I bought this lens a little over a month ago and I have to say that I really like it very much. I pair it with my R6 and have even set the camera crop/ratio to 1.6 and turned it into a 640mm with quite a loss of pixels but I got some good results that way also. It is not my walk around lens as that is my RF 24-105 L and along with the EF 16-35L I can cover just about everything. Thank you for your review that I think is spot on.
I bought this lens well over a year ago. I mostly shoot landscape and woodland as a hobby. I find my default lens is the RF 24 - 105 f4L. However, this lens is light enough to carry along on most hikes. It performs well enough at F9 or F11 to satisfy my needs. I also could afford it based against the limited use it gets. I have watched this review a few times over the years mostly to refresh my understanding of its aperture use and clarity. Like all of your reviews this one is helpful and a good reference tool. Thank you for the effort and help you provide.
I bought this lens a month ago, and love it, on my Rp. I stick it in my Camera bag together with the 35mm lens and Voigtländer 20mm pancake lens and the whole setup is still small and light enough that I can carry it around all day without ever becoming tired or soar. The excellent magnification allows me to take pictures of butterflies, larger bugs etc. In fact, ever since I started shooting full frame many years ago I missed a genuinely portable tele-lens that still had decent reach and this is the first lens that I actually fits my needs I still agree with all of Dustin's conclusion, but for me those limitations are things I can live with, when I consider what the upsides are. One thing I would like to add for anyone considering this lens that are worried about bokeh quality and smoothness etc is that these are things that can be improved in post process. Recent versions of Lightroom etc have ridiculously effienct selection and masking tools that often makes softening the background etc a breeze, and if you are fine with that, then that toocan help you handle the limitations of this lens
@@andredo4880 I’ll jump in here. The Voightlanders are small pancake lenses, no AF, but couple for EXIF data and and actuate focus points during manual focus. The lenses are small, light and metal. I had a trilogy for Canon EF mount and overall very happy. They all need to be stopped to f8 or 11 for the best sharpness, 11 if you want vignetting and corner softness gone. The 20 was the last I sold, being i think the best of the 3. The 40 is also great, same caveats, and really a good focal length. Some people use these with M mounts on Leica. I’m a huge Zeiss prime fan and these feel the same, albeit smaller. If you’re interested in metal manual focus primes with old school optical designs, check them out. I stuck with Zeiss, after selling all my fast Canon L primes (7?) and zooms (3- 2.8Ls), I even tried Sigmas and Tamrons.
Thank you for this review! Two comments from a happy owner of the RF100-500L which made its way as my most used lens when going to nature and shooting wildlife, birds, plants - and landscape: - Never judge a lens just from test shots at charts when it comes to landscape. Infinity focus performance is a different story. So I like your mythology always verifying in "real life". - The 100-400 has two strengths (beside of the price): Closeup performance and ultra light weight. This makes it a very interesting tool to shoot insects like butterflies and dragonflies out in the field. You have to tackle with escape distance and holding the lens in uncomfortable low positions at river edges, ... . The 100-400 compared to the 100-500L gives a better working distance, better max magnification and you have to hold 2 pounds less in these conditions - great! Neither F8 nor edge sharpness is anything of concern in this genre, same with wild flowers. To say it short, two weeks ago a package showed up and I now own the 100-400 beside the 100-500L. First shots of spring flowers are looking promising, but the insect season still did not arrive. I expect to get shots I would not got with any other lens I ever used in this niche of interest. But it looks like a strong option for lightweight backpacks at hikes and for general use as budget entry in mirrorless RF.
@@DustinAbbottTWI It took me several months to detect this lens to have some real interesting strengths. My initial thought was it to be useless for me.
@@peterebel7899 Hi Peter, have you tested the stacking with autofocus for butterflies / dragonflies / on your R5? I guess you mostly used with an R5. Thanks anyway for your detailed comments on various photographer channels. I've read many of them in the last year. Chances are very high that I'll get the 100-400 exactly for the purpose that you've mentioned, plus its resolution should be more than sufficient for my R6 for landscape shots during hikes. Enjoy your photography!
@@DirkDien Thanks Dirk! Yes, I did a little focus stacking with the R5. Focus bracketing is basically doing great. But sometimes I am "a guy wanting too much" - as we have a say in our language. I do have two issues: - I tried this in rather complex scenes spring flowers overlapping each other. With automated stacking I got some weird areas in the stacked photo. You can improve manually but as soon as you are going to think in more detail, the is no information which is needed in the whole stack: Those details being close by other elements in the foreground are in a single file sharp but overplayed with the blurred foreground. - I love to shoot raw, so the R5 bracketing delivering JPEG does not excite me too much. Regarding butterflies and dragonflies the stacking process should be more easy, but there any movements kick more often in than in those flowers (moving in the least breeze as well). So up to now I shoot insects with bursts of single exposures. I should give focus stacking another try in the next season ;-) You will enjoy the 100-400, the combo from price, weight, size & performance is great (if great is the right word describing this lens' size ...)
I got this lens to pair with the EOS RP. I got it because I wanted something that would give me the focal length without breaking the bank. Your review sums this lens up pretty well. It's a lens that comes with some tradeoffs, but for the price, it's a pretty good lens all things considered.
This is my favorite lens for my R6! It's on there every day while I'm out shooting birds and wildlife. I think paired with the r6, it is the best value lightweight medium reach combo for non-professional photographers or anyone on a budget. It's so much fun to carry and hike with that I don't think I would rather carry the larger and heavier rf100-500mm every day even if I had it. For my Sony system the tamron 70-300mm RXD fills that necessary lightweight and cost value gap between the short lenses and the big 200-600mm. The maximum aperture at 400mm is f/8 but for the rf100-500mm it's f/7.1 so there's not that much difference there in aperture for that much cost difference. If the rf100-400mm is a daytime only lens and not good for stopping down how would the f/7.1 of the $2800 rf100-500mm be any better at low light or stopping down? Maybe that's compared to an F/4 or F/5.6 lens that are much heavier and cost more also. I don't find the need to stop down this lens beyond f8 to f10 usually. I'll take half the weight savings anytime! Thanks as always Dustin for your entertaining and informative videos!
The closest competitor to Canon's RF 100-400mm is Sigma's 100-400mm F5-6.3 C. I have the latter and I find it very good. I would appreciate comparing Canon's RF version against Sigma and Tamron's nearest focal equivalent telephoto EF mount lenses with the EF-RF converter.
The Canon RF Canon's RF 100-400mm IS USM can be used for the lower cost R7 and R10 APSC cameras giving an equivalent FF field of View of 160mm to 600mm. Canon R7 and R10 have in-camera corrections for ONLY Canon branded lenses:- * Peripheral illumination Correction * Distortion Correction * Digital Lens Optimizer * Chromatic Aberration Correction * Diffraction Correction Since the R7 and R10 have zero noise up to IS3200 and negligible noise up to ISO10,000 (if RAW files opened with DPP or DXOPureRAW) the Canon RF 100-400mm IS USM cannot be beaten by any adapted 3rd party lenses. People who want to promote Sigma lenses should instead be promoting Sigma L mount Cameras.
I feel like this is a really great lens for people like me who normally have a standard zoom on their camera, but occasionally need to go longer and can't justify the cost and/or weight of an L lens. If and when Sigma get round to releasing RF lenses I'll probably trade it for their 100-400 at some point, if only for the weather sealing, but until then I'm more than happy with it
My feeling as well. Replaced my Tamron 70-300 VC USD (from my APS-C days) with a 100-400. Big Tamron fan but after analysing when/where I used the 70-300 I went with the RF 100-400. Lighter and smaller. Good enough for a daylight/zoo lens.
Just a side note about "sigma get around to releasing RF lenses" it's Canon thats stopping them, not Sigma refusing to do so. Canon has closed off the RF mount to pretty much ALL 3rd party lens manufacturers.
