Canon’s CHEAPEST RF ZOOM Lens: 100-400mm f5.6-8 IS Review…is it worth it?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- FROPACK3 is HERE with 15 all-new custom Lightroom presets!!! Check it out
froknowsphoto.... (40% OFF)
This is a REVIEW of the Canon RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 IS Lens. This is by no means a professional high-end telephoto lens. It's light, plastic feeling and cheap. Does that mean it doesn't have the ability to get solid photos...no, you can do that....if you're out side. This is the type of lens that will be almost impossible to use indoors. This is not a lens for someone who's looking to step up their game as a pro. But it is a lens for someone who understands the quality loss they are getting, for the savings in money.
Order a Bernie Photo Book right here www.berniephot...
This video was filmed with the Canon EOS R5 Canon.us/r5fro
Download MyGearVault, it's FREE and the best way to keep track of all your camera gear, receipts, prices paid, date purchased and more mygearvault.co...
Get a FREE Guide To Capturing Motion In Low Light Situations froknowsphoto.... (look for the orange box)
Want to send us gifts, swag, letters...here's our P.O. BOX
PO Box 3715 Philadelphia, PA 19125
USE CODE FroKnowsPhoto at squarespace.com... to get your 14 day FREE Trial.
Gear I USE
I SHOOT RAW T-Shirts store.froknows...
I support Allen's Camera a mom-and-pop Camera store that's been around since 1977. allenscamera.c...
My Go To Mirrorless Camera for Stills
Sony a1 amzn.to/2NHsm55 or bit.ly/3ccKZrt
SIGMA 35mm f1.2 amzn.to/2rLO8Jr (FAVE LENS)
Our go to Cameras for Recording Videos at FroKnowsPhoto
Canon EOS R5 amzn.to/37GQQ5R or bit.ly/2Obaj40
Canon EOS R6 amzn.to/3m6JHQ9 or bit.ly/38GIdXt
The Microphone I use for Vlogging bit.ly/2LWGRPq
My Rolling Bag Of Choice For Flying bit.ly/2LNsHRK
Follow me
►UA-cam: bit.ly/frotube
►Facebook: / froknowsphoto
►Instagram: / jaredpolin
►Twitter: / froknowsphoto
Please help us continue to make FREE content
by purchasing one or all of the FroKnowsPhoto
Educational guides. To check out previews of
each guide click here.
►froknowsphoto.c...
#FroKnowsPhoto #JaredPolin #Canon
Would you buy this?
Yes
NO
I own it…
done
Yes. I want to shoot slow moving stuff at a distance and my photography makes me the princely sum of sweet FA.
Let’s all applaud Canon for selling a super zoom for less than a kidney or a leg 👏 👏 👏
😂😂
But it failed the windtunnel test!
🤡
@@efreutel small 🧠
I think the one thing that can’t be described is FUN FACTOR. I got some sweet teleglass, but their weight means I take them out for pro work only. This lens stays in my bag and in a month I already outshot all my pro glass. This lens is FUN. And you can’t put a price on FUN. Well, you can, it’s about $700 bucks.
Well put
I have this lens, I use it for Landscape photography. I can pop this in my bag and carry it all day hiking. Weight is important when you know you'll be hiking for hours on end. The high fstop's are obviously not a problem as a landscape photographer. It's as sharp as I need it to be and there when I need it as I'm too old to be carrying heavy arse glass these day's.
I use the RF 100-400 for landscape and compared it to the 100-500 L before purchasing, but when using it for landscapes the difference in sharpness between both lenses is very small and not worth spending the extra 1700,-. But that's just me.
I'm also thinking about picking this lens up. I rented the 100-500 for a trip I went on. Great lens but the weight and size added up after two weeks of lugging it around. I was still impressed I could fit a 100-500 in my bag and get away with it but if the difference isn't that huge then this 100-400 might be a better buy for me.
Why Canon doesn't charge me an extra $200 and put weather sealing on the damn thing. So stupid.
@@jessejayphotography if there was weather sealing on it, less people would buy the 100-500mm. Canon would not like that. I think the feature is a dealbreaker for many of us. However considering all aspects I’m not willing to pay 4x more for the big brother, but go for the 100-400 instead as a landscape photographer
@@gergok I'm in the same boat. 4X the price isn't worth it for me. I'd rather have an L version of the 100-400 lens with weather sealing. But I get that the 100-400 is not as sharp as the 100-500L and thus doesn't get the Canon "L" treatment.
I rented RF 100-500 and the image quality is amazing. From very few RAW files that I could find on line of RF 100-400, the image quality looks like from a cheap kit lenses. It is very evident on my 55 inch OLED@4K and 10 bit color
LOL! So you think a 500$ lens is as good as a 2800$ lens? 🤣 Your comment is what a clueless beginner would say! Someday, when you understand Photography, you will understand the HUGE difference!
