Canon RF 100-500 vs EF 100-400 II | Is it WORTH UPGRADING to the RF 100-500? Bird Photography Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- Canon EF 100-400 II, one of the most popular bird photography zooms, vs the new RF 100-500, a fantastic superzoom! Will it be worth upgrading to the new RF lens if you already own the 100-400 and can adapt it easily to an R5 or R6?
How do both of these lenses perform side by side in the field? That's what I will explore in this video.
What's your experience with these lenses? Do you own any of them, have you switched over from the EF 100-400 II to the RF 100-500? Let me know in the comments!
100-500 Review
• Canon RF 100-500 MEGAZ...
R5 Review
• EOS R5 - The BEST Bird...
R6 Review
• EOS R6 - Are 20 Megapi...
R5 Settings you NEED to Know
• EOS R5 - The SETTINGS ...
Let me help you to take YOUR IMAGES to the NEXT LEVEL!
Limited 1:1 Mentoring
👉 aviscapes.com/mentoring/
_____________________________________________
MASTERCLASS - Editing Your Bird Images To Perfection
👉 aviscapes.com/masterclass-edi...
_____________________________________________
How to Attract Amazing Birds Ebook & Video Perched
👉 aviscapes.com/video-and-ebook/
_____________________________________________
Free Ebook - 5 Common Mistakes Almost Every Bird Photographer Makes And How To Avoid Them-
👉 aviscapes.com/free-ebook
_____________________________________________
Instagram
👉 / jan_wegener_
_____________________________________________
This is the equipment I use:
Canon EOS R5
amzn.to/2FV1Fpq
Canon EOS R6
amzn.to/3qOtEbQ
Canon RF 100-500 L IS
amzn.to/3liEIx0
RF Extender 1.4x
amzn.to/3bMD5nO
RF Extender 2x
amzn.to/3cuMdwD
RF 800 F11
amzn.to/3ldq6Pr
RF600 F11
amzn.to/3bIBrDJ
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
amzn.to/2ToffWf
Canon 600 L IS III (I have v. II)
amzn.to/3dZM7wn
Canon EF 5.6/400 L
amzn.to/2AJwbQk
Canon 1.4x TC III
amzn.to/2T7vAhz
Canon 2x TC III
amzn.to/3fPnYdr
Canon 600 EX - RT
amzn.to/3czhDRf
Wimberley Head II
amzn.to/3dOuqzI
Gitzo 5543LS (new version of my tripod)
amzn.to/3dRfxg3
Wimberley Flash Bracket
amzn.to/2LweMg5
Wimberley M-6 Extension Post
amzn.to/2LxCvfQ
Better Beamer (check for compatibility)
amzn.to/2AxbbfF
Flash Battery (Godox & Flashpoint is the same)
amzn.to/3fNDWVD
Power Cord
amzn.to/3cBJGzt
Y connector
amzn.to/2X22zoT
Novoflex STA-SET
amzn.to/2y5s1Bt
LensCoat LensHide
amzn.to/3bAkoAo
LensCoat Lens Hoodie
amzn.to/3fStHiI
Canon 2.8/70-200 II
amzn.to/3cArBSB
Canon 4/24-70
amzn.to/2AwjeJE
Canon 4/16-35 L IS
amzn.to/3fPqPDb
JBL Clip3 Speaker
amzn.to/36225D5
Sandisk Extreme Pro CFexpress Card type B 512GB
amzn.to/38FPKHg
Sandisk Extreme Pro
amzn.to/2WXKt7n
Panasonic Eneloop Pro
amzn.to/2X2SQ1q
Minox 8x43
amzn.to/2Z7YxxQ
Canon LP-E6N
amzn.to/3byTSYg
Manfrotto Mini Ballhead
amzn.to/3dR2pYm
FStop Gear Sukha Backpack
amzn.to/2Q3e4fZ
Time Stamps
0:00 Intro
1:13 First Impressions
2:21 The Lenses in The Field
3:28 Image Review: 400 vs 500mm
4:35 Extender use on 100-400 II
5:43 Image Review: 560 vs 500mm
6:50 Image Review: 800 vs 1000mm (2x Ext)
8:17 Extender use on Zoom lenses
10:13 Design Flaw with extenders on 100-500
11:07 Image Review: Rainforest w & w/o extender
13:17 Image Review Gang Gang Cockatoos w & w/o extender
15:42 Editing
16:19 My thoughts on 100-400 vs 100-500
18:08 All this enough to upgrade to 100-500?
19:34 F5.6 vs F7.1
20:08 What are your thoughts?
Thank you so much for this review, it answered all my questions! Love the depth of your technical data and the quality of your video production! 💕
Glad it was helpful! :)
The most in depth and rich samples comparison on UA-cam for these two lenses. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed the video
It’s really nice to see you and Wade working together! It be nice to see more in the future. 😊💕
More to come!
Thanks Jan. I recently upgraded from my 100-400 II to the 100-500 on my R5. As a direct comparison (both with the 1.4x extender), I found that I no longer need to run the images through Topaz sharpen, based on my first few shots of ships on the horizon a few miles away, cropped.
Really detailed review with all aspects I want to learn. Thank you very much!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Just the review I was looking for. Thanks, Jan!
You are so welcome!
Thanks for these excellent videos Jan. They are extremely helpful and the information you give is thoughtful and very well presented. This is the best 'CRL', Complete Runaround Lens! I have other RF lenses but they have been lacking what I need - lightweight, extreme versatility and amazing optics - the AF with the EOS R5 is also terrific. Can't thank you enough.