Great in depth review as always Dustin. Love your level of detail and practical experience reviews alongside technical tests. I have this RF 100 400 with 1.4x TC on my R6. Works great and image quality is quite similar to my earlier Sigma 150-600 contemporary. However focusing speed is insanely fast compared to Sigma even with TC. In the past I have missed too many shots due to slow focusing speed of Sigma. Let's see in long term how it lasts.
yes, those adapted long telephotos rarely cut it in terms of focus speed. The premium Canon EF 100-400L II was fine, but these newer Nano USM motors focus nice and quick.
I am really interested how this rf 100-400 on R8 compares to 55-250 stm on r10. resolution-wise and collected-light-wise they are similar (i.e 400 f8 on full frame vs 250*1.6 f5.6*1.6 on crop). but weight-wise it seems 55-250 is even more compact, and probably could also be used w/ 2x extender with some drilling of adapter
Hmmm, I would be careful when trying to make that lens extender compatible. The lens itself has clearly not been either physically or optically designed with extenders in mind.
@DustinAbbottTWI I agree here indeed. Yet the question about these two is open, in what aspects exactly 100-400 is better. I own both and struggle to see one really beating another
Traded in my tamron ef 100-400 which was soft as mush, was the rf 100-400 or the ef 70-300L, both around the same price at the camera shop, went with the ef 70-300L absolutely love it, use it with the Cpl canon adaptor for motorsports, going by your review I made a good choice 100mm down but the image is sharp enough and 45mpx means I can crop should I need, people don't like adapting but for me having the Cpl adaptor is a game changer, can use lens hoods too, excellent reviews as always.
I had a 70-300L had to sell it due to things, big regret, it was a great pairing with my 90D but I have an R6 now and this RF100 400 seems like the next best thing.
I have an R5, thinking about getting this lens BUT... I also have a Fuji XT5 with the Fujifilm XF 70-300 F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR. I dont know if the canon setup is better, or if i should keep the Fuji one....
@@DustinAbbottTWI THanks a lot, Dustin. AS you are an absolute expert... can i ask you if the F4-5.6 of the fuji (apsc) is real? or it has an equivalence in full frame?
It's real. As far as light gathering, an APS-C lens will give you the same metering (shutter speed) as a full frame at equivalent aperture, though depth of field will be different.
I know that you tested the Sigma Ef 100-400 some years ago, how would it compare vs this lens in term of background separation/bokeh ? Would you say the Sigma is a clear winner since it has f6.3 instead of f8 here?
Thank you, Dustin. I’m new at photography and recently purchased a new Canon RP. Other photographers have told me that the glass is more important than the body. I’m finding that to be true. I have purchased and returned a few different lenses at this point because I am just not sure what to use to start out. Obviously I want to work with budget equipment and maybe sometime down the road if I get really good, I’d get something better. This video really helped me to make a decision not to get this 100-400 lens and to stick with the one I currently own: Canon EF 70 - 300 IS II USM (using a mount adapter). Your information is very clear and detailed and I so appreciate that! I’m wondering what your opinion is on having an EF mount lens versus an RF mount lens? (I’d also like to add that after doing some online research and talking to some photographers, I ended up buying an EF 17 - 35 mm canon zoom lens… I’m understanding it’s from 1996! But it works really well in my opinion) Thanks! -*subscribed!
Welcome on board. As for EF vs RF, it really depends on the lens and also your tolerance for having to use an adapter. Sounds like you're on the right track.
Heading to Iceland, Ireland, and Scottand in a few weeks, and thinking about renting either the RF 100-400 or the RF 100-500. Do you think the extra weight of the 100-500 will be worth it for mostly landscapes? No idea on the weather, so the weather sealing is a mild concern of mine. Thanks.
I’m choosing between the the rf 100-400 and the 70-300 usm ii. I don’t really need the reach and could benefit from the extra light at my nephews basketball games. Just a little concerned about the focus speed difference. I’m not a pro and I have an R6
Ho would it compare to the EF 70-300 L lens with adapter? You loose the 400 (unless used with a teleconverter) but it is also light and has good quality.
Thank you sir for another amazing lens review. I’m considering this lens for travel with my R6MKII. I’m not trying to capture pro style images. I’m just a hobbyist and do some video for Bible Studies. The STM EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 works great adapted onto the R6MKII. You provided a great review on that lens some years ago. I picked one up and didn’t regret it. Thanks again!
hi Dustin i have a tamron 100-400 vc lens and thinking of buying the canon rf 100-400 f/5.6-8 is usm this is solely because of weight and trying to reduce this and i would really appreciate your thought on the two lenses
If weight is your priority, perhaps, but the Canon is not as good as the Tamron optically…and is slower in terms of aperture. There’s definitely going to be some trade offs.
I have the Canon ef 70-300 4.5-5.6 is usm II, do you think it's worth upgrading to this lens considering I can adapt the ef lens to my Infrared converted M6 and my M6 II? Thank you
Hi, great video. I was thinking it would be more worth it. I have a Canon R10 and I want a telephoto lens for animals. I automatically thought of the RF 100-400mm. Native and with high focusing speed in addition to the low price (in my case 600 euros). On the other hand, there is the option of the sigma 150-600 contemporary, with a higher price (800 euros) + adapter (70-100 euros). What do you think is more worth it, losing those important mm in bird photography or the focusing speed in addition to perhaps other problems you have for not being Native?
@@DustinAbbottTWI what do you mean when you say "small" like, it's about the sensor or the size of the body. I was having doubts because I know that the sigma 150-600 is more light and the quality is better. But the canon rf is much more better at AF. And the sigma will have troubles at that (I dont know if those problems are significants at all) Sorry about my english, it's still in work progress
What would you suggest is the better option? I have a RF 800 F11 (got into wildlife with EOS RP) and since i changed from full frame EOS RP to APS-C R7 the RF 800 is getting a little too tight with 1280mm. wondering if i can get around 160-640mm with the RF 100-400 and its super light and small Or if a Sigma 150-600 is worth the bigger size and weight, especially 2nd hand they are cheaper than new RF 100-400.
@@DustinAbbottTWI found a fair priced 100-400 II. Its basically a not much worse, nearly the same as a 100-500L in my opinion. Especially the F5.6 at 400mm tack sharp are a joy.
Great review. Very informative. I was wondering if the lack of sharpness on the edges or corners is caused by performance of the glass - or- due to the focal plane not being straight, but curved. Did you try to focus on the edges (instead of the center) to see what the cause is?
Dustin, at about 15 minutes into the review, you note that you believe the R5 might have too much resolution... Are you suggesting that results would be better on the R6 (which I own). Thank you for all your reviews!
This lens works great with the 1.4x. I shot an open air performance last weekend with this combination. Sure, you start at F8 but that is kinda what you want for a stage performance, if you want everything in focus. I have the RF 100-500 L too, but that really is a different lens. It is bigger, heavier and while it cannot get the low range, it gives me 700mm when I need it. The 100-400 with the 1.4x is a perfect combination as part of a travel kit. I shot Everest from a Monastery in Tibet at 4900m using a Sony 100-300 some years ago. This lens is equivalent and in many ways superior to the Sony and perfect for the Canon RF system.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Well, this is more a travel lens for me. I have the RF 100-500 but that thing is heavy and there's no way I'd get that in a 7kg kit :)
Thank you so much for making this video based on our request. Although now i am pretty discouraged about the performance of the lens after watching your review. But i do have a better understanding of the pros and cons. So for now i am going to keep this lens option on a standby. Also, another request if you could do an in-depth review of the Fuji X-100v and as i am looking for a compact travel setup and something i can have on me all the time. I know its outside your wheelhouse to review compact range finders, but i thought i will give it a shot. Again deeply indebted for the work you do. Cheers.