I must say this is probably the first review of yours that i've watched where I don't totally agree with you.... I use both the 100-500 and this 100-400 for wildlife..... this 100-400 is so close to the sharpness / focus speed, of the bigger / more expensive 100-500 that ....truthfully im not sure if the 100-500 is really worth paying 5x the money ... and the fact that its so light ... you can walk around and hold this r5/r6 combo all day.
yes i agree they should sell it with a lens hood, but other than that I've used it for 6 months now and i'm super impressed to say the least!
Several bird photographers would agree with you on this. The 100-400mm is surprisingly sharp and the AF is fantastic. Incredible value for money.
I’ve both and yes the RF 100-500 allows more cropping than the RF 100-400 but the RF 100-400 punches well above its weight for the price. Jared also played down the fact this lens has USM not STM motors so it’s fast to focus and that it has the control ring which is not present on any other non L RF lens. I agree Canon should raise the price to $ 700 and include a lens hood it needs it.
Are you still happy with this lense? For bird photography, I want good isolation and bokeh, is that possible with this lense?
Hi Lefty , yes this lens is an absolute winner.... the bokeh is very acceptable....considering its at f8.
Naturally its not going to give you the bokeh of a 400 f2.8... but then there is no comparison on price. I use it for wildlife here in South Africa... as well as birding.
Im totally happy with the lens
I got to try this lens and it's value blew my mind. I ended up selling my RF100-500 and bought a 300mm f2.8 version 1 and this RF100-400 for about the same price as the 100-500. No ragrets!
I shoot wildlife as a hobby with my Canon R5 and this 100-400 RF Lens. I absolutely love it! I don't make any money from my photos or videos, I just do it all for fun, thus paying $3k for a 100-500 RF lens a bit much haha Honestly, if you are on the fence about getting this lens, and you're not a professional photographer, just get it! I don't think you'd be disappointed! Also, the lightweight of this lens is phenomenal for hiking with it!
I agree with you 100%. Incredible value for money lens.
Decision made
Thanks Jared great review! I think this lens is a pretty big step up from the old ef 75-300 lens. I’m not a professional photographer, photography is just a hobby for me. I mostly photograph railroads and telephoto is super helpful. The only thing that bugs me about it is the aperture but since it keeps the price down so I can’t complain.
I have this lens paired with my R6 and it's a great combo for travel, hiking, and close-in birding. I can carry this lens all day long - it's perfectly balanced with the R6 body. The autofocus is very fast and accurate - much better than my Sigma 100-400 lens which sometimes hunts for focus when attached to the R6. The only situation where I've been disappointed is when tracking birds in flight or airplanes, with the lens zoomed in 300-400mm, and the autofocus doesn't always lock on the object. Maybe firmware upgrade 1.5.2 will help improve this. Overall, though, I've been really happy with the lens.
Is it good for making landscape and mountain photos?
You shouldn’t be using a zoom lens this extreme for landscapes.
@@zacjohnson452 Why not?
@@zacjohnson452 yeah why not? sometimes i want to be able to zoom. only closest fixed lens is 600mm, too long
Were you using animal eye detection when tracking the birds or just a zone setting.
Just bought it and it pairs perfectly with my R6. Have used it for both architecture and landscape shooting and it's really excellent. Makes terrific 13x19 prints also. And if you set the cropping to 1,6 you end up with a 640mm lens admittedly with less pixels.
As a dad of youth athletes this lens is a great deal and works great for soccer and even gymnastics indoors. Indoors I usually use the 700-200 2.8 rf but with the high iso capabilities of current cameras this budget 100-400 does the job in a pinch when u need the reach.
Hi. May I ask about your experience with 100-400 so far? I'm also dabble with shooting indoor sports and wondering if the lens is ok.
Between 100-400 and the 70-200mm, which one would you choose? In my country it is priced exactly the same.
Depends on how far i am from the subject. The 70-200 is always better especially with indoor lighting but if you are far away from the subject then you might need more zoom.
As an R6+EF 100-400 II user, I can recommend that you activate the menu option in "C.Fn2" (the 2nd orange part of the menu in R6... guess in other cameras it's a similar place), and set "Same expo. for new aperture to ISO (or alternatively to others, but I recommend ISO). That saves you in quick changing situations or in video of having to compensate every time you zoom in or out.
His review is of the RF 100-400mm not the EF 100-400 II which is optically better, much heavier and almost four times more expensive.
Does that just automatically raise the ISO as you zoom in?