You are so welcome! I agree, the 100-500 is amazing for walking around
You're killing me:) My 100 - 500 has been on order for 4plus months. Can't wait to receive it.
Thx Jan, great videos as always
Oh no, they need to hurry up!
Hello Jan. Thank you for the speedy delivery of this promised video. Watching your videos is an expensive experience for me! I had convinced myself to wait for Canon to produce an R7, when your R5 review seduced me. I saved up my bikkies and bought it last week, rationalising that using my 100-400 ii plus 1.4 extender would be more than sufficient. Now you’ve blown that idea out of the water! All this before I graduate to lusting after a 600mm f4!
Cheers.... Chris
It has been expensive for my as well to play with all this gear! I do think the 100-400 is sufficient, but the 100-500 is better imo
Thank you so much for this great review!!!
You are so welcome!
Great Review Jan! Thanks 👍
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very useful comparison. Thank you for sharing!
My pleasure!
Great informative video Jan! Thanks! That 100-500 is really great!
Thanks, yes it's very good.
Great Review, Jan !! Thank you !!
Glad you liked it!
Very very helpful comparison, I was looking for quite a while... Thank you.❤️ from Kolkata, India.
Glad it was helpful!
I decided to go all in mirrorless because of the quality of the camera and lenses. So I sold my 100-400 mm and bought the 100-500mm. It’s so much lighter. Incredible lens. Thanks Jan for your insight. I love your videos!!!
Good stuff!
Another great review mate, it really is a tough choice if you already own the 100-400 that is for sure. I enjoyed using both, but I will be getting the 100-500 as it is such a good lens. Cheers, Duade
Thanks mate! So many choices these days! I would also lean towards 100-500
Thank you for this Video. You have helped me a lot.
You're very welcome!
Appreciate the info Jan. That is a chunk of change for the 100x500, so must be certain. Thank You.
Glad it was helpful! Yes, it's pretty pricy outside the US
The 100-400 II is such an exceptional lens, it was an easy choice for me to grab that one over the 100-500, which was twice as expensive.
Yes, depending on where you live, the price difference can be as huge factor
same, I picked up a 100-400 II for 2k whereas the 100-500 would set me back 4k
I've used both, and in the end went back and repurchased a well-used 100-400 II just to cost-balance my overall kit. The 100-500 is exceptional, but now that you can find the EF lens for
The 100 - 500 is a massive rip off.
@@mozzman9030 I wouldn't say it's a ripoff, as there's definitely benefits and the price is a little lower now. But price to value is not as good as the 100-400
Really helpful plain English video thanks. Exactly the dilemma I am facing, so you've helped lean me in the direction of the 100-500 and also saves buying the converter ring too of course.
Glad it helped!
I rented the 100-500 this week to go with the R6 that I rented too. Wanted to test both out and I guarantee you I'm buying both! The lens is incredible!
Good choice! It's maybe the best zoom lens ever made
Thank you, Jan, an excellent comparison between these two lenses. I do own the 100-400mm II since 2015 (bought it in Australia during a world trip) and I thought to keep it with my R5/R6 equipment.
But recently I decided to go for the 100-500 and shell out the money, because:
a) More reach without a teleconverter
b) The quality of the 100-400mm with a teleconverter could not convince me.
c) Better quality at the same focal length
d)Shorter and lighter, especially when considering that the 100-400mm needs an adapter and a teleconverter to get to 500mm
e) The selling value of the 100-400mm will probably decline even more, in the near future.
For men it's always easy to find arguments to buy new stuff :-)
I agree with all your points :D
Thank you I for the review, just what I needed to see.
Have ordered the R6 and the 100-500 mm in the sales, now patiently waiting for a delivery date. Think I’ll be extremely happy
Awesome! Congrats
Thanks for a great informative video as usual. I have the 100-400 mk ii and hoping to buy either the R5 or R7 soon. I have been trying to decide whether to get the new RF100-500 or a second hand EF 500mm f/4 L IS USM and converter and the RF 800mm. Any thoughts please?
Liked & subscribed immediately after that transition change between lens changes!
Awesome, thanks! I wonder how many people would even notice, since they look quite similar :)
Very helpful video which will prove to be handy when I come to purchase my next lens combo, thanks Jan. Being cheeky are you planning on doing anymore in the field videos looking at field craft, camera using etc? Would be great to learn more about how you get the shots ;)
Yes, I will mix it up more. I have just had this huge pile of lenses to work with, so I wanted to make the most of it :)
Thanks, great comparison 👏👏👏
Thanks for watching!
Thank you for this video. This is the first I have seen from you and will certainly watch others. I am currently behind the technology curve and shoot with a Canon G3 X.
I will be upgrading to the R5 and this video answered all the questions I could possible think of related to these two zoom lenses. I will get the 100-500.
Subscribed.
Awesome! Glad I could help
Thanks this answered my question. Another awesome review Jan. I am keeping my 100-400mm mark II and paired with my R6 and it really produces a sharp image.
It is an exceptional lens
Glad to help!
Great video, great information.
Thank you for sharing this, imma switch from 400mm prime to the 100-500mm.
Thank you for the information. just in time for christmas. and for my vacation to the phillipines. i know what lens to get.