Duston, Thanks much for your thoroughness. I currently have this lens in hand, have shot with it for a day and am feeling 'ho-hum' about it, and would agree with your findings. And as you note, and I'd emphasize for others who may be considering it, closing down an aperture stop really does become a constraining factor in multiple ways. I think I'll hold on to my money and hold off on keeping it.
Using on the first EOS R, I have no objective complaints... of course, we could argue it could let more light in and have better bokeh but for its price and weight? I don't think so. Even if I had the money, I can't really imagine carrying the L lens with me, on the other hand, this one is so small that it can fit into the basic Canon CB bag. And since I don't really mind lesser corner quality, there's almost nothing I could brag about, especially since even EOS R can handle ISO 2000-2500 without a significant IQ impact. Hard to tell though how big the difference between R and R5 is, in terms of general resolution distribution etc. Actually, I'm still considering the 1,4 extener since it will bring this lens close to the 600 mm f11 but at much better versatility, we'll see. Thanks for the objective review, I hope the overall user reception will bring Canon to engineer more such affordable "non-L" lenses for the RF mount which are pretty much the only option for amateurs with mid-class income like me...
Canon's approach to the budget segment of the market with new RF lenses is widely overseen. I do own the RF16, RF35 Macro and very recently the RF100-400. None is what is called "exceptional" in performance, but all are very compact and versatile in terms of usage. Those paired with a 24-105 kit lens (I own the L version) make a remarkable kit for a really interesting price point. (And yes, I love going on to use the "first EOS R" :-) It is holding strong in any condition beside of max frames per second (wildlife and things).
Agreed, though I'd rate it "almost exceptional" as I'm definitely not a pro... But if I shall compare, I like the overall IQ of the 100-400 mm more than for example of the 16 mm because the latter has pretty strong corner rendering issues (sharpness, aberration...) but I don't think it could've been done any better, for the price.
After shooting with an 800mm f11 for a couple of years I can confidently say the f8 aperture at 400mm will be no problem for me. The performance of the R5 at high ISO is not to be ignored. (That said, the fact that I live in southern Europe also helps, as we get sunshine 300 days a year and about 10 rainy days).
HEy Dustin, thanks for your informative review! Do you think if used on a R7, these "corner problems" will be much less due to the crop sensor? Thanks :)
That’s usually the case with APS-C. You might get slightly reduced apparent sharpness over the frame due to the higher pixel count, but the weakest part of the image frame is also cropped out.
Dustin , the question I have here for you is . I have the Tamron 100-400 lens , would it be better with that lens with the adapter , or would it be better to use the Rf 100 400 Canon lens ? . You put on some wonderful videos thank you .
I think the fact that the mirrorless cameras can focus at the darker apertures allows Canon to make these lenses smaller and cheaper. I don’t love this trend, either, though
I still can't decide if it's better to get this lens or the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 is ii usm and use it with the adapter. Wider but shorter, similar size but longer with adapter, stop brighter but less convenient to adapt, similar image quality. Hard to choose, would love a comparison, more about real world usage. Or more likely try to find a used 70-200 f4 L
I bought the ef l version when I primarily used canon 80d. When I bought the eos r, I bought the ef to rf adapter, so I can use it on the r. Maybe I should have waited for this one
I bought this as a partner for my 600mm for when I don’t want to carry a giant lens around. I like it so far. My biggest complaint is that the focus can’t be manually moved while in af. Other than that no weather sealing it’s nice
It will physically work, obviously, but the R7's higher resolution is not going to be easy on this lens. At that same time, I've heard from some people that use the combination and like it. I think it has a lot to do with your expectations.
Hello Dustin. I have seen your excellent reviews about Canon RF lenses several times but I have seen that you don't have any on the Canon RF 200 800. Will you do one? Thank you very much in advance for your extraordinary work and your time.
Dustin, thanks for a well crafted review. With Canon locking out the RF mount from independent lens manufacturers, the only way to use a non Canon lens would be via an adapter. Considering that this can be a hit or miss affair, is it advisable to do that. I don't think high ISOs and slow long lenses sit comfortably in low light. I would be more comfortable with a f/5.6 lens for IQ as well as creative reasons.
Strange to see no focus limiter on a long lens with such close focus. Even the 800mm f/11 has a limiter, and that can only focus to what, 6 metres or so in the first place. But I suppose if Canon still won't include a plastic hood and a mount gasket, which must only cost them a couple of dollars, I shouldn't be surprised they'd leave off a switch or two as well.
I actually wish the 800 f11 had a close limiter and a faster throw between infinity and 6m when manual focusing. It's a bit silly when third party brands like Tamron not only have limiters but you can customize them to9.
... I had first adapted the EF 70-300mm II and was amazed at how good it was even on the EOS R5. I then exchanged it for the RF 100-400mm, since both lenses should be optically equivalent, according to Canon. In retrospect, I regretted the exchange a bit. I can fully agree with the observations in the video. The RF 100-500mm is indeed optically much better, which was to be expected due to the price difference and the target group. The RF 100-400mm looks better on the less high-resolution EOS R6 than on the R5 and is more homogeneous. Therefore, it can definitely be recommended. It is also very light and compact, making it ideal for vacation trips, hikes and the like. However, we will trade it in for the Nikkor Z 100-400mm for our Nikon second system, which plays in a different league, in every aspect, also the price.
Hi Oliver…. I am struggling with exchanging my EF 70 to 300 II for the 100-400 in this review. I am very new at all of this and I appreciate your comment. I am understanding that you almost preferred to 70 - 300 over the 100 - 400? Just looking for some direction. I’d like to have a nice entry level set. I currently have the canon 70 - 300 mm II, a Canon 17-35mm EF L (for the 1990s!), and I also purchased but have not really even used a Canon 50mm RF (just the standard one…nothing fancy). I’m just out here purchasing lenses willy-nilly and not knowing what the heck I’m doing 😂 Thanks! -Lisa
Many modern lenses have a floating element as a part of the design. It helps with up close performance. It won't move around when the lens is powered on and active.
I feel like a used EF 100-400 L ii might be a better buy. But if I bought this version in the video I would be using it for sports. And I wouldn’t necessarily need the best and sharpest images
I think the best lenses to compare this one with would be the Canon 70-300mm or the Tamron 100-400mm for Canon for cost, weight, value and image quality comparisons instead of the over $2000 lenses available.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I understand. I went from the Canon 70-300mm nanoUSM adapted to the R6 to the rf100-400mm and I really enjoy the extra reach and lighter weight since it doesn't need an adapter. I'll very possibly go with a used ef 500mm or 600mm f4 for the long end at a similar cost as the rf100-500mm. Your reviews are always accurate and very detailed and informative, thanks!
Dustin, Highly informative. It’s always true that cheap won’t compare to pricey. In this case it seems true that Canon is gouging it’s customers on most of the new L series RF lenses. I’ll continue using my heavier EF L lenses until Canon comes to their senses. What I want to see is the quality comparison between the 24 - 70 RF L and the 24 - 70 EF L or the EF vs RF 16 - 35’s. I’m expecting the sharpness and aberration will be highly competitive so the question then for the buyers is are they willing to pay 4X or more for a slightly quicker focusing and lighter RF? I’m guessing that unless those customers are very well paid pros who can use the tax write off the market just can’t justify the cost delta between the EF and RF at current prices for amateurs both casual and serious. Do you agree?
I'm not sure where the 4x the price figure comes from, Dennis. In most cases the price has increased $200-500 on new RF mount lenses relative to the price on the EF versions, though market forces on older lenses can bring that down a bit. But I certainly agree that Canon's pricing on the RF system has been pretty offputting.
For back country landscape adventures where weight is a concern this lens hits well above its price point. I would say it even has major advantages over the very expensive and heavier 100-500L.
I mean.. The fact that it is being compared to the 100-500 L lens, is a compliment 😁 It's so cheap, the difference doesn't seem that crazy, when not pixel-peeping test charts.. But real life use 😊 But of course... No debate, that the L lens is better..