@@novainvicta I know. But the advice applies in the same way. Jared reminds you you have to change de ISO or shutterspeed when you zoom in or out, but that's an autovalue that doesn't alter your intended exposure and it can work for any variable aperture lens
@@Geerice that's right
As an r6+ef100-400 ii owner myself the quality is great, even with extender. But it is very heavy, im considering the rf 100-400 mm to bring for hiking but probably just continue using the 24-105 for that, or geting a 70-200mm instead to comine with a wide angle :)
I use this lens to photograph demonstrations and outdoor events (not sports) in Berlin, and the reach & clarity have been real impressive. Very light and easy to carry for extended periods. Recommended!
I love this lens. I have an R6 and will shoot birds and wildlife 3x a year. I get good results. I have even use this lens for an Outdoor event shoot. I am still working on my kit. My only L lens in the rf family is 24-105mm and 70-200mm. This is good for us bottom feeders
I have this lens and absolutely love it for outside birding and also close-up shots. I also have the Sigma 150-600 mm C and shoot with the Canon R6. The RF 100-400 is so light I can carry it around all day without noticing it while the Sigma is quite a bit heavier. The RF 100-400 is very sharp, maybe a little sharper than the Sigma. Knowing what you are getting, I feel the RF 100-400 is a great lens at the price point.
if you could only have one which would you choose? the weight and size of the sigma is off-putting but the light and reach advantage is appealing. I hike alot and like to shoot handheld though so the smaller lighter 100-400 is appealing too
@@adamwhittingham86 that is a good question. Since my passion is more bird in flight photography rather than general wildlife, I would have to choose the Sigma if I could only pick one. The longer reach plus better low light performance wins out.
Did you have any autofocus issues with the sigma on your r6?
@@paulantoni1934 it seems to me that the Sigma focuses “OK” on the R6 but doesn’t focus quite as well as the 100-400
I have this lens coupled to an R10, it’s not a perfect lens for flying birds in low light or if they are perched. However it is a light combo I can carry all day (I am 72 and usually walk 6-10 miles ) and as an amateur am happy with my efforts if I get 2 or 3 good photos.
I have this lens on my EOSR and like it quite a bit. It is definitely a LOT sharper than the 75-300 EF lens, which I think this is supposed to be the RF evolution of. The only time I have issues with it, is early morning or low(er) light. AF struggles quite a bit. When light is adequate, it works very well for wildlife/action shots. A little jockeying for background and you're good. No, it isn't a pro lens. But, for what it is, it is a good piece of kit.
The difference between F/8 and F/7.1 on the $2800 rf100-500mm isn't that much. It's not like one of them will blow out backgrounds and one won't. My backgrounds with the rf100-400mm are completely blown out when the background is far enough away.
Well one is 500 mm. 500 mm / 7.1 = 70 mm and 400 mm / 8 =50 mm. Still the difference is rather small most would not notice unless they compared side by side.
Canon: Lets send out our latest and darkest lens to a photographer (Jared!) who is known to love fast lenses and (almost exclusively) shoots wide open….
hehe...on point.
I own the RF 100-400. It complements my RF 24-105 f4 lens. I wish Canon would make a RF 100-300F4 instead of RF 24-70 f4.
I love my RF 24-105 f4 lens. It is great travel and walk about lens.
I picked up the lens when it was released and I enjoy using it. Mind you I use this mostly for bird photography (admittedly I would like more reach) with my R6. I think its a solid lens for outdoor action and birds/wildlife if you are interested in trying that sort of photography out without breaking the bank.
I use R6 too it’s amazing.
Currently have the Sigma C 150-600mm sticking with that for now. Hopefully the rumor of Canon doing an RF 150-600mm is true.
Great to see canon offering intro lens options on their RF system.
I do sports photography as a bit of a side hustle from my regular job. I use an R6, the biggest issue I have with the RF range is that the gap between the "cheap" lenses and the "Pro" Canon lenses is way too wide in terms of price. You go from $650 (US) to essentially $3k (US) between the 100-400 and the 100-500. Previously on the EF mount I used Tamron G2 lenses which are great and sit in the middle, but Canon isn't allowing 3rd party manufacturers to make RF lenses yet. They need something in in the $1500-$1900 range in my opionion. I don't really want to spend $650 on the cheaper lens, but definitely am not paying $3k for the 100-500 because it is way beyond the point of diminishing returns (for my use).
Completely agree. They are missing a lot of the prosumer options. For instance, I'd easily pay between $1000-2000 CDN for most lenses. I would often go for the Tamron or Sigma EF lenses because I'm not a paid professional and have difficulty justifying the $3000+ price tag of the top of the line lenses. Just give me a F1.4 prime with less colour fringing, or a mid-price zoom. I bought the RF 1.8 35 and 50mm just so I'd have some native RF options without having to use my EF-RF adapter, but I would have happily paid double for a better option for both. I'm not shelling out $3000 CDN for a 50 1.2 prime though! Canon would get so much more of my money with a few good mid-priced lenses. Give me what the third party companies used to and I will give you my money every time. And include the d*mn lens hood.