Hi Jan. An extremely well made video review. Ample samples, detailed coverage of all aspects that one can think of or need to know for the buyer. Thanks. As a person who is deciding to upgrade to mirrorless setup, the Sony a7r4 + 200-600mm looks a lot more tempting. Really wish you would make a comparison review on these, to make the decision easier and well informed.
Hey,
yes, I will need to get my hands on that set up at some point. In saying that, for birds, knowing that the Canon Eye AF is class leading, I find it very hard to look past and R5 and 100-500 atm.
Excellent review of these lenses Jan, I found exactly the same results albeit I couldn’t do a side by side comparison as I needed to sell the EF100-400ii to pay for the RF100-500
Great to hear! Thanks for sharing :)
Hi from the UK! Great analysis and confirms my suspicions! Traded in my 1--=400 and purchased the 100-500mmR!
Thank you. I am sure you will be happy with your choice!
The Intro was sleek. Good job
Glad you liked it. I didn't even try to line it up when I was shooting it in the field, but I stood in exactly the same spot naturally :D
@@jan_wegener uh John a we my high oh J J no J
Great review. I borrowed the 100-500 to use on my R6 and was quite impressed. I also have the 5D4 and the 100-400. Not gonna make the switch to the 100-500. I like having the option of using the 100-400 on both camera bodies and didn’t find the extra 100mm and marginal image quality improvement worth the $1500 hit I’d have to take to make the switch.
Yes, buying the 100-500 now also forces me to get another R5. Yes, outside the US the switch can be a bit pricy
Great review, I loved it !
When I first bought 100-400 IS2, it took my photography to next level and I stopped missing pictures because of this great telephoto. I liked your comparisons 100-400 IS2 + 1.4X & 100-500, but I would have preferred the comparison between the two lenses at 400mm full open. As you rightly said, we hardly use teleconverters on zoom lenses.
Any way, if you are using 100-400mm on R5, you can always afford to crop little.
Comparison of both lenses w/o convertors at 400 mm would have given a better picture !!!
I thought about it, but didn't make much sense for me. Most of the time in the field you'd use the 100-400 @ 400 and the 100-500 at 500.
Thanks for the detailed review. I prefer the look of the EF 100-400 over the RF 100-500, even at 800mm with the 2x extender. It renders smoother and accentuates noise less, just looks nicer and less of a "digital look". Where the EF 100-400 lens really shines though, is in the 200-350mm range, where it outperforms my RF 70-200 f2.8 on the R5 photographing portraits, given the subject size is equal.
Hi Jan, I watched this video over and over. Very good. I have a question for you. How does a picture taken with the RF 100-500mm at 500mm vs a picture taken at 500mm with the EF 500mm compare in size ? Is the image taken with the ef 500mm has a much bigger subject in the frame than the zoom at 500mm ? By the way I just love the zoom lens. Thanks for your help !
I had the 100-400 II and compared it to the RF 100-500, both on the R5. For me, the RF 100-500 is quite a bit better. The extra 100mm makes a lot of difference in my photography, since i almost always shoot at maximum focal length. Plus the extra portion of sharpness, which is not insignificantly noticeable when cropping.
Subjectively, I find the autofocus a lot faster and more accurate.
Plus features like lower weight, not a main reason, but of course nice that it comes on top.
Agree with your assessment! Side by side it's easy to pick the winner
I've got the 100-400 II, and I'm really on the fence about going with the 100-500, primarily because of the wonky teleconverter issue. Thanks for the great info, it's helping me decide.
Great to hear! It's a tricky decision when owning the 100-400 already. The TC issue potentially will show up less for you, since you don't need to use the TC to get to the 500mm range
I got the 100-400 II. It is packed in my camera bag with a 1.4X III + ring adapter. Those 2 NEVER come off this lens. And I always shoot wide open, never stop it down. I use this on an R5. I do agree with Jan's review. But I would add this: when you post process these images with Topaz DenoiseAI the difference in sharpness and detail as shown on the video are reduced dramatically. And Topaz DenoiseAI can now process CR3 files. No conversion required to Adobe DNG.
I would love to have the 100-500, but because of the weight savings. Once you add the adapter and teleconverter it is a lot heavier setup..
I’d say keep the 100-400. I did at least. The extra reach wasn’t worth the cost and giving up the teleconverter ability.
I've always been a prime shooter until I got my R6 and the 100-500. I really love the versatility of this lens, it's super sharp and the close focus distance is just killer. I also have the RF 800 F11 prime and while it's nice to have the reach, the slow aperture and long minimum focus distance is very limiting. Excellent comparison video Jan, thanks for putting it together.
Thank you! Yes, it's a great combo you got
Heath I am curious.. Since you have the 100-500 and the 800 what would you do in my situation. I run my 70-200II f2.8 with a 2x and I find it just as sharp as my 400mm 5.6 and also why i never bought a 100-400. So I was thinking 140-400 is close to the 100-500 and I should just get the 800 f11. Since you have been able to play with both, in my situation knowing what you do now.. would you get the 100-500 OR the 800. you can only have one in your decision and you cannot buy the 1.4x
@@MaddManzz00 I find when I'm moving around I tend to use the 100-500 much more than the 800. The slow F11 aperture can means high .isos in low light and very long minimum focus has made me miss shots where the subject was just too close. I only moved to mirrorless last year so I still have a lot of EF lenses, I also have the 400 F5.6L and it's a great prime. If I had to choose between the 100-500 or an 800 I think I'd still save up and get the 100-500 as it's just so versatile. It's minimum focus is really close and since the mount is RF you don't have to use an adaptor which would make a 100-400 even longer and heavier. The one thing I have not tried yet though is tele convertors, I have an EF 1.4x II but I have not purchased any RF tele convertors. The other downside to the 800 is that the autofocus points are limited more towards the middle of the frame so you can't use the whole viewfinder to autofocus. Things I do like about the 800 though are that it is sharp for a non L lens, the image stabilization works well, and 800mm is nice when you need that extra reach. The price is big factor for the 100-500, it's a really expensive lens and I had to sell other gear and save to purchase it.