Day at the zoo lens. Replaced my trusty Tamron 70-300 VC USD I had used onnthe 80D for years since on full frame I prefer a bit more focal length. Not the lens for a serious bird peeper but a nice carry along tele lens
We need a head-to-head between the Canon RF 100-400 and Fuji XF 70-300, the two lenses are almost exactly the same when "Noise Normalized" between the two systems, and they cost almost the same. Of course the IQ off a Full Frame sensor is always hard to beat, but that's the challenge Fuji has to accept being an exclusively crop body system.
It can be pretty hard to do those kinds of comparisons with any kind of scientific precision. There are so many factors that a reviewer like myself gets accused of “favoring” one system or another.
@@DustinAbbottTWI If you're really worried about "Crop Factor" then it might be just as well to do an R10+100-400 vs. X-S10+70-300 comparison. In that scenario one system has an aperture advantage and the other has a reach advantage, but Autofocus should be similar between the two, and the price of each build will be almost identical. Realistically most consumers will be comparing the Fuji X-S10 vs. the Canon R10.
The very first review of this lens! The rest were only cheers and applauds sofar. It's a very nice and light budget lens, but the problem is the dirty strategy behind it IMO. Many of people will finally end up buying the overtly high priced 100-500 after getting frustration this slow lens cause in certain situations. Honestly it's a f8 lens and you will ask yourself a 70-300 5.6 was not better? Tamron 70-300 for Sony is even lighter and cheaper. And I think is sharp enough to give you the ability to crop in whenever needed. Innovation in making a light long lens was a nice approach though.
@@mbr5742 OK I'm not sure what you mean exactly. But even having IS could only add 100g at last. And if you mean you don't need third parties as a canon user, Then speak for yourself not all the other Canon users which are craving the third-party options
I see a lot of comments as a Birding lens. 400mm on. FF Camera is not enough given the new low cost 600mm and 800mm. You will get better results due to the reach at 600 and 800mm. If you just want to ID your birds I think you will appreciate the longer lenses more.
a very fine review again :-) But... you must tell people also that it's quality is to be compared with it's size and weight. Also Tamron and Sigma can't probably do better in future. I think it is a professional lens too because of this. You tend to oversee this al the time although mentioning it so now and than. For a professional it is wich lens can you take with you and how many? The best lens is the lens you have with you. ;-) Greetings from the Netherlands. :-) ....! : Also thanks for the advice about stopping it down more, also sometimes very professional to do so. ;-)
Hmmm, I think I do make the points that you are pointing to. And I disagree that Tamron and Sigma can't do better in the future, as they've already created better lenses at similar (or slightly higher) price points in the past, though those lenses are larger and heavier.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yes but mostly far heavier/bigger than this kind of lens. Ah you wrote it now too. :-) Just also wanted to write for me having both is the competing lens is the rf 4.0 70-200 lens. This is really sometimes a struggle which to take. But also the price point of the 100-400 is in favor for the spontaneous take away: less risk for falling or theft, specially with traveling.
While you get a like for a good review, you deserve a bonus for mentioning that there are third party lenshoods for most needs. $15 is not the cheapest but it sure beats the Canon price and works just as well.
Not the L series, but again even if you have the 100 to 500 lens you may still take this one because of ease to carry and ease of making shots you would probably not be able to get because of its weight and not so easy to carry. So it is just not a price issue!
The lens is more aimed at the R and RP users. Those would either buy this or the Sigma/Tamron 100-400 f/4.5-f6.3. Not that much faster than the RF lens (Yes, at least the Tamron has dust/spray sealing). Yes, it is a fair weather lens but so are the two above or the 70-300. This is "day in the zoo" lens not a "serious bird peeper" lens.
Have paired this with a Eos R10, for a senior amateur it satisfy my needs especially as it’s range is 160-640 35 mm equivalent and can be hand held.
I’m glad that it is working out for you.
I bought this lens a little over a month ago and I have to say that I really like it very much. I pair it with my R6 and have even set the camera crop/ratio to 1.6 and turned it into a 640mm with quite a loss of pixels but I got some good results that way also. It is not my walk around lens as that is my RF 24-105 L and along with the EF 16-35L I can cover just about everything. Thank you for your review that I think is spot on.
Glad to hear the positive anecdotal feedback.
Pointless using in crop mode, you can crop in post just as well where it leaves you with more options.
You aren’t getting 640 mm. You’re getting 400 cropped. Difference.
@@Saltfly True but it's still very good.
I bought this lens well over a year ago. I mostly shoot landscape and woodland as a hobby. I find my default lens is the RF 24 - 105 f4L. However, this lens is light enough to carry along on most hikes. It performs well enough at F9 or F11 to satisfy my needs. I also could afford it based against the limited use it gets. I have watched this review a few times over the years mostly to refresh my understanding of its aperture use and clarity. Like all of your reviews this one is helpful and a good reference tool. Thank you for the effort and help you provide.
You’re welcome.
I bought this lens a month ago, and love it, on my Rp. I stick it in my Camera bag together with the 35mm lens and Voigtländer 20mm pancake lens and the whole setup is still small and light enough that I can carry it around all day without ever becoming tired or soar. The excellent magnification allows me to take pictures of butterflies, larger bugs etc.
In fact, ever since I started shooting full frame many years ago I missed a genuinely portable tele-lens that still had decent reach and this is the first lens that I actually fits my needs
I still agree with all of Dustin's conclusion, but for me those limitations are things I can live with, when I consider what the upsides are.
One thing I would like to add for anyone considering this lens that are worried about bokeh quality and smoothness etc is that these are things that can be improved in post process. Recent versions of Lightroom etc have ridiculously effienct selection and masking tools that often makes softening the background etc a breeze, and if you are fine with that, then that toocan help you handle the limitations of this lens
That's all very fair feedback.
I also got Rp and this lens. Could you tell me what is voigtlander 20 mm Lens? Is it good for astrophotography? Or just landscapes?
@@andredo4880 I’ll jump in here. The Voightlanders are small pancake lenses, no AF, but couple for EXIF data and and actuate focus points during manual focus. The lenses are small, light and metal. I had a trilogy for Canon EF mount and overall very happy. They all need to be stopped to f8 or 11 for the best sharpness, 11 if you want vignetting and corner softness gone. The 20 was the last I sold, being i think the best of the 3. The 40 is also great, same caveats, and really a good focal length. Some people use these with M mounts on Leica. I’m a huge Zeiss prime fan and these feel the same, albeit smaller. If you’re interested in metal manual focus primes with old school optical designs, check them out. I stuck with Zeiss, after selling all my fast Canon L primes (7?) and zooms (3- 2.8Ls), I even tried Sigmas and Tamrons.
Thank you for this review!
Two comments from a happy owner of the RF100-500L which made its way as my most used lens when going to nature and shooting wildlife, birds, plants - and landscape:
- Never judge a lens just from test shots at charts when it comes to landscape. Infinity focus performance is a different story. So I like your mythology always verifying in "real life".
- The 100-400 has two strengths (beside of the price): Closeup performance and ultra light weight. This makes it a very interesting tool to shoot insects like butterflies and dragonflies out in the field. You have to tackle with escape distance and holding the lens in uncomfortable low positions at river edges, ... . The 100-400 compared to the 100-500L gives a better working distance, better max magnification and you have to hold 2 pounds less in these conditions - great! Neither F8 nor edge sharpness is anything of concern in this genre, same with wild flowers. To say it short, two weeks ago a package showed up and I now own the 100-400 beside the 100-500L. First shots of spring flowers are looking promising, but the insect season still did not arrive. I expect to get shots I would not got with any other lens I ever used in this niche of interest.
But it looks like a strong option for lightweight backpacks at hikes and for general use as budget entry in mirrorless RF.