@@jillschindel2832you can get a hood for 20 bucks, yea I know Canon should have included one but it is what it is
This 100-400 + the 35mm macro is a good starter set if you don't want to have to rob banks to buy lenses. Both lenses look and feel good on an R6. The 35mm is a workhorse with a lot of flexibility, then if you need some reach or to frame something up a little differently, pop the 100-400 on. Can then hit the trails with a small or medium bag and get some fresh air and sweet shots without hurting your back. Put the money you save on these lenses towards a good tripod and other accessories.
This is quite possibly the worst review I’ve seen you do. From the get go you were down on this lens and therefore it’s a biased review.
I have the RF 100-500 and the RF 100-400. Sure the RF 100-500 is optically better but it’s also four times more expensive. It weighs 1365g as opposed 635g. Both lenses are made from engineering plastics.
I bought the RF 100-400 for hiking because after a long day out you really know you’ve carried the RF 100-500. Now I have a medium sized back pack that houses the R5/R6 depending on what I use. A RF 16mm, RF 50mm, RF 24-104mm f4L, RF 70-200mm f4L and the RF 100-400. I could never have done that with the EF mount and the weight would be too much and the space if I used the RF 100-500.
The image quality is way better than the stuff you showed. Yes towards the edges it falls off a bit but from 100 to 400 the results at most apertures are pretty consistent. Ultimate sharpness is reserved to the RF 100-500 or the EF 100-400 MKII (can honestly say cannot see any optical improvement on the RF 100-500 over the EF 100-400 MKII other than reach).
Don’t have to take my word for it watch the UA-cam video by Duade Paton the Australian bird photographer who owns the RF 100-500 and bought the RF 100-400 to test it. He was amazed at the optical quality for its price point of the RF 100-400. Sure Canon should increase the cost and include a lens hood on a lens like this because it needs it and at $ 75 it’s expensive sold separately.
My advise ignore this review and test it yourself.
Yeah, I’m that guy that this lens is geared to. I’m not a pro, and I’m just getting back into photography after being lazy with a small/tough pocket camera or iPhone in this digital age. I also don’t like carrying a bunch of weight at events. I just shot F1 last weekend with my 18-150 kit lens on my new Canon R7, and couldn’t quite zoom in as much as I wanted. I don’t care about depth of field so much since I’m cropping in on my subject pretty tight. The 100-400 is on sale for $499 today so I’m going to give it a try. Thanks for your usual honest review!
Lens flare can look amazing Jared! You might not like it, but my wedding clients love it
Thanks for the video. In terms of f stops, the 100-500mm seems to be only marginally better at 400mm. Would all your observations and comments on the background being on focus at 400mm drastically differ for the 100-500mm? Thanks, Stefano
Canon is absolutely nailing these cheaper budget lens. I still cannot believe they sell the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L for $2800. It should be In the $1500 range for sure. So seeing a 100-400mm for $700 is insane. Cannot wait for more lens like this. I have the RF 70-200 f2.8 and rf 15-35 f2.8L but it’s crazy how much those lens cost. Just brings more options for people who don’t want to buy L glass.
Either people need it, or don't need it.
That's the difference between professionals, enthusiasts and amateurs.
Very much true .. dont understand why canon is not coming up with good budget lens.. Sony and Nikon are doing best.. I have Canon R6 but wait for good Telephoto zoom lens with good budget is still ON and been using Sigma 150-600mm.
Just wanted to let you know that Allen's is treating me right and they really like you. I bought a used 5DM3 from them that was practically new and now I'm going to swap some older gear for a newer lens. I told them that I heard of them because of you and they were glad to hear it. Bonus: if you're buying gear from them they provide the shutter count. I'm *WAY* more concerned about the shutter count than the number of slight dings on the body! Thanks for turning me on to them!
I have an R5 with the Sigma 150-600 stabilized contemporary lens. Frankly it pretty good but the smaller size, native RF mount and much lighter weight make this lens pretty appealing.
Ive used this lens on an R6 for the past few years for motorsports. Its the best setup ive ever used. Almost all of my shooting is slow shutter speed panning , stopped down to at least f8. The small size and lightweight far offset any compromise in image quality, not that there us any compromise, this lens is more than sharp enough for the hobbyist weekend warrior photographer.
Just bought it for my EOS R10 Excellent quality
For biding, I suspect that the OM-1 with a 100-400 would be the best option. The 800mm equivalent would be a killer.