Your video has been exceptionally Good as always and this has been a very interesting topic . After a long wait I went for 100-400 ll lens and is quite happy with the results, having said that when it comes to getting really close to the subject I might convince my self to use a 7D mark ll . But yes must admit the 100-500 looks exceptionally good with end results.
Thanks for sharing
I like my Canon 100-400mm II. It gives me great sharp images. When I upgrade to the R5 eventually I will be using this lens without an extender.
Yes, both of these are great lenses
Agree it is exceptionally sharp
As always - great video and thank you! Have both. For all the reasons you outlined, the 100-400 has sadly been gathering dust.
Yes, If I had both, I would also usually grab the 100-500
Both lenses are great, I like your review because you were not biased towards any of them 🤣👌 thanks jan
I tried to stay neutral. They're both good, although I prefer the 100-500
I loved this video!
awesome :)
great video, I am looking for a larger telephotos lens as I have the old school EF 100-300mm 1:5.6 L which has served me well for $120 when I was learning but I am seeing it limitations in what I am doing.
Great job on this video comparison, Jan. You hit the ground running, didn't waste your viewers' time (Thank You!), and backed up your analysis with image comparisons. The Canon design/firmware limitation on using the 100-500mm in using an extender only at 300mm+ is a What The...? moment for me, but it is what it is.
My takeaway is that the 100-500mm is just a bit better in several ways than the 100-400mm, which we would hope for with newer hardware, but at a cost increase that may not match the gain in image quality and usability. So for those with deep pockets, upgrading to a 100-500mm if they already own the 100-400mm plus a mirrorless body and lens adapter could be a no-brainer. But those with tighter budgets, and those who do bird and other wildlife photography and need large prints only rarely, might hold off on upgrading.
One less expensive workaround: post-processing software is getting better at improving sharpness with a minimal hit to noise. What you gained going to the 100-500mm, I think people may be able to get with the 100-400mm PLUS Topaz AI Sharpness and/or Topaz AI DeNoise, at a significantly lower cost. Of course that workflow is slower, so one would only go that way with keeper images, a good desktop PC/Mac than can handle the Topaz apps efficiently, and more time than money for lens upgrades.
I have been using the 100-500 a lot lately and it's a pretty amazing lens. I have hardly any OOF images.
But I agree that it comes down to budget, especially if you already own a 100-400.
The lack of the 100 extra mm is the key thing missing from the 100-400 and that cannot really be compensated for.
Totally agree about extenders on zoom lenses and find tighter cropping the better choice.
:)
Great review, as usual in this chanel. Any opinion on the 800f11 vs the 100-400II+2xTC in IQ? Already have the 100-400II and thinking on jump into mirrorless.
The 800 has the overall better IQ I'd say.
I've just gone completely mirrorless upgrading from EOS5d Mk4's to an R6 and now an R7. I've had the EF100-400 but greatly appreciated the light RF100-400 as I do most of my wildlife photography hand held and on foot. I have just traded in my EF100-400 and ordered the RF100-500 because of the better reach and lighter weight. I will also use the new lenses at air shows where the greater reach and general sharpness will be much appreciated. I've enjoyed your UA-cam videos.
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for this great comparison. Could you please make the same with R7? That will help decide exactly.
I own a R5 since a month. I also have the 100-400ii + 1.4X Extender, up to recently used with my 7D2. My thought was that the 100-400 + 1.4X in combination with the 800/11 would provide me with what I need. However, after this month I found several reason to upgrade to the 100-500: - Weight! With the 100-400 I need a RF Mount adapter and the EF 1.4X . Also the 100-400 is somewhat heavier, altogether I get more than 400 g added weight. - Stabilisation, in the best of worlds 6X, compared to 4X with 100-400, provides new opportunities like handheld video. - The combination 100-500 + RF 1.4X extender, will mean I can have the extender in my pocket until needed, as compared to the need of wearing a backpack for the 800/11. The combination is also weatherproof, and give me a minimum focusing distance 1.2m, as compared to 6m with 800/11. Finally, and most important, Sharpness! I feel the need to always have my 1.4X extender mounted on the 100-400 to avoid extensive cropping, to be compared with 100-500 on its own. Also when needed, the combination 100-500 + 1.4X (=700mm) is at least as sharp as the 800/11.
Sounds like a good decision. The 100-500 will serve you well
Great video! Thanx! I bought the 100-400 a few months ago. I love it. Using it quite a lot with 1.4 ext. I forget to stop down all the time. Will try that tomorrow :-) I'm still on EF camera 6DII. So no need to think about buying the 100-500. But it's great to see all these nice lenses Canon is making.
