Can THIS Lens be ANY Good? | Canon RF 100-400 | SURPRISING Results
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 พ.ค. 2024
- Small, Lightweight, "Cheap", surely something has to give or can this lens deliver in the field even when it comes to Autofocus, Image Stabilisation & Image Quality? The results definitely surprised me!
Take SHARPER Images with ANY Camera!
• Take SHARPER Images wi...
Let me help YOU to take YOUR IMAGES to the NEXT LEVEL!
_____________________________________________
Check out our PROSETS here and save up to 30%!
👉 thebirdphotographyshow.com/pr...
____________________________________________
MASTERCLASS - Editing Your Bird Images To Perfection
👉 aviscapes.com/masterclass-edi...
_____________________________________________
MASTERCLASS & PERCHED BUNDLE - 25% off!
👉 aviscapes.com/perched-masterc...
_____________________________________________
How to Attract Amazing Birds Ebook & Video Perched
👉 aviscapes.com/video-and-ebook/
_____________________________________________
Free Ebook - 5 Common Mistakes Almost Every Bird Photographer Makes And How To Avoid Them-
👉 aviscapes.com/free-ebook
_____________________________________________
Instagram
👉 / jan_wegener_
_____________________________________________
Bird Photography Helpers:
DXO Pure RAW - Free Trial - tidd.ly/3uOpwhl
Topaz DeNoise AI - topazlabs.com/ref/1347/?campa...
This is the Equipment I recommend:
Canon EOS R5 amzn.to/2FV1Fpq
Canon EOS R6 amzn.to/3qOtEbQ
Nikon Z9 amzn.to/3GeMscb
Sony Alpha 1 amzn.to/2WsXKYZ
Canon RF 100-500 L IS amzn.to/3liEIx0
RF Extender 1.4x amzn.to/3bMD5nO
RF Extender 2x amzn.to/3cuMdwD
Sony FE 200-600 amzn.to/3faCMVj
Sony 1.4x TC amzn.to/2WsXMA5
RF 800 F11 amzn.to/3ldq6Pr
RF600 F11 amzn.to/3bIBrDJ
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV amzn.to/2ToffWf
Canon 600 L IS III (I have v. II) amzn.to/3dZM7wn
Canon EF 5.6/400 L amzn.to/2AJwbQk
Canon 1.4x TC III amzn.to/2T7vAhz
Canon 2x TC III amzn.to/3fPnYdr
Canon 600 EX - RT amzn.to/3czhDRf
Wimberley Head II amzn.to/3dOuqzI
Gitzo 5543LS (new version of my tripod) amzn.to/3dRfxg3
Gitzo GT2545T Travel Tripod amzn.to/3BSmhXJ
Wimberley Flash Bracket amzn.to/2LweMg5
Wimberley M-6 Extension Post amzn.to/2LxCvfQ
Better Beamer (check for compatibility) amzn.to/2AxbbfF
Flash Battery (Godox & Flashpoint is the same) amzn.to/3fNDWVD
Power Cord amzn.to/3cBJGzt
Y connector amzn.to/2X22zoT
Novoflex STA-SET amzn.to/2y5s1Bt
LensCoat LensHide amzn.to/3bAkoAo
LensCoat Lens Hoodie amzn.to/3fStHiI
Canon 2.8/70-200 II amzn.to/3cArBSB
Canon 4/24-70 amzn.to/2AwjeJE
Canon 4/16-35 L IS amzn.to/3fPqPDb
JBL Clip3 Speaker amzn.to/36225D5
Sandisk Extreme Pro CFexpress Card type B 512GB amzn.to/38FPKHg
Sandisk Extreme Pro amzn.to/2WXKt7n
Panasonic Eneloop Pro amzn.to/2X2SQ1q
Minox 8x43 amzn.to/2Z7YxxQ
Canon LP-E6N amzn.to/3byTSYg
Manfrotto Mini Ballhead amzn.to/3dR2pYm
FStop Gear Sukha Backpack amzn.to/2Q3e4fZ
Atomos Ninja V amzn.to/3GYFV5v
LINKS USED IN THE DESCRIPTION MAY OR MAY NOT BE AFFILIATE LINKS
By using the affiliate links I earn a small commission on your purchase, it does not cost you anything extra to use them. It helps me to create more content for you. Thank you for the support!
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Something has to Give?
0:30 First Impressions & Features
1:20 Amazing Price!
1:35 Amazing IS!
1:54 Autofocus
2:35 This will make it more stable!
3:08 What about Teleconverters?
4:20 Biggest Flaw
5:01 Sample Images
7:27 Would I get one?
RF 100-400 + R7 = KILLER COMBINATION!!!
I have this lens almost a year since last september.I have been using it with R6 and R10 with good results.AF is bit slower than with my RF 100-500mm but I havent tested them side by side.For me it is a lighter option for every day hiking ,you never know which birds you may see. Sharpness is also very good at least in closer distancies. For the price it is very good lens.
Thank you Jan, great review!
Excelente revisado de este lente, me sacaste de dudas si comprarlo o no.
Muchas gracias por tu aporte, saludos desde Argentina.
Now I finally received my RF 1,4 extender and I have testing it with both rf 100-400mm and rf100-500mm zoom lenses. And I must say results are surprisingly good with both lenses. I did not expect rf 100-400 to be that good with 1,4ext. On close photos (5-12metres) and good light birds feather details are very good. And nothing to complain about the contrast either.
