remarkable lens, if you shoot in that range. I previously owned the EF 24-70 f/2.8L ii, and while it was a very competent lens, I was never excited to use it, because nothing about the rendering really impressed me. I checked my shots in Lightroom and found that I truly almost never shot wider than 28mm, so I knew I wouldn't be sacrificing anything if I switched. Now, having shot with the 28-70 f/2 for over 2 years, I can say that if the price and the weight are not issues, it's basically perfect. It really is like having half a dozen prime lenses attached to your camera. Colours and contrast are wonderful, the bokeh transition is very nice, and from f/2.5 it gives an extremely sharp and well corrected image.
Wide open it can show a little (but not a lot) of CA, relatively strong vignetting (though you might actually enjoy the effect), and slightly reduced sharpness. The overall effect, though, makes it excellent as a portrait lens, avoiding looking clinically "perfect".
I shoot about 90% of my work with either the 28-70 f/2, or the EF 100mm f/2.8L. Two very special lenses.
Low light for this kind of high aperture lens is disastrious when doing birding etc. So it can be great on fine days, on overcast days it's not recommended. Usable, but difficult.
That's fair.
Thanks for the video !! dont 100-400 make some issues in low light because f/5.6-8 ?
Definitely. Both lenses aren't fast in terms of aperture, but the 100-400mm is particularly bad in that regard.
thanks, you said pretty much what I figured but sometimes you just have to hear it from an expert ☺ I went with the 100-400 and I'm loving it as a beginner.. and I will work on my skills while I save up for the 100-500.
Sounds like a plan.
I rented RF 100-500 L and the image quality is spectacular. It is very hard to find RAW files for RF 100-400. I found a few and the image quality looks like from a cheap kit lens. It is clearly evident on my 55 inch OLED display through Capture One Pro software. Thank you Dustin for another great comparison and I won't be getting the RF 100-400. You have saved me time and money.
Glad to help out.
Apples & Oranges
Why, exactly? These are the two telephoto zooms available on the platform. People are cross shopping them even if the price point is significantly different.
Thanks Dustin, good info. btw you speak very well on camera... that's a learned behavior and you clearly have experience. Me, not so much :)
LOL - I've got 25 years as a pastor, so that certainly helps!
I bought an 100 400 RF lens, as I now have an R6, I used to have a 90D paired with a 70 300L, I sold the 70 300L because I had to for reasons at the time, and I sold the 90D to buy the R6, the combination of the R6 and the RF 100 400 vs the 90D with the 70 300L is poor for what I was using it for, I'm not happy with the RF 100 400 and I'm going to sell it, I'd rather not try to struggle with it, knowing that I had older cheaper gear that was better for air shows than what I have now. I got an R6 for low light performance and it kills the 90D in that regard, maybe adapt an ef 100 400 II, can't afford the big boy 100 500 RF yet, bit of a bummer really. But the bottom line is that it's a cheap lens, and for me it shows.
The 70-300L is a MUCH better lens than this one. You probably would be much happier with the EF 100-400L II if you can't afford the 100-500L (which many can't!)
How much does the image quality of the 100-500 L help with its worse magnification ratio when compared to the 100-400? Perhaps they would produce similar results on a high res body from an image quality perspective
You definitely would have some cropping room and could achieve similar results.
The lens is great. You don't need to zoom in all the way just for bragging rights.
Which of the two lenses are you referring to?
Sony 200-600 is far better … canon always screws their product with pathetic “f” in compare to competitors
I do find the Sony 200-600G the most compelling lens in this class right now.
I have never seen a canon consumer lens rival an L lens in sharpness at wide open aperture. Also to pixel peepers like me, i suggest you only zoom in at 50% with the cheaper lens 🤣
LOL - I try not to put my thumb on the scales.
The thumb nail says 10-400.....that's a massive focal length.
LOL - you're right!
Why do you keep swapping information about the 100-400? You data is titled "EF" with "RF" information. The EF is NOT f4.5 to f5.6 as you indicate. Your title says it's RF 100-400 vs RF 100-500L, but the price you quote is for the "EF" 100-400. This is a terrible review.
Are you have your facts straight? The Canon EF 100-400L II is F4.5-5.6. I do reference the EF lens in context with the price on the RF 100-500L
@@DustinAbbottTWI Hey man, the screen actually says "10-400" not "100-400" ;-)
One thing that I find annoying on RF 100-400 is that camera (RP in my case) can't focus while you're turning the zooming wheel- it made me miss quite a few shots! It doesn't happen with EF mount lenses including 100-400L and 70-200L... Wondering if it happens to RF 100-500?
Hmmm, I can't really answer that. I can't recall encountering that issue.