Definately seem like the best value indeed :)
Awesome lens for photographer who want the reach but dont mind the slower aperture. For eg shooting something static or doesnt mind “lesser bokeh” n shooting at higher iso at times due to slower f stop. The price and weight is fair.
I have it, and use it for shooting birds and my kids' sports. Been very happy with the quality of the images in both. For the birds, the background bokeh has been fine. Not as creamy as a f/4 or better of course, but totally acceptable. For the sports shots, it's less of an issue for me if some of the other players, or even parents on the bleachers are still semi-focused. Only negative is that without weather sealing, I can't take it out on wet days, and the ultimate tournaments my son plays seem to coincide with rainy days more often than not.
Was thinking the 100-500 would be nice, but honestly now I am leaning more towards the RF 200-800 (assuming it is ever in stock again) for the extra reach in the bird photos and keeping the 100-400 for the kids' sports.
The 1st thing I think when I hold that lens is lightweight! Engineered plastics. Just like on my 70-180mm 2.8, my 85mm 1.8 and many other lenses. I enjoy shooting with it every day on my R6 and I think it would be insane to spend almost $3000 for an extra 100mm for the larger and heavier rf100-500mm lens.
Thanks Jared! I just picked up this lens for $499 on sale, makes it even a better bargain! I had and EF 100-400 L, and it took great pictures. I sold it and most my lenses when I moved to the R system. I had a EF 70-300mm USM in the past, which was great for a walking around lens. I think that this will suit my needs for now. Another great video!
I honestly would have stuck with the 100-400L
One of my favorite lenses for hiking + birding !
2:45 - Yep say that on rallycross/motocross when rocks can easily penetrate front element of your glass. Better to lose 25$ filter than whole glass... Also cleaning filter is far more convenient than cleaning front element
one thing i always like about IS that nobody really talks about is it makes it a less bouncy in the viewfinder.
Thanks for the review. Shoot with a newly acquired R6 (replaced RP). Replaced my EF 100-300 5.6 L first version with the RF 100-400. For wildlife photography the RF 100-400 just works better with the animal focus tracking. Is it as ultimately as sharp as the old EF 100-300? Probably not, but my percentage of hits is much higher. Also have the Sigma 150-600c EF. Got the 100-400 for it’s size ease of handling. Also like it’s close focusing ability. So for me it’s working quite well. The EF 100-500 isn’t in the budget. Can’t wait to try this lens on butterflies and dragonflies!
A lens for normal people. That's nice! ☺️
I bought a used EF 100-400mm II for around a thousand bucks.
For me personally, that was the best option for my R6.
The 100-500 is awesome but boy is it expensive...
Keep the ef 100-400 ii whatever you do don't buy this lens you'll regret the purchase. Stick with your ef100-400 ii
Answered my question in the first 2 minutes. I have the R6 and wanted to get something to replace my old ef 75-300. Didn't want to break the bank. Also saw this lens on sale at Allen's Camera.
In have it since 4 month now and its my Favorit lens for action shots with my dogs.
Part of me wants to buy it as my 70-200mm f2.8L doesn't have the reach I want for hobby photos (the 70-200mm f2.8L is one of my wedding lenses). But the rest of me wants nothing to do with budget glass anymore. After using the "Brick" 28-70mm f2L for a couple of years, I don't even want to deal with the nifty fifty on image quality.
You're basically getting the same reach as the EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6, with possibly a slight advantage to depth of field (as f5.6 is more like f9 in terms of bokeh), though i find the various samples of the bokeh to seem quite busy and distracting, despite the smaller aperture I think the 800mm f11 has more pleasing bokeh due to focal length and compression (except onion ring artifacts in some situations)
Keep in mind that for many of these he was shooting through a net, which will cause serious issues with bokeh, regardless of lens.
@@JordanCS13 I was thinking thinking sports would be less ideal bird photographers, plane spotters and telephoto landscapes, but it was nice to see this application. I think they wanted to keep the contrast high which results in the edgy bokeh even though it is equivalent to 250mm f5 on APS-C. The samples I've seen of the 55-250mm STM mounted on APS-C seems to have softer bokeh.
I've been considering this lens but a bit hesitant due to this quirk. I've heard some glowing reviews of it including that it focuses faster and is far more value over the 100-500mm. The Tamron 100-400 is another budget option I am contemplating which would be a bit faster but I am wary of third-party lenses - I don't recommend the 150-600 G2 on the R5/R6 as the AF has been very unreliable for closer subjects.