Yes, some great glass coming out for the mirrorless cameras
Initially, I decided I would keep the 100-400. After watching your first review of the 100-500, I became more intrigued about the lighter weight, extra reach and faster AI. Also, not having to use the EF converter would be a plus. So now I own both, but I'm contemplating selling my 100-400 and 1.4x EF teleconverter. I do find that the 100-500 performs better. As an intermediate-skilled hobbyist it's a lot of money to spend, but I enjoy bird photography and having more keepers with less effort is worth it to me.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I am glad you are enjoying your new lens. It's a great piece of glass
I went through the same experience but kept my teleconvertors to use with my EF300 f4 prime lens, and have sold the EF100-400 before the selling price drops further. However it will give someone the chance of buying a superb lens if they can't afford the 100-500 mm.
Completely agree with everything you said. I did trade my 100-400 in on the 100-500 and it fills that gap I had from 400 to my 600 F4 much better. If I didn't get a good trade in price on the 100--400 I'm not sure I would've bought it.
Yes, the trade up price plays a big role, but I agree that it is the perfect compliment to the 4/600
Thanks for the excellent review. I am about buying new canon r6 and already got 100-400mm lens.
Have fun!
Thank you Jan for a great review with lovely pictures that explain the difference between the lenses.
I owned the 100-400 II and really liked a lot on EOS R. This spring a changed to Leica 100-400mm on my Lumix GH5 för video shooting and it works fine (my honest opinion).
In the future, if I need a new Canon telezoom it would certainly be the RF 100-500. For reasons that you explain so good. It's more expensive but compared to long white and fast primes it is a bargain over all. (I also own a EF 300 2.8 L IS old version and it rocks, but it's heavy and IS is buzzing all the time draining battery on EOS R)
In the contex I think that EF 100-400mm II is a very good lens, affordable for most photographers.
Sincerely Jan
Yes, the 100-400II is still a fantastic lens for most people!
Hi Jan. Very interesting comparison. I have owned the 100-400 for a couple of years, and I have loved it. The speed, the clarity and quality, but recently getting my R5, I sold it and bought the 100-500, and despite the price, it outruns the former. Actually, I used a 1.4 extender to get that reach, and I experienced exactly that drop in sharpness.
Besides the things mentioned in your video, I also enjoy, that the 100-500 does not feel that cold in the winter time because of the plastic materials.
Good video again, Jan 🤗
Kind Regards, Jan
Ha, that's an interesting point I have not been able to test out yet in Australia :)
Glad you are enjoying your new lens
High Jan, thanks for this excellent comparision between two excellent lenses. The differences - at least in the video - are very small and I will stay with my 100 - 400 using the 1.4 extender or my ef 500 when necessary. Eckhard
If you already have a 100-400 and 4/500, your need to upgrade is certainly less.
hi Jan , exzellent comparison . I sold my EF 100-400 || and got my RF 100-500 and i am very happy.
All the pictures are much more crisp and the extra 100 mm are very often helpful .
best regards
Bernhard
Thanks for sharing, great to hear you can see a big improvement
I sold my 1-400 mk II. It was never sharp on all of the dslrs i have owned: 70D, 6D, 80D, 7DM2, 5DM4, 5DSR, and 90D. Thur the OVF, of course. i love that 1-500 and don’t regret buying it for a minute. You didn’t mention how great it is for handheld video, but imagine being in 4k crop mode and 800mm effective, and rock steady. i agree 100% that the extra 100mm in the field, super sharp with no extender, is a big deal even though many people think otherwise. i don’t care what folks think though, its my money I’m spend. i think the r5 deserves the best optics you can put on it (i have a 500 mm f4 II IS USM as well). thanks for the video!
I did talk a lot about video in my review of the 100-500, so didn't want to mention it here too much, but I could also hand hold some video pretty well with the 100-400.
I agree with you that a cam like the R5 should get the bets optics for max IQ.
Thank you for this video. It was very helpful.
How much do you think the image quality is based on the R5 vs a DSLR like the 7Dmkii?
It only works on mirrorless. But the R5/6 do much better IQ than the 7D
@@jan_wegener Thank you.
I agree. I have had 70-300L years ago then 100-400 II for many years. Both outstanding lenses for sharpness and IS. But RF 100-500 takes it even further!! I find its extra 500mm and extra sharpness and pop in images to be truly unique. I am glad that I sold my 100-400 II and now happy with 100-500 RF!!
Thanks for sharing
@@jan_wegener Thanks for making videos. Your content is very informative!
I have the EF 100-400 II and EF 1.4x III, but I'm gonna make the switch to the RF 100-500. It looks like the RF lens has about the same reach as the 100-400 + 1.4x. This means an extender is not necessary on RF, and you get the benefit of better image quality by not having to use one. This is the main selling point for me. And lighter and smaller package overall when considering the size/weight of the extender (and also the EF-RF adapter) is icing on the cake.
As a fairly advanced amateur in South Africa, a wildlife heaven, I am glad to have come across your channel and this very interesting comparison. I own the 100-400 mkii and use it for anything - from macro to long shots - of Africa's birds, insects, wild animals and lanscape.
I missed two things in your review:
1. Obviously the 100-500 is exclusively (I think) a full-frame lens for Canon's new range of mirrorless cameras, however, I use my 100-400 on a 90D and it gives me a focal length of 640 with great results from f5.6 to f8. We have harsh sunlight for 300 days of the year so stopping down to f11 is seldom necessary, Auto ISO does the trick and I hardly ever go beyond f8.I would like to hear your views on the crop sensor and the 1.6 add-on focal range.