It's definitely got areas of strength and areas of weakness.
@@DustinAbbottTWI It took me several months to detect this lens to have some real interesting strengths. My initial thought was it to be useless for me.
@@peterebel7899 Hi Peter, have you tested the stacking with autofocus for butterflies / dragonflies / on your R5? I guess you mostly used with an R5. Thanks anyway for your detailed comments on various photographer channels. I've read many of them in the last year. Chances are very high that I'll get the 100-400 exactly for the purpose that you've mentioned, plus its resolution should be more than sufficient for my R6 for landscape shots during hikes. Enjoy your photography!
@@DirkDien Thanks Dirk!
Yes, I did a little focus stacking with the R5.
Focus bracketing is basically doing great.
But sometimes I am "a guy wanting too much" - as we have a say in our language.
I do have two issues:
- I tried this in rather complex scenes spring flowers overlapping each other. With automated stacking I got some weird areas in the stacked photo. You can improve manually but as soon as you are going to think in more detail, the is no information which is needed in the whole stack: Those details being close by other elements in the foreground are in a single file sharp but overplayed with the blurred foreground.
- I love to shoot raw, so the R5 bracketing delivering JPEG does not excite me too much.
Regarding butterflies and dragonflies the stacking process should be more easy, but there any movements kick more often in than in those flowers (moving in the least breeze as well). So up to now I shoot insects with bursts of single exposures.
I should give focus stacking another try in the next season ;-)
You will enjoy the 100-400, the combo from price, weight, size & performance is great (if great is the right word describing this lens' size ...)
I got this lens to pair with the EOS RP. I got it because I wanted something that would give me the focal length without breaking the bank. Your review sums this lens up pretty well. It's a lens that comes with some tradeoffs, but for the price, it's a pretty good lens all things considered.
That's pretty accurate.
This is my favorite lens for my R6! It's on there every day while I'm out shooting birds and wildlife. I think paired with the r6, it is the best value lightweight medium reach combo for non-professional photographers or anyone on a budget. It's so much fun to carry and hike with that I don't think I would rather carry the larger and heavier rf100-500mm every day even if I had it. For my Sony system the tamron 70-300mm RXD fills that necessary lightweight and cost value gap between the short lenses and the big 200-600mm. The maximum aperture at 400mm is f/8 but for the rf100-500mm it's f/7.1 so there's not that much difference there in aperture for that much cost difference. If the rf100-400mm is a daytime only lens and not good for stopping down how would the f/7.1 of the $2800 rf100-500mm be any better at low light or stopping down? Maybe that's compared to an F/4 or F/5.6 lens that are much heavier and cost more also. I don't find the need to stop down this lens beyond f8 to f10 usually. I'll take half the weight savings anytime! Thanks as always Dustin for your entertaining and informative videos!
This would be a nice fit for the R6.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, it works great on my R6!
The closest competitor to Canon's RF 100-400mm is Sigma's 100-400mm F5-6.3 C. I have the latter and I find it very good. I would appreciate comparing Canon's RF version against Sigma and Tamron's nearest focal equivalent telephoto EF mount lenses with the EF-RF converter.
I think the Sigma is better optically, though it can't focus as closely.
@@DustinAbbottTWI the sigma ef also has a focus limiter which speeds up the focus grab for birds in flight,
The Canon RF Canon's RF 100-400mm IS USM can be used for the lower cost R7 and R10 APSC cameras giving an equivalent FF field of View of 160mm to 600mm.
Canon R7 and R10 have in-camera corrections for ONLY Canon branded lenses:-
* Peripheral illumination Correction
* Distortion Correction
* Digital Lens Optimizer
* Chromatic Aberration Correction
* Diffraction Correction
Since the R7 and R10 have zero noise up to IS3200 and negligible noise up to ISO10,000 (if RAW files opened with DPP or DXOPureRAW) the
Canon RF 100-400mm IS USM cannot be beaten by any adapted 3rd party lenses.
People who want to promote Sigma lenses should instead be promoting Sigma L mount Cameras.
@@set3777 Not it is not. It can be used on APS-C for sure but it is designed for FF period.
I feel like this is a really great lens for people like me who normally have a standard zoom on their camera, but occasionally need to go longer and can't justify the cost and/or weight of an L lens. If and when Sigma get round to releasing RF lenses I'll probably trade it for their 100-400 at some point, if only for the weather sealing, but until then I'm more than happy with it
My feeling as well. Replaced my Tamron 70-300 VC USD (from my APS-C days) with a 100-400. Big Tamron fan but after analysing when/where I used the 70-300 I went with the RF 100-400. Lighter and smaller. Good enough for a daylight/zoo lens.
That's a fair take, I think.
Just a side note about "sigma get around to releasing RF lenses" it's Canon thats stopping them, not Sigma refusing to do so. Canon has closed off the RF mount to pretty much ALL 3rd party lens manufacturers.
Great in depth review as always Dustin. Love your level of detail and practical experience reviews alongside technical tests. I have this RF 100 400 with 1.4x TC on my R6. Works great and image quality is quite similar to my earlier Sigma 150-600 contemporary. However focusing speed is insanely fast compared to Sigma even with TC. In the past I have missed too many shots due to slow focusing speed of Sigma. Let's see in long term how it lasts.
yes, those adapted long telephotos rarely cut it in terms of focus speed. The premium Canon EF 100-400L II was fine, but these newer Nano USM motors focus nice and quick.
I’m contemplating either the sigma or canon with 1.4 extender. Do you see a difference between f11 on the canon compared to f6.3 on the sigma?
Will this be too dark/slow if paired with an R7? I'm hoping the combo can be acceptable to start into wildlife photography.
As long as you are working in decent light, it should be fine.
I am really interested how this rf 100-400 on R8 compares to 55-250 stm on r10. resolution-wise and collected-light-wise they are similar (i.e 400 f8 on full frame vs 250*1.6 f5.6*1.6 on crop). but weight-wise it seems 55-250 is even more compact, and probably could also be used w/ 2x extender with some drilling of adapter
Hmmm, I would be careful when trying to make that lens extender compatible. The lens itself has clearly not been either physically or optically designed with extenders in mind.
@DustinAbbottTWI I agree here indeed. Yet the question about these two is open, in what aspects exactly 100-400 is better. I own both and struggle to see one really beating another
Traded in my tamron ef 100-400 which was soft as mush, was the rf 100-400 or the ef 70-300L, both around the same price at the camera shop, went with the ef 70-300L absolutely love it, use it with the Cpl canon adaptor for motorsports, going by your review I made a good choice 100mm down but the image is sharp enough and 45mpx means I can crop should I need, people don't like adapting but for me having the Cpl adaptor is a game changer, can use lens hoods too, excellent reviews as always.
The 70-300L is a lovely lens.
I had a 70-300L had to sell it due to things, big regret, it was a great pairing with my 90D but I have an R6 now and this RF100 400 seems like the next best thing.
I have an R5, thinking about getting this lens BUT...
I also have a Fuji XT5 with the Fujifilm XF 70-300 F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR.
I dont know if the canon setup is better, or if i should keep the Fuji one....
Hmmm, neither is exactly mindblowing. I don't know that the Canon setup adds a lot over what you have.
@@DustinAbbottTWI THanks a lot, Dustin. AS you are an absolute expert... can i ask you if the F4-5.6 of the fuji (apsc) is real? or it has an equivalence in full frame?
It's real. As far as light gathering, an APS-C lens will give you the same metering (shutter speed) as a full frame at equivalent aperture, though depth of field will be different.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you SO much. You are THE MAN
I know that you tested the Sigma Ef 100-400 some years ago, how would it compare vs this lens in term of background separation/bokeh ? Would you say the Sigma is a clear winner since it has f6.3 instead of f8 here?
I would, yes, and there's no question the Sigma lens is sharper.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Alright ! Thanks man!