Ok, I definitely want the Canon RF 10 to 400mm!!!
Oh yes - that would be a very sweet lens ;)
hi Dustin, just quick mention from an older video, the sigma 105mm ƒ1.4 works with the kenko x2 and x1.4 teleconverters
Hmmm, not sure of the relevance here, but thanks for the information.
I had collected over time the RF 100-400, RF 800mm F11 and even used the sigma 150-600 C (really doesn't work properly adapted for RF cameras) for a bit. Although the 100-400 is pretty good, feels cheap and nasty and its weak away from the centre of the frame, and the R5 really highlights its weaknesses... in the end I sold them all and got the RF 100-500. Not a decision I have regretted either :D
I'm not surprised. It's not a perfect solution, but it is the best solution for now.
Have heard a lot about the 150-600 (would love Canon to make something like this!) I don't own one so don't know, but some have said that doing a firmware update on the lens helps????
I have the R5 with adapter on ef 100 400 II and sigma 150 600 C and I find excelent results of sharpening, instant af. Highly recomend!!!!
thanks for the video. how does the ef 100-400 stack up vs the 100-500?
Check out my specific review of the 100-500; I show some comparisons there.
the RF100-400mm is now $549 in Amazon.
That’s a very good price.
Good and fair review Dustin!
the rf 100-400 true value is $1,200 USD. After buying one from the store, it will feel like you have made a robbery. Also, a crop sensor camera (R7) is using only the very sharp center portion of the lens. What else can I ask for that kind of money.
Hmmm, not sure I understand your logic, but as long as you are enjoying your lens, that's all that matters.
A crop sensor will also expose the lack of IQ in the lens...so yeah.
@@OhhhhhhhBugger true
A little mistake in the thumbnail bud, 0:06
Oops. That would a sweet lens!
Great comments this has helpedon my decision on which to buy
Glad to hear it.
How would you compare either to the 70-200 f/4 plus an extender?
I haven't tested the F4L with an extender. It probably wouldn't match the L series lens, but might compete with the cheaper one.
I have EF 70-200 f4 with 1.4x extender and it's no match for RF 100-400. I stopped using 70-200 after getting 100-400
great video
For the sake of Canon shooters I hope they get at least 1 or 2 lenses that sits in the middle of these 2 options.
I would like a RF 300 f4L and/or RF 400 f5.6L
@@len.whistler 👌I would welcome the range of telephoto primes be expanded on emount as well.
Ideally
200 f2 GM
400 f4 G
500 f5.6 G (DO)
800 6.3 G (DO)
Absolutely!
Nice Review Dustin. TY
My pleasure!
A10-400
LOL - don't we wish!
Very useful and informative, although slightly predictable. Thanks for this video.
You're probably right about the predictability.
Thanks for the excellent reviews Dustin! I'm curious how you would compare this lens on an RP or R6 to Canon's 55-250mm STM on one of their 24mp bodies. Would it be a noticeable upgrade in terms of image quality?
I'm not sure I would call it a noticeable upgrade, per se, but you will see some improvement in focus speed and overall performance, I think.
@@DustinAbbottTWI 99% of my telephoto photography is landscape, so AF performance is of relatively low importance to me. Appreciate the response, thank you.
I guess everyone could figure out that a $3,000 lens is definitely better than a $650. Not sure these "comparison videos" make any sense, primarily when obviously conclusions are stretched for almost 10 minutes. Sorry for being direct. Regards, Stefano
In general people actually really appreciate comparison videos, because, believe it or not, there are many people who want to know if the cheaper lens is "good enough". I try to spend a little time detailing what is and is not good enough so people can make an informed decision.
I found the comparison helpful. In fact, it pushed me to yesterday buy the 100-500, because I like the idea of peak performance at wide open apertures, which I hadn't expected. Thanks for the push, Duncan, as my initial results confirm your assessment. I can't wait to go owl "hunting" this week :)
Sorry, I meant Dustin. I am clearly a bit groggy today :)
Not caring for the fact that Canon has no middle ground for a lot of their lineup. The 100-500 is excellent, very but pricy. The 100-400 is a consumer lens, slow, and not something I would want. Starting from new, I would go with Nikon, but Sony is looking excellent also. I am still using a 6D, and would not want to give up my 300 f4. An old lens, but excellent. Yes, I could adapt. I would consider a Nikon Z6II and an S 24-120 but keeping only the 6D and 300 lens. At any rate, really enjoying your excellent and honest reviews. Yours are the best reviews.
If only autofocus compatibility of the 150-600 from Sigma and Tamron (avoid the latter) wasn't a disaster
We definitely need some "middle ground" lenses on the platform.
Snobbish 🤮🤮🤮
???