I also use the 5Div with the 1.4 extender with great results too at f8 in our conditions.
2. The other comparison I missed is the price difference, in our case of 33%, between the two lenses. Given the minor but clear qualitative differences as seen in your video and adding the cost of the 100-500 to the need of moving from high quality DSLR to a R5 or R6 and the 100-500, would you still do it?
Your views will be appreciated.
Hey,
I didn't focus on the price too much, because it varies so much between countries. All in all the 100-500 is more pricy.
And yes it only works with the new mirrorless cameras.
Crop sensor can be nice too add range and also come with drawbacks, like lesser IQ and more noise.
I have moved from a 5DIV to an R5 and added a 100-500 as well. The difference is night and day compared to my Mark IV to be honest. So much so that I sold it and bought another R5.
I picked up the 100-400mm ii and will be adapting it to my R7. I feel like with the crop factor I won’t have a problem with the focal length
Great review bro... 👌
May be i will stick to the 100-400 mk ii for now.... 😊
you can't really go wrong either way :)
Absolutely bro 😊👍🏼
HI Jan, thanks for the very helpful video. I moved to mirrorless early on when there were not many RF lenses, and now I really want to switch my EF lenses to RF (100-400 and 100 macro). I actually got some quotes for trading in lenses and extender to see what the gap price would be, but I found it hard to justify paying the money (~$2500). BUT I think I have just procrastinated and I will eventually find the money somewhere :). Something that I don't hear mentioned much is that the RF lenses talk to the R series cameras and some functionality and bells & whistles don't work for the EF lenses on an R body. I feel let down when the manual describes a function or say 'you will see X on the screen" and it isn't there/ doesn't do what it should. Maybe the experienced photographers don't need the assistance, but I'm still trying to figure out all the idiosyncrasies of the camera as I went from Pentax film camera to Canon digital ... with 20 years and children in between ... I'm on another planet ... :D
I am in the exact position you mentioned, a5dsr with 100-400 mk2 user wanting to upgrade to the R5. I don't like spending money but the 100-500 makes a lot more sense in the long run
I would have to agree with your assessment
Another great video comparison Jan! I am using the EF 100-400 II and the 300mm f4 on my R6. They work perfectly, but the tip you gave on when using the teleconverter was really helpful. I am using the 1.4x on the 300 and I noticed if I used f11 the images were much sharper. Great tip!
Thanks for sharing! Glad I could help. This is one thing most people don't know that makes a huge difference to sharpness
@@jan_wegener yes and my RF 600mm f11 proves that!
Great video Jan. I have the R5 with the 100-400mm lens and both extenders and I agree I loose the edge at full reach. I do a lot of BIF birds and wildlife photography. I was thinking of getting a used EF 600mm f4 so I can get more reach and keep the sharpness. The problem is then with the weight. I could attempt to sell my lens and extenders and go all RF. Any advice.
The RF 600 will be a fantastic lens, but nothing like a 1--400. It's pretty much a tripod lens, so that's something to consider, you basically have to change your whole style of shooting.
Hi, watching for the first time. Would a lens of this kind be just for Birding? They Look cool, but I do landscapes and other stills. Was the beach video near the intro shot with one of these lenses? And is a lens like this useable on the Canon M50 Mk ii or EOS RP? Thanks.
It works on the R mount cameras. so it would work on the Rp.
Hi Jan. Thanks for the great review.
You just confirmed i made the right choice by staying on my decision to get the 100-500 (had briefly thought about getting the 100-400 + 1.4 TC for half the price). This will definetely be a huge upgrade over my Sigma 150-600 from which the results with the bare lens look about the same as the 100-400 with 2x TC.
This makes me even more impatient for the 100-500 to arrive, which will be by the end of next week.
Fingers crossed you will get it soon! You will love it
@@jan_wegener Thanks. The delivery will be delayed to mid next week, which is still ok.
I will love it for sure, especially once the butterfly season starts.
Hi Jan I really enjoy your videos. These days we have less and less tutorial videos like yours. Most of your videos help us to improve our skills. Sadly, these days youtubers want us to buy the latest and the greatest most of the time. Some videos you did like Shooting Manual, Exposure, 20,000$ vs 2,000$ were excellent. In this video, you ask us to share our thoughts on 100-400 II vs 100-500. My opinion is to keep what I have (5D IV + 100-400II) as long as possible. As an intermediate++ hobbyist, I can't justify the cost for switching systems these days. Money does not grow on trees. I am convinced that a R5 + 100-500 is a better combo than 5D IV + 100-400 II but I get most of the shots I want. By the way, I am impressed by the beautiful birds you have in your country even in your backyard. In which part of the Australia do you live ?
Thank you! :)
I am in the Melbourne area for now.
The 100-400 II is an excellent lens.
Again another great video Jan. I own 7dmk2 with 100-400mk2. But that extra 100mm would be so welcome. I have to win the lottery first, but maybe once I will go for the to-be-realesed RF 600/4 and than this 100-500 would the best all round birding lens!
Yes, atm the 4/600 + 100-500 combo seems ideal and is what I am using
Canon 100-400 vs rf 100-500 vs 400 DO mk2 + 1.4 extender.
Thanks Jan for a very informative video comparison. I am doubling down on my bird photography in preparation for a trip to Africa next year and find myself agonising over my new R5 kit. I have the 100 to 400 Zoom, which works extremely well , and I recently bought the 100 to 500 RF lens which is an even bigger pleasure to use. The extra hundred millimetres is certainly noticeable in the field.