Thank you, Dustin. I’m new at photography and recently purchased a new Canon RP. Other photographers have told me that the glass is more important than the body. I’m finding that to be true. I have purchased and returned a few different lenses at this point because I am just not sure what to use to start out. Obviously I want to work with budget equipment and maybe sometime down the road if I get really good, I’d get something better. This video really helped me to make a decision not to get this 100-400 lens and to stick with the one I currently own: Canon EF 70 - 300 IS II USM (using a mount adapter). Your information is very clear and detailed and I so appreciate that! I’m wondering what your opinion is on having an EF mount lens versus an RF mount lens? (I’d also like to add that after doing some online research and talking to some photographers, I ended up buying an EF 17 - 35 mm canon zoom lens… I’m understanding it’s from 1996! But it works really well in my opinion) Thanks! -*subscribed!
Welcome on board. As for EF vs RF, it really depends on the lens and also your tolerance for having to use an adapter. Sounds like you're on the right track.
Heading to Iceland, Ireland, and Scottand in a few weeks, and thinking about renting either the RF 100-400 or the RF 100-500. Do you think the extra weight of the 100-500 will be worth it for mostly landscapes? No idea on the weather, so the weather sealing is a mild concern of mine. Thanks.
If you are going on that big of a trip, take the best lens. You may not get those shooting opportunities again.
I’m choosing between the the rf 100-400 and the 70-300 usm ii. I don’t really need the reach and could benefit from the extra light at my nephews basketball games. Just a little concerned about the focus speed difference. I’m not a pro and I have an R6
I would probably recommend going with the native RF lens. You'll get tired of dealing with the adapter for the 70-300
Since this lens seems to suffer a bit with contrast would increasing the contrast slider in the Picture Style chosen in camera show an improvement?
You can always add some contrast artificially through software, but it typically doesn't produce the same effect.
Ho would it compare to the EF 70-300 L lens with adapter? You loose the 400 (unless used with a teleconverter) but it is also light and has good quality.
The 70-300 is going to be sharper without question.
Thank you sir for another amazing lens review. I’m considering this lens for travel with my R6MKII. I’m not trying to capture pro style images. I’m just a hobbyist and do some video for Bible Studies.
The STM EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 works great adapted onto the R6MKII. You provided a great review on that lens some years ago. I picked one up and didn’t regret it.
Thanks again!
That sounds like a good application for this lens.
Would u recommend this lense with the new cannon R10?
hi Dustin i have a tamron 100-400 vc lens and thinking of buying the canon rf 100-400 f/5.6-8 is usm this is solely because of weight and trying to reduce this and i would really appreciate your thought on the two lenses
If weight is your priority, perhaps, but the Canon is not as good as the Tamron optically…and is slower in terms of aperture. There’s definitely going to be some trade offs.
I have the Canon ef 70-300 4.5-5.6 is usm II, do you think it's worth upgrading to this lens considering I can adapt the ef lens to my Infrared converted M6 and my M6 II? Thank you
I wouldn't consider this lens worthy of a desperate upgrade, particularly if you want a lens you can use on multiple cameras.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you
Hi, great video. I was thinking it would be more worth it. I have a Canon R10 and I want a telephoto lens for animals.
I automatically thought of the RF 100-400mm. Native and with high focusing speed in addition to the low price (in my case 600 euros).
On the other hand, there is the option of the sigma 150-600 contemporary, with a higher price (800 euros) + adapter (70-100 euros). What do you think is more worth it, losing those important mm in bird photography or the focusing speed in addition to perhaps other problems you have for not being Native?
It's a tough question, but I think on such a small camera body the RF lens makes more sense.
@@DustinAbbottTWI what do you mean when you say "small" like, it's about the sensor or the size of the body.
I was having doubts because I know that the sigma 150-600 is more light and the quality is better.
But the canon rf is much more better at AF. And the sigma will have troubles at that (I dont know if those problems are significants at all)
Sorry about my english, it's still in work progress
Camera body, sigma definitely better sharpness but much heavier, RF focuses better in good light but not great in poor
What would you suggest is the better option?
I have a RF 800 F11 (got into wildlife with EOS RP) and since i changed from full frame EOS RP to APS-C R7 the RF 800 is getting a little too tight with 1280mm.
wondering if i can get around 160-640mm with the RF 100-400 and its super light and small
Or if a Sigma 150-600 is worth the bigger size and weight, especially 2nd hand they are cheaper than new RF 100-400.
Hmmm, that's a tough call. The Tamron 150-600 G2 is also an option
@@DustinAbbottTWI found a fair priced 100-400 II.
Its basically a not much worse, nearly the same as a 100-500L in my opinion. Especially the F5.6 at 400mm tack sharp are a joy.
@@DustinAbbottTWI The Tamron G2 and Sigma 150-600 have some AF pulsing issues. This is more reduced with larger subjects at a further distance though.
Great review. Very informative. I was wondering if the lack of sharpness on the edges or corners is caused by performance of the glass - or- due to the focal plane not being straight, but curved. Did you try to focus on the edges (instead of the center) to see what the cause is?
Over my review I focused in most areas. I would say my chart findings are pretty consistent with what I saw.
Dustin, at about 15 minutes into the review, you note that you believe the R5 might have too much resolution... Are you suggesting that results would be better on the R6 (which I own). Thank you for all your reviews!
That's correct. Lower resolution bodies are less punishing on lenses (higher resolution exposes their flaws more).
This lens works great with the 1.4x.
I shot an open air performance last weekend with this combination.
Sure, you start at F8 but that is kinda what you want for a stage performance, if you want everything in focus.
I have the RF 100-500 L too, but that really is a different lens.
It is bigger, heavier and while it cannot get the low range, it gives me 700mm when I need it.
The 100-400 with the 1.4x is a perfect combination as part of a travel kit.
I shot Everest from a Monastery in Tibet at 4900m using a Sony 100-300 some years ago.
This lens is equivalent and in many ways superior to the Sony and perfect for the Canon RF system.
I'm glad you are enjoying it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Well, this is more a travel lens for me. I have the RF 100-500 but that thing is heavy and there's no way I'd get that in a 7kg kit :)
@@colinjohnson8042 Exactly, the 100-400 is a nice add on for 100-500L owners when this great biest doesn't come handy.
Thank you so much for making this video based on our request. Although now i am pretty discouraged about the performance of the lens after watching your review. But i do have a better understanding of the pros and cons. So for now i am going to keep this lens option on a standby. Also, another request if you could do an in-depth review of the Fuji X-100v and as i am looking for a compact travel setup and something i can have on me all the time. I know its outside your wheelhouse to review compact range finders, but i thought i will give it a shot. Again deeply indebted for the work you do. Cheers.
I'm working on the Fuji XF 70-300 OIS right now - that will probably be my Fuji review for the quarter.
Duston, Thanks much for your thoroughness. I currently have this lens in hand, have shot with it for a day and am feeling 'ho-hum' about it, and would agree with your findings. And as you note, and I'd emphasize for others who may be considering it, closing down an aperture stop really does become a constraining factor in multiple ways. I think I'll hold on to my money and hold off on keeping it.
That's true. When you are starting with a smaller maximum aperture, there really isn't much room to stop things down.
How big is the difference the pics quality of these lens mounted on eos rp?
I didn't test it on an RP, but the lower resolution sensor should be a bit kinder to this lens.
Best equipment reviewer in the TH-cam world!
Thank you very much!
Using on the first EOS R, I have no objective complaints... of course, we could argue it could let more light in and have better bokeh but for its price and weight? I don't think so. Even if I had the money, I can't really imagine carrying the L lens with me, on the other hand, this one is so small that it can fit into the basic Canon CB bag.
And since I don't really mind lesser corner quality, there's almost nothing I could brag about, especially since even EOS R can handle ISO 2000-2500 without a significant IQ impact. Hard to tell though how big the difference between R and R5 is, in terms of general resolution distribution etc.