Great review, Jared. I photograph college sports all the time with my R6 but I never use electronic shutter because of the rolling shutter distortion. Still though, dynamite auto focus and 12 frames per second mechanical is a pretty doggone good sports camera for 2499. ✅ I have found that I can use the electronic shutter for birds that I might get in the frame for about 1/3 of a second before they fly away so I can get a few images when using the 20 frames per second electronic shutter. But never for sports. Depending on what sport I’m shooting, I use either the 24-70, 70-200 or my 100-500. Thanks again for a nice informative and entertaining video.
Hey Phil... I have season tickets to our College Football games this year and I want to shoot photos from the stand where I'm sitting. I'm located at the corner of the end zone about 15 rows up. I have the 70-200 2.8 but I think this lens (100-400 5.6-8) will help but I'm scared for the action shots. I'm using the R5 by the way. I used a cheap 75-300 the other night and the photos were very soft and hard to get. I may have a couple of night games as well. So... what do you recommend? Will I enjoy this lens at the games or get frustrated?
I had bought this lens as a ‘cheap alternative’. It felt very cheap to me. I only took a handful of photos before returning it. My feelings were very much in line with what Jared had to say about it.
Exactly right. I went through the exact same thing. And I returned mine also it was complete garbage
@@RandomGuy-qn2fr Thanks for this, I’m going to instead save up for the L version. I already had L lenses but not one with a lot of zoom range.
I am an amateur and I own this lens. I just traded my Canon RP for Canon R6 Mark II but the R6 is back ordered. There is no way I am going to spend thousands on a lens and I don’t have anyone that will give me one because I don’t make money with photography. That said, I love photography and I appreciate your videos.
The EF 100-400 seems like a better option to this. Yeah it’s EF and a bit more expensive, but if you don’t wanna double up on the 100-500 it seems like the best middle ground
The EF 100-400 II is almost four times more expensive new. It’s 2 1/2 times more heavy. Yes optically it’s better as is the RF 100-500 but for $ 650.00 your getting a lot of lens for the price in the RF 100-400.
Hoya HD nano UV is the one to use. Zero affect on image quality.
Not normally but when shooting against the light any filter can cause reflections. If that happens one can remove it.
Not sure why you decided to test a slow lens on fast action sport. Any f8 lens will struggle. How does it work at f11 at 400mm for landscapes? This is where the light weight will come into its own.
Good timing! Been wanting to upgrade my t7 and 70-300. I was looking at this lens and a RP
I do birding and get paid to shoot soccer with this lens on my RP and lemme tell ya it's freeking amazing for the price.
@@HeroShotz I can second that. I shoot birds in flight for fun and this lens nails it. Very fast AF, great AF tracking and very sharp (especially for the price).
Third thumbs up from me
I use it for landscape or cityscape on travels. It’s super lightweight and I’d shoot f/11 anyways.
I really considered this lens when it came out as a native replacement for my EF 100-400L version 1. The slow aperture and no weather sealing pushed me toward the Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 with more reach, but I was disappointed with how slow it's autofocus motors were with my R6 for birding and returned it. I'll finally have an RF 100-500L in a few days, and if it focuses as fast as the RF 800 F11 I'll be thrilled with it!
What is your opinion on the 100-500?
@@ZapejoMC I love it for wildlife and automotive. It's pretty light and compact for its range and the autofocus and stabilization are fantastic. It will keep up with birds flying towards you, unlike the Sigma's and there isn't a huge difference between 500mm and 600mm. F7.1 at the long end isn't a great number, but subject separation is pretty good and during the day you can still have a really fast shutter speed and low iso. My R6 handles low light really well so I can still shoot with this lens before sunrise/after sunset for a little while, but it may not be quite so usable in that light with an R/RP/R7/10/50/100.
I almost found a useful use for the ring. I occasionally shoot in kelvin so i use it to change temperature. Curious if motorsport focus would do the trick for lacrosse
This lens is great for landscape photography, I use it for on tripod shots where I’m shootings at f/16 anyways.
I just purchased this one and plan to keep it. I have a tampon 150-600mm which is heavy. This can do almost everything that big lens can do.
This is like a pro version of any time i've tried to do sports with my low end bodies and lenses.Mine is 98% crap while yours at least has SOME great shots😅
The lock is actually good to have because after using it for a while, it becomes a little loose. At least that‘s what happened on my 24-240
Thanks for the review. It’s good for even the most serious amateur. Light, good price, sharp; I’m not going to worry about taking it to the beach but I’m careful about the sand and to not show my wife the invasive clarity.
Yes I own this lens for my Canon R. It takes good pictures most of the time if I do my part.
R7 + 100-400 RF, great tech for the price!