My question relates to a 2 camera setup: given that weight will be a major issue on an African Safari And that with advancing years I really don’t think I’m up for a 500 mm or 600 mm prime, I’m thinking of 2 alternate set ups to give me maximum versatility including low light shooting.
The first is to keep the 100 to 400 for its native range, probably on an R6 mk2 body and pair it with a 100 to 500 mm with a 1.4 extender to give me an active range of 100 mm to 700 mm, using the 100-500 + Ex as a fixed 420 to 700 mm lens.
The wild card is the idea of getting an EF 400 mm, DO mk2 and using that with my EF 1.4 converter to give me a 5.6 prime of 560 mm as my premium set up and keep the 100 to 500 as a native set up on the other camera.
Have you tried that lens, which seems to offer big white versatility and quality with relatively small size and weight? It should also help with low light shooting at Dawn and dusk, which are of course premium times for African and most other forms of wildlife.
I really appreciate your thoughts, since I have been unable to find anything that directly covers my question. Many thanks for your excellent videos, which I’m thoroughly enjoying while recuperating in hospital for a procedure. I’ve just booked myself into your master class, because if I can get bird shots that are a fraction as good as yours I’ll be a happy chappy. Keep up the good work.
I currently use the 100-400 with an R7 which gives me an equivalent 640mm. However, one thing that was not mentioned in this video, is the fact that the 100-400 is 2 aperture stops brighter at the long end. So when taking pictures of owls in a dark forest, the wider opening does help a lot. Especially with a crop sensor. However, I won't deny the fact that the 100-500 does have a sharpness advantage and the extra 100mm is a noticeable benefit (800mm on the R7!!!). However, the sharpness advantage is mostly noticed with higher resolving (high megapixel) cameras which may expose the lens limitations. So, it's a tough one for me personally as the 100-500 is a lot more expensive here in Canada. I really like watching your videos, they are really well done.
Same here.
The R7 is my "1,6x extender", so i saved a lot money with the EF 100-400 II.
In fact i have a interesting choice with these 3 lenses for less money than a single RF 100-500 would cost:
- Sigma 150-600C (good zoom range, just bad stabilized so no handheld video)
- RF 800 F11 (super light for hiking etc and the reach!)
- EF 100-400 II (universal, good in anything, especially since i dont use a teleconverter at all)
- EF 70-200 2.8 III, rarely used for wildlife in my case since the 100-400 II is often macro enough and because its just not "the wildlife" lens to go for mostly. More like the cheaper RF 70-200 2.8 for casual, sports and landscape stuff.
often i just pick the sigma or 100-400 depending if i also plan for video or if i want the most reach and little bit universality with one lens, or in some cases the 100-400 on R7 and RF 800 on R6 (its still sharper than the 100-400 could get with 2x TC and better stabilized as well as lighter)
The RF 800 give me what the 100-400 or even the sigma with 600mm is not capable of, especially for handholding while hiking for always being ready the RF 800 is awesome in the woods (and the AF is faster and more precise than the sigma is also in low light, on R6 as well on R7)
I used to have both lenses at the same time but now only RF 100-500L is the keeper. Just love the range and overall performance. I also do more landscape than birds, so f/7.1 does not really bother me as much.
Nice choice, yes, doesn't really bother me either
Hi Jan! I have the EF 100-400 II and a new R7 soon to come. With this lens what do you recommend for adding a 1.4 extender: Camera + RF extender + EF adaptor + Lens OR Camera + EF adaptor + EF extender + Lens? Would quality of images be affected by the sequence of how this might be setup? Thank you for all your detailed and helpful videos!
You cannot use RF extenders with EF lenses
Hi Jan, yes good hands-on comparison! I hesitate due to the second hand market prices comparison. And: Did you already use RF Extenders? They are also crazy in price range.
Thank you! Yes, I have been using the RF extenders with the RF lenses
Game changer for me in shooting sports is that the RF 100-500 requires a three step process to adapt to get to 400-500 levels. Compared to even the 70-200 level or 100-400 that requires one step process. You miss the shot, it doesn't matter whether you are at 401-500. R5 and R6 are great!
Hi, can you please explain what you mean by 3 step process
Hello Jan. Nice video, thanks very much. The biggest investment for any bird pro/am photographer will be the Glass. But the new Canon F11 lenses IMO may be a real game changer with these bodies. Best regard, Thomas
Yes, the F11 lenses offer very good value for money
Jan, your videos are fantastic!!! Well done and thank you!!
I live in Zimbabwe and have the 100-400, am thinking of migrating across to the 100-500 (impossible to get down here though)…
Question - do you think that Sigma will make a Canon RF mount of their new 150-600? Have you tried this new lens on the A1 that you are testing, what is it like if you have?
I shoot on the R5
I haven't tried it and afaik Canon has not shared the RF mount with any other company. so might be a while before we see such a lens
but very informative, Thank You
You're welcome
Excellent video. Thank you for the logical, imarptial comparison of these two very good lenses. The 100-500 is nice, but I’m going to stick with my 100-400 for now.
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for your review! I have a 100-400 ii with extenders 1.4x iii and 2x ii (EOS R) and I don't think it is worth upgrading just because the newer model is slightly better. In terms of sharpness, there's a lot that one can do in post. In most cases, good light makes more of a difference than pure sharpness levels. For new buyers, the RF is possibly a better bet.