Actually, I'm still considering the 1,4 extener since it will bring this lens close to the 600 mm f11 but at much better versatility, we'll see. Thanks for the objective review, I hope the overall user reception will bring Canon to engineer more such affordable "non-L" lenses for the RF mount which are pretty much the only option for amateurs with mid-class income like me...
Nice summation
Canon's approach to the budget segment of the market with new RF lenses is widely overseen.
I do own the RF16, RF35 Macro and very recently the RF100-400. None is what is called "exceptional" in performance, but all are very compact and versatile in terms of usage. Those paired with a 24-105 kit lens (I own the L version) make a remarkable kit for a really interesting price point.
(And yes, I love going on to use the "first EOS R" :-) It is holding strong in any condition beside of max frames per second (wildlife and things).
Agreed, though I'd rate it "almost exceptional" as I'm definitely not a pro... But if I shall compare, I like the overall IQ of the 100-400 mm more than for example of the 16 mm because the latter has pretty strong corner rendering issues (sharpness, aberration...) but I don't think it could've been done any better, for the price.
After shooting with an 800mm f11 for a couple of years I can confidently say the f8 aperture at 400mm will be no problem for me. The performance of the R5 at high ISO is not to be ignored. (That said, the fact that I live in southern Europe also helps, as we get sunshine 300 days a year and about 10 rainy days).
Having good light most of the year definitely helps.
last week I bought R7 and yesterday this lens. Hope a good combo.
Hope you enjoy it!
HEy Dustin, thanks for your informative review! Do you think if used on a R7, these "corner problems" will be much less due to the crop sensor? Thanks :)
That’s usually the case with APS-C. You might get slightly reduced apparent sharpness over the frame due to the higher pixel count, but the weakest part of the image frame is also cropped out.
Dustin , the question I have here for you is .
I have the Tamron 100-400 lens , would it be better with that lens with the adapter , or would it be better to use the Rf 100 400 Canon lens ? .
You put on some wonderful videos thank you .
If you already have the Tamron, it might be worth giving it a try first and see if you're happy with it.
why does canon make these lenses so dark? sigma is 6.3 at the end and not that much larger or more expensive.
I think the fact that the mirrorless cameras can focus at the darker apertures allows Canon to make these lenses smaller and cheaper. I don’t love this trend, either, though
I still can't decide if it's better to get this lens or the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 is ii usm and use it with the adapter. Wider but shorter, similar size but longer with adapter, stop brighter but less convenient to adapt, similar image quality. Hard to choose, would love a comparison, more about real world usage. Or more likely try to find a used 70-200 f4 L
That is a hard choice.
I bought the ef l version when I primarily used canon 80d. When I bought the eos r, I bought the ef to rf adapter, so I can use it on the r. Maybe I should have waited for this one
The good news is that your L lens holds its value well, so you can always sell it if you want to go lighter.
I bought this as a partner for my 600mm for when I don’t want to carry a giant lens around. I like it so far. My biggest complaint is that the focus can’t be manually moved while in af. Other than that no weather sealing it’s nice
I'm glad you are enjoying it.
You can move the focus. Use a smaller focus area.
Do you think the xf70-300 is better optically?
I'm testing it right now, so I'll know soon.
Will it work good on RF-s camera? I mean picture quality, resolution.
It will physically work, obviously, but the R7's higher resolution is not going to be easy on this lens. At that same time, I've heard from some people that use the combination and like it. I think it has a lot to do with your expectations.
@@DustinAbbottTWI probably it's case by case situation. Some ef lenses work decent, some not on EF-S cameras.
Hello Dustin. I have seen your excellent reviews about Canon RF lenses several times but I have seen that you don't have any on the Canon RF 200 800. Will you do one? Thank you very much in advance for your extraordinary work and your time.
I would definitely like to review it, but I’ve had a very hard time sourcing Canon loaners recently
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you, waiting for it!
Even though there isn't an RF version of the Sigma 100-400, there IS an EF version which can be adapted. So a comparison would be interesting.
That's true, though I've already had to send the lens back (it was a loaner) and don't own the Sigma, so that comparison won't be happening.
Dustin, thanks for a well crafted review.
With Canon locking out the RF mount from independent lens manufacturers, the only way to use a non Canon lens would be via an adapter. Considering that this can be a hit or miss affair, is it advisable to do that. I don't think high ISOs and slow long lenses sit comfortably in low light. I would be more comfortable with a f/5.6 lens for IQ as well as creative reasons.
Strange to see no focus limiter on a long lens with such close focus. Even the 800mm f/11 has a limiter, and that can only focus to what, 6 metres or so in the first place.
But I suppose if Canon still won't include a plastic hood and a mount gasket, which must only cost them a couple of dollars, I shouldn't be surprised they'd leave off a switch or two as well.
Exactly. Market separation.
I actually wish the 800 f11 had a close limiter and a faster throw between infinity and 6m when manual focusing. It's a bit silly when third party brands like Tamron not only have limiters but you can customize them to9.
... I had first adapted the EF 70-300mm II and was amazed at how good it was even on the EOS R5. I then exchanged it for the RF 100-400mm, since both lenses should be optically equivalent, according to Canon. In retrospect, I regretted the exchange a bit. I can fully agree with the observations in the video. The RF 100-500mm is indeed optically much better, which was to be expected due to the price difference and the target group.
The RF 100-400mm looks better on the less high-resolution EOS R6 than on the R5 and is more homogeneous. Therefore, it can definitely be recommended. It is also very light and compact, making it ideal for vacation trips, hikes and the like.
However, we will trade it in for the Nikkor Z 100-400mm for our Nikon second system, which plays in a different league, in every aspect, also the price.
I do think that the lower resolution bodies are more natural pairings for this lens than my R5.
Hi Oliver…. I am struggling with exchanging my EF 70 to 300 II for the 100-400 in this review. I am very new at all of this and I appreciate your comment. I am understanding that you almost preferred to 70 - 300 over the 100 - 400? Just looking for some direction. I’d like to have a nice entry level set. I currently have the canon 70 - 300 mm II, a Canon 17-35mm EF L (for the 1990s!), and I also purchased but have not really even used a Canon 50mm RF (just the standard one…nothing fancy). I’m just out here purchasing lenses willy-nilly and not knowing what the heck I’m doing 😂 Thanks! -Lisa
@@lisav7166 ... I would stay with the EF 70-300mm II. I traded in my RF 100-400mm at my dealer yesterday 😁.
@@oriwo99 thanks so much for that feedback! 😄
What tripod is that??
Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
Thanks, good review and very helpful.
Glad it was helpful!
I just got this lens and there is an internal element that moves around. Does anyone else have this issue?
Many modern lenses have a floating element as a part of the design. It helps with up close performance. It won't move around when the lens is powered on and active.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for the response.
I feel like a used EF 100-400 L ii might be a better buy. But if I bought this version in the video I would be using it for sports. And I wouldn’t necessarily need the best and sharpest images
Fair enough.
Much easier to resell RF lenses. You may be stuck with an old EF lens.
I think the best lenses to compare this one with would be the Canon 70-300mm or the Tamron 100-400mm for Canon for cost, weight, value and image quality comparisons instead of the over $2000 lenses available.
Perhaps, though none of those have a native RF mount...and I didn't have them on hand, either.
The range and depth of field is most in line with the EF-S 55-250mm but that lens will crop when mounted to an RF body
@@DustinAbbottTWI I understand. I went from the Canon 70-300mm nanoUSM adapted to the R6 to the rf100-400mm and I really enjoy the extra reach and lighter weight since it doesn't need an adapter. I'll very possibly go with a used ef 500mm or 600mm f4 for the long end at a similar cost as the rf100-500mm. Your reviews are always accurate and very detailed and informative, thanks!