I couldn't afford the RF100-500mm so it was a choice between the EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6L or the RF100-400. The EF version is about twice the price and heavier and from the reviews I read I decided to get the RF 100-400. Not used it that much yet but for landscapes the aperture doesn't worry me. Not used it for wildlife yet but, as a hobbist, I think the R5 together with ON1 Denoise AI or DxO Pure Raw will be fine if I have to crank the ISO up.
Great for critters and hiking. If it were heavier or afraid to break it I may not bring it then the wouldn’t be good.
I have an R6 and I use my RF 70-200 f/2.8 for portraits and sports, but I think that the RF 100-400 will be a better choice for landscape, nature, and travel shots. The small size and low weight should be especially good when traveling with only carry-on baggage. I'm planning a hiking vacation next month and I plan to have my iPhone 13 Pro (13mm, 26mm, and 77mm) in a pocket and the RF 100-44 on my R6 on a Peak Design Capture Clip or strap so that I can be ready for anything from ultrawide to 400mm with minimal delay. I'll have my RF 24-105 f/4 in the backpack for when that will be a better choice.
Does this lens have a silent zoom similar to the EF 55-250mm IS STM?
You mean autofocus? (The zoom is manual both). This has USM motor. It may not be as silent but it is nothing like the old DC motors. USM is generally seen as better than STM, it is faster though the more silent STM is often seen better for video.
I'm glad that this is a good lens.
A lot of photographers sound like like "if you're not using the L lenses then you aren't a real photographer". Not everyone can afford a $3000 lens, especially when they are starting out.
I'm a pro ski photographer and I'm seriously considering this lens for big mountain shots, i.e. big mountain, small skier. I could save up and drop the $4k on the RF 100-500 but honestly I'm worried about the weight to shot ratio. For example, it would represent at least 20-25% of the total bag weight for 5% of the shots...the extra effort of carrying and potentially falling / breaking I'm not sure is worth it. I always pack the RF 70-200 2.8 which is ideal for tracking subjects with AF and get bangers all day so I would not be relying on this lens for super fast auto focus since the subjects will almost always be at infinite focus, like on the opposing peak. These kind of shots are always in decent light and conditions for safety and aesthetic...there really is no point in sending a huge line for cameras in flat light, come back next time. I guess this is all to say, thanks for the review Jared and folks tossing up between this and the 100-500, have a real think about your use cases...cos I know those L beauties are nice to have but so is an extra $3k!
Ordered this lens recently and can’t wait to shoot at the race track!
Juat ordered this lens as an amateur nature photographer. First lens I've bought and wanting to improve my images from my 12 year old bridge camera
Great vid as usual. The lens is great for the cost. As a travel/personal use lens it's great. I get some nice shots/video with it. I pair it with an RP just for EDC/travel when I'm not working. Obviously compared to my work setup ,(2 R5's with 70-200 f/2.8, 50 f/1.2 15-35 ect.) it falls a bit short. But for general use and travel paired with RP/R and the 16, 35 and 50 it's a great addition to the cheaper line
The lens gets to f8.0 at 260mm. So if you are planning to use it for birding your flexibility is not great. You get what you pay for and overall it is a light weight, low cost alternative with decent PQ.
Photography is just a hobby for me so I don't require the best like a pro would. I just ordered one today and I'm sure I will like it since I know it can do what I require. Thanks for the nice video.
Unpopular opinion incoming:
If you need reach, for birding or sports, and price is a concern, or you aren’t a pro, my opinion is that a crop sensor camera and lense setup makes more sense.
Extra reach from the crop, it’s like adding a 1.6 teleconverter to any lense.
You will most likely be cropping still, and the extra pixel density of a crop sensor camera will actually leave you with a higher resolution image in the end (assuming the same MP count)
ISO performance won’t be as good, sure, but looking at the current crop of high pixel count full frame cameras ISO performance, it’s not nearly as bad as it’s made out to be.
I do landscapes and I'd love a lightweight 100-400 like this. They really tried to make it as cheap as possible, which worries me, but if the images are sharp I'd buy it. Everything is getting bigger and heavier these days (shifting of the market due to cell phones), but I wish "high quality gear" wasn't only associated with giant apertures and monster lenses.
In that case, try it, you'll love it. It's a very sharp lens. My friend bought it. I put it on my camera while in the city and took 3 street photography shots with it, then handed it back. I walked straight to the camera store and bought one. Absolutely love it.
I’ve both the RF 100-500 and the RF 100-400 and the RF 100-400 is way better than this poor review by Jared.
Testing this lens on a R5 was most probably the worst camera you could have used. Its 45mp sensor needs high resolving lenses to get maximum performance.
I think the R6 would have been a better match due to its excellent 20mp sensor coupled with the same tracking / focus of the R5.
I purchased one of these to use on my R as a lightweight walk around combo and it performs exceptionally well. Unfortunately the R is not built for speed so not fair to test tracking / focus on fast moving action.