Yes, both are great lenses. I tried to be pretty neutral in the review and sharing my observations. The 100-500 is slightly better, but not but an insane amount that everyone has to upgrade straight away. The main difference for me is the extra 100mm that can come in handy
@@jan_wegener Yes, I agree, those 100mm make a noticeable difference. Your review is very well balanced and honest, thank you for sharing.
@@cmeluzzi thank you!
Sharpness with the 100-400mm mii is as good as the rf100-500mm. The fact you can't add Tele extenders unless you're at 300mm or higher restricting your range.
Plus the cheap plastic of the 100-500mm. Stabilization is about equal but the 100- 400mm mii can be found at cheaper cost add the ef/rf adaptor and you have a solid metal constructed workhorse heavier but built solid. And will.out range the rf. The choice is clear for me for I use Canon pro dslr's so using the 100- 400mm II on my Canon R3 is going to be a great choice for me.
Hi Jan .what do you think. 1.4 or 2x teleconverter with the 100-500 . ? Great work .thanks
They work reasonably well. Not my first choice, but usable
I have owned the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM since it debuted. It is a wonderful lens however now I own an R6...the RF 100-500 is calling to me! For a while, I thought that I could just use a 2x converter and it won't be that bad...however watching this video, well I knew the conclusion all along. I am an enthusiast-level bird photographer (see: can't commit to the expense and burden of hauling around a huge prime). That extra 100mm of reach would really help! I shoot mainly in the woods - small, fast moving subjects so auto-focus response is nearly as important as IQ - an extender diminishes both. And I was pleased to see that Jan found the RF 2x converter (1000mm) to be acceptable so that is nice to have that option as well.
The new problem - trying to actually buy an RF 100-500! The demand is so high, they sell out immediately so it will be a struggle!
Yes, I got lucky that my dealer had a few in stock!
2x on any zooms lens isn't great, but on the 100-500 it did a decent job at times on the 100-400 I didn't like it at all
thank you!!
You're welcome!
Jan thanks for your amazing video. I actually have a R6 and the 100-400L and i'm thinking to upgrade to the 100-500. Do you recommend this with a R6? or do you prefer 100-400 + ext 1.4? Thanks so much and cheers from Chile :D
I love the 100-500
Thank you for this excellent comparison of these two lenses! I use the EF 100-400 II with 1.4 extender III on 5D Mk4 for most all of my bird/wildlife photography. I'm waiting for the R3 to be released before committing on it or the R5 and am on the fence wrt the RF 100-500. You put together such a quality report (!) comparing the images of all scenarios related to use of these lenses and it has helped me to reconsider just buying the RF lens while getting the camera. I would like to dispense with the extender, but in my test images the 2x doesn't compare to the 1.4x and at 120' full extension, the IQ w/ and w/o the 1.4x is barely noticeable. 1200' is another story.
I'll reply to this comment if I get the RF 100-500. The eagle's nest is ~1200' away and I have a lot of pics I'll be able to compare the sharpness with the EF lens.
A 2x extender on a zoom will always be somewhat of a big compromise
Great vidéo what do you think about thé New Lens rf 100/400. I have a R7 whitch is better on apsc? Thanks you .
I think it's a pretty good lens for the price. I made video about it a while ago
I’m thinking of buying the 100-400 for my R6 and c70. I would like to use it a lot for video as well and think the manual mechanical focusing could be more pleasant. How’s your experience with that? Would you even use manual focus in video? Thanks for the great comparison
I don't use much manual focus tbh. I think Canon has fixed the MF on the 100-500 now, so that you can use MF all the time, also when AF is engaged.
I think either lens would be pretty nice for video.
Going to have to stay with my almost new 100-400 & 1.4. If only I knew I was going to buy the R5 in late 2019! I will keep dreaming a bit longer.
Yes, the R5 hit us all as a bit of a surprise and so did the 100-500 I suppose
Excellent review as always. Your review will be a reference for those who are deciding on either the 100-400 or the 100-500. I will share your video. I think it is a no brainer to get the 100-500 if your own either the R5 or R6. I totally agree with your review. I have both lens. But since I have the RF version, the EF 100-400 is collecting dust. I would say go for the 100-500 if you are after ultimate image quality.
Thank you! Agree with everything you said
Great video, and excellent topic. Thanks. I have been shooting birds with a Canon 7D Mk II with the 100-400, +/- 1.4 extender. I bought a Canon R6 last fall, and stayed with my lens with the adaptor. I will stay with the 100-400 for now, but I know that if I have to replace it, I will go in the direction of the 100-500. Thanks again.
Glad the video helped :)
@@jan_wegener Your videos are fantastic! Superb photography and video in addition to excellent information. The 100-500 vs 100-400 comparison was exactly what I, and a lot of birders, needed. Thanks again. I will continue to look at your channel. Keep up the great work!
@@henryjohnson1771 awesome, thanks
I have the ef 100-400L ii and the 1.4x iii on a 7d mk ii. I intend on buying the R7 now that it's been announced. As much as I'd like the extra reach of the 100-500RF, I'm on the fence because the new lens is plastic whereas the ef 100-400 ii is a metal lens. The only gain appears to be the extra 100mm without a teleconverter and a lens that is native to the RF camera.
If you were upgrading to the R7 crop sensor body, would you keep the 100-400L ii and use it with 1.4x or 2x teleconverter as needed?