Dustin, Highly informative. It’s always true that cheap won’t compare to pricey. In this case it seems true that Canon is gouging it’s customers on most of the new L series RF lenses. I’ll continue using my heavier EF L lenses until Canon comes to their senses. What I want to see is the quality comparison between the 24 - 70 RF L and the 24 - 70 EF L or the EF vs RF 16 - 35’s. I’m expecting the sharpness and aberration will be highly competitive so the question then for the buyers is are they willing to pay 4X or more for a slightly quicker focusing and lighter RF? I’m guessing that unless those customers are very well paid pros who can use the tax write off the market just can’t justify the cost delta between the EF and RF at current prices for amateurs both casual and serious. Do you agree?
I'm not sure where the 4x the price figure comes from, Dennis. In most cases the price has increased $200-500 on new RF mount lenses relative to the price on the EF versions, though market forces on older lenses can bring that down a bit. But I certainly agree that Canon's pricing on the RF system has been pretty offputting.
For back country landscape adventures where weight is a concern this lens hits well above its price point. I would say it even has major advantages over the very expensive and heavier 100-500L.
It does have some, though optically it is only average.
You are my go to guy. Thank you for the review
Glad to help
I mean.. The fact that it is being compared to the 100-500 L lens, is a compliment 😁 It's so cheap, the difference doesn't seem that crazy, when not pixel-peeping test charts.. But real life use 😊
But of course... No debate, that the L lens is better..
Of course - as expected. The L lens is so expensive, though.
A decent lens for the price and great review as always.
Thank you very much!
Day at the zoo lens. Replaced my trusty Tamron 70-300 VC USD I had used onnthe 80D for years since on full frame I prefer a bit more focal length. Not the lens for a serious bird peeper but a nice carry along tele lens
@@mbr5742 Yes, a 5.6 800mm is better for bird peepers, but .... ;-/
Thanks for the great review!
You’re welcome.
We need a head-to-head between the Canon RF 100-400 and Fuji XF 70-300, the two lenses are almost exactly the same when "Noise Normalized" between the two systems, and they cost almost the same.
Of course the IQ off a Full Frame sensor is always hard to beat, but that's the challenge Fuji has to accept being an exclusively crop body system.
It can be pretty hard to do those kinds of comparisons with any kind of scientific precision. There are so many factors that a reviewer like myself gets accused of “favoring” one system or another.
@@DustinAbbottTWI If you're really worried about "Crop Factor" then it might be just as well to do an R10+100-400 vs. X-S10+70-300 comparison.
In that scenario one system has an aperture advantage and the other has a reach advantage, but Autofocus should be similar between the two, and the price of each build will be almost identical.
Realistically most consumers will be comparing the Fuji X-S10 vs. the Canon R10.
The very first review of this lens! The rest were only cheers and applauds sofar. It's a very nice and light budget lens, but the problem is the dirty strategy behind it IMO. Many of people will finally end up buying the overtly high priced 100-500 after getting frustration this slow lens cause in certain situations. Honestly it's a f8 lens and you will ask yourself a 70-300 5.6 was not better? Tamron 70-300 for Sony is even lighter and cheaper. And I think is sharp enough to give you the ability to crop in whenever needed. Innovation in making a light long lens was a nice approach though.
The weight of a magic mice lens is not relevant for a Canon user. Besides the magic mice lens has no IS
@@mbr5742 OK I'm not sure what you mean exactly. But even having IS could only add 100g at last. And if you mean you don't need third parties as a canon user, Then speak for yourself not all the other Canon users which are craving the third-party options
@@networm64 No Canon user is interested in a Sony variant of a 3rd party lens. The EF variant of the Tamron 70-300 exists, why go for tze sony beeeep
@@mbr5742 Oh I missed that, "fanboy mode activated"!👏 Now I see!
@@networm64 You missed a lot more. Like "this is about a Canon body and lens".
this lens has made the choice between the viltrox 85 1.8 + 100-400 or the 70-200 F4 agonizing!
I can imagine.
Great review.
I see a lot of comments as a Birding lens. 400mm on. FF Camera is not enough given the new low cost 600mm and 800mm. You will get better results due to the reach at 600 and 800mm. If you just want to ID your birds I think you will appreciate the longer lenses more.
That's probably true.
Thank you for the excellent review. It seems much weaker than sigma 100-400dg dn, which has no RF version, unfortunately.
I think though the Sigma will still be bigger, heavier, probably with slower focus motor etc. If we mean the sw lens...
I'm really hoping that we can see lenses like the 100-400 DN come to RF, as that is a more complete lens with fewer compromises than this one.
@@Jakubcu no lol just no
Thank you. Great video. 😎
Glad you liked it!
@@DustinAbbottTWI 😀
Or an ef on an adapter. Faster but heavier.
...and optically superior to this lens.
The 100-400 probably does better on a less dense sensor
That's almost certainly true.
a very fine review again :-) But... you must tell people also that it's quality is to be compared with it's size and weight. Also Tamron and Sigma can't probably do better in future. I think it is a professional lens too because of this. You tend to oversee this al the time although mentioning it so now and than. For a professional it is wich lens can you take with you and how many? The best lens is the lens you have with you. ;-) Greetings from the Netherlands. :-) ....! : Also thanks for the advice about stopping it down more, also sometimes very professional to do so. ;-)
Hmmm, I think I do make the points that you are pointing to. And I disagree that Tamron and Sigma can't do better in the future, as they've already created better lenses at similar (or slightly higher) price points in the past, though those lenses are larger and heavier.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yes but mostly far heavier/bigger than this kind of lens. Ah you wrote it now too. :-)
Just also wanted to write for me having both is the competing lens is the rf 4.0 70-200 lens. This is really sometimes a struggle which to take. But also the price point of the 100-400 is in favor for the spontaneous take away: less risk for falling or theft, specially with traveling.
While you get a like for a good review, you deserve a bonus for mentioning that there are third party lenshoods for most needs. $15 is not the cheapest but it sure beats the Canon price and works just as well.
LOL- thanks!
I liked that "aah" in the ad)) It was giving it a bit of unusual flavour))
LOL
Not the L series, but again even if you have the 100 to 500 lens you may still take this one because of ease to carry and ease of making shots you would probably not be able to get because of its weight and not so easy to carry. So it is just not a price issue!
True for some, so long as ultimate image quality is not their priority.
Greetings from India !
I would request to review this lens on R7
I've got to get my hands on an R7, first.
Doesn't look like this lens will have competition from Tamron or Sigma anytime soon.
unfortunately no.
its very provoking that they dont give you a 3 dollar (production cost) lens hood on a 1000 dollar lense
No argument here. It’s one of the things that I harp on Canon about.
I spent the entire video worrying that one leg of the mini-tripod was going fall off the table.
LOL - it wasn't really at all that much risk.
The lens is more aimed at the R and RP users. Those would either buy this or the Sigma/Tamron 100-400 f/4.5-f6.3. Not that much faster than the RF lens (Yes, at least the Tamron has dust/spray sealing). Yes, it is a fair weather lens but so are the two above or the 70-300. This is "day in the zoo" lens not a "serious bird peeper" lens.
I think the Sigma/Tamron options will become more relevant if/when we see native RF mount options.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sadly it seems more "if" then "when" these days. I would love to see a Tamron 35-150f/2-f/2.8 for RF.
Had one, returned it. Wasn't impressed.
It really depends on your expectations. I wouldn't buy this lens myself, either, but there are plenty who love it.
Hello
Ummm, hi?
WTF do you expect? At 5 times the price I would assume there would be a image improvement.
I expect an optical performance commiserate with a similarly priced options from Sigma and Tamron on other platforms.
It IS a good option Dustin, indeed
I'm glad you are enjoying it.
Man U are all over the place . 6 minutes and I had enough .
Thanks for your feedback, though I’m afraid there is no actual detail to your criticism, which doesn’t make it particularly constructive.