But what I will say is i also own an R3 so I was able to test it. what can I say it was fast accurate and sharp with no focusing issues.
So the moral of the story is, just because its cheaper it does not always equate to having poor performance, the classic example of this is the 50mm f1.8
This is just my opinion based on my actual use.
That Canon are putting out cheaper lenses is excellent. The RF glass is scandalously expensive atm which has kept me wedded to Sony and the E Mount third party lenses.
I’m looking at getting upgrading to my first Mirrorless camera and this lense is the focal length I want and the price is hard to beat.
RF 100-400 + R7 = Killer combination?
💯
I think you hit the nail on the head. Solid lens for the price, and meets expectations for the range. Is it the Best of the Best with Honors Sir? No, but if you want that, you're going to have to pay a lot for it. Great lens for Johnny Casual that is looking for a bit of reach, while still remaining economical.
I suprised myself by buying this lens. I generally shoot model portfolios using either of 50/85 or 24-105, but from time to time I need something a bit longer, previously I had the EF70-200f2.8, a great lens but so heavy, I have also at times been looking for longer reach than the 200mm it offered, as it was only an occasionaly use for a long lens I didn't want to lug my big white 400mm on a model shoot where it may not get used. This 100-400mm does just great for what I need, a wider than F8 would be nice for blurring the BG but my back thanks me.
hey, maybe my question does not quite belong here but i ask anyway ;-)
I have Canon 90 D and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L ii, now i am looking for more reach and need help and explanation 'why' to pick one over the other of following lense
- canon 100-400m ii
- Sigma 150-600mm C
- Tamron 150-600mm g2
which one deliver best quality phots?
Im currently saving up for this lens as a 15 year old aviaton photographer and this video was very helpful to know what to expect! I currently shoot on a cannon 55-250 and this seems to be similar in photo quality or better but much longer and thats exactly what im looking for! Thanks!
thank God i waited till the end of the video to see the wind tunnel test.... Great catch!!!
I love your honesty 😆 thanks 🙏 I been learning a lot with your videos and review keep your good work 👍
the not quite attached lens hood on the 100-500 is unsettling.
You have any more video updates on the people that got the free gear? I like seeing the people that are getting helped out with that program. Gives me some hope.
i think its good that there are cheaper slower lenses.
We cannot all justify or afford the price of true professsional lenses.
I really liked that comment about, the teleconverter. I made a rookie mistake this weekend and out a 2 X tele on my lens on an overcast day and paid the price for it when I went home to look at the photos in lightroom
Planning to buy the 100-400 lens shortly for my new Canon r6 mark II. Hoping it will be good for nature & birding/wildlife photos. Not a pro but fairly picky about images.
I'm having a very serious technical issue using the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM and Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lenses for outdoor photos of birds and nature, daylight, high ISO, high speed and closed aperture with the R7 camera the images are not sharp, it seems that the camera does not focus well in these conditions.
To clear the doubt, I used the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM under the same conditions and the problem is repeated. I tested both lenses with the R5 and with the diaphragm very closed, there is a huge loss of sharpness.
I did a test in the studio, camera on tripod, manual focus checked with 15x magnification, shooting on self-timer 10s and the difference in sharpness between files with 40 and 5.6 diaphragms is huge I repeated the test on an external photo with sun and in excellent conditions and the same thing happened. To remove all doubts, I repeated the same test with the Canon 5DIV, and the problem is the same!!
What is happening?
Is it a lens defect?
Is it a problem with the R7 camera?
Shouldn't these objectives be used with the diaphragm completely closed?
Do you have something to say to me?
I send a wetransfer link (Download link we.tl/t-JkxvszgyKf )
with 20 print screens of my Lightroom screen and with good quality, with technical information from Lightroom for you to evaluate the tests, if you want the original files in RAW just let me know. I have a large series of photos taken with the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM on the R7 camera where this problem is much more serious, and the images have been very bad.
I expect a technical opinion from you and a possible solution to the problem or guidance on how to use the lenses without these problems occurring.
Thank you very much
João Caldas
Sao Paulo, Brazil, May 2023
Canon is not very sharp , you should switch to Sony ;)
How much does this kit weigh?
I would like to use one on a custom built drone
I shoot the full moon with this lens. Like it a lot.
Entertaining as always. Loved the Grace Jones pose of the pitcher.
Thinking of getting one prior to a cruise to Norway for the summer solstice.
I have an RP.
You can get it used in excellent condition for just over 400. Honestly that's hard to beat for landscape and other still photography.
I used this lens to shoot the Artemis 1 rocket and was happy with the results given it's a 32 story metal tube sitting still with no background to focus from miles away