Wow, I was just considering this lens since it is on sale! So I rented it...and i found the same thing...did not dissolve the background as much as I'd like, but very sharp. I also found that when there was a bird in flight and i was at max zoom, it just couldn't focus (but maybe that was user error). Plus, when the sun went down it just got too grainy when photographing moving subjects. But...if you are shooting during the day, its a very nice alternative to heavier and more expensive zoom lenses. Thanks so much for you detailed video, Jan!
such a great video! i am considering getting one for fun, watched a few videos and it might work for my sons outdoor sports, something better than a camera phone
Yup I got one with my R7 Purchase and even added the 1.4X RF teleconverter
Thanks for genuine review
I have this lens and am also quite pleased with it. It reminds me of the 55-250 II from earlier. That lens also punched way above it's weight.
I still have that 55-250. $120 used.
hi Jan, I’ve had this lens for a couple of weeks and have to say I love it! I also have the rf100-500 which is awesome, but for someone whose heading towards 70 with a few shoulder issues even handholding this lens can get tiresome so the 100-400 is fantastic for its weight/size and anyone like myself who doesn’t use a tripod or monopod, you have to be realistic at the price that you’re not going to get near a top end lens? but with all the tools available for post processing nowadays I think that if you only post on social media sites (which most people do) and you’re not selling prints or supplying photos for magazines etc then I think it’s well worth buying, one downside is that Canon rip you off for one of their lens hoods as they don’t supply one! glad you did this video, I bought mine after watching Duades 👍📷🦅
I agree, I don't even think the quality is far off from much more expensive lenses. The weight and especially IS, make this lens a very compelling choice.
Yes, no lens hood is a bit silly
I have one as a baby brother to my 600mm f4. There are lots of times I can't use that monster, and some times I need a lens to give to someone shooting with me.
Agree with age and weight but disagree with using the RF 100-400 lens for sellable prints. Just sold a large metal print exceeding the 1000.00 dollar mark that this lens captured. This was a large consumer print and looked great. For fine art or commercial usage I do agree there are better options but don't underestimate this lens for consumer print sales. Just my opinion.
I have owned both the RF100-400 and RF100--500. For anyone trying to decide which to buy, here is my unsolicited advice. If you still use the 24-105 kit lens, then go with the RF100-400. With just these 2 small & light lenses, you cover the 24-400 range. That is awesome. However, if you felt the need to upgrade to a better 24-105 or 24-70 lens, then maybe you will be happier with the 100-500 instead.
Makes sense I'd say!
I have had this lens since it came out. Also have the 100-500RF and an older 500F4. The 100-500 has better IQ and faster more reliable AF, but for lightweight walking around, this lens beats them all. Mine is paired with a Canon R7, and with its 1.6x crop factor the field of view is that of a 640mm lens on a full frame. I second the observation that the background blur / bokeh is nothing to write home about, but compared to the 500F4, even the 100-500 F7.1 is not that great. I use Lightroom Mobile, select subject in a mask, then reverse the mask to select the background, then remove texture and clarity, maybe even some saturation. The results are much more pleasing and as creamy as you get from more expensive faster lenses.
I have the 800f11 and bought the 100-400 for my closer shots due to the 20 ft focal distance
Of the 800. Very happy with both. Money I save went to a second R6 so I have same camera
with these two lenses ready at ant time! Do use the 1.4 with the 100-400. I am a hobbyist and the
Background blurr isn’t as important, but under the conditions you explained, a close shot with distant
Background does give a decent blur. Really enjoy your posts!
Great! Thanks for sharing
I bought it, and it is absolutely amazing!
Thanks for the video, I would like to know if you recommend this lens to photograph surf and waves from a long distance with a 1.4 extender. thank you very much, excellent video
Thanks Jan!Didn't expect this lens to be that good!
Me neither
Would you put this on a lowly R50? I realise it's the same price as the camera itself :)
Despite already owning the RF 100-500 and the 1.4 X extender, I definitely see a separate use case for this lens: travel photography. If I am traveling by air to India or Vietnam, for example, I will definitely want a lens with longer reach. No way I’m lugging my 100-500 with me. It would come down to either this lens or my 70-200 F4-basically reach vs IQ and speed.
Yes, it could be a fantastic small travel lens. Almost tempted to get one myself for that
Nice review Jan, looks like a nifty little telelens! Maybe ideal fot traveling?
Looks like it
Wooooo!!! Gooood!!! 👍
It's nice to see reviews from an expert that aren't snobby and biased against cheaper lens. I got in photography due to covid and picked up an R6. Your videos are excellent for both bird photography and camera reviews. I always wanted the RF100-500 because seem to love it but it was expensive to me. I took a chance on the RF600 f/11 and it became my favorite lens but it was not convenient to switch lenses all the time. (I generally take photos or birds far away and also my wife and dogs closer up) I wanted sometime more versatile so I picked up the RF100-400. Initially I was underwhelmed because it didn't eliminate the need to bring the 600. So I traded it in towards the RF100-500. Now I miss the much cheaper RF100-400. Not only is the 100-500 over 4x the price, but it's like 2x or 3x the weight and I have found this affects everything and offsets the advantages of the 100-500. The heavier lens is harder to handhold, which makes the image stability have to work harder. So I have to shoot a faster shutter speed, which negates the faster lens/bigger aperture. As you mentioned the 1.4 converter doesn't work the full range (which limits versality a lot) so the 100-400 is much better for that. Personally I don't find much difference in the animal detection. Maybe your R5 is better, but my R6 loves to focus on non-moving branches and leaves even when the bird is clearly visible and moving. Anyways, I'm just a hobbyist and don't shoot raw or edit in post.... but for others like me, I recommend this 100-400 over the 100-500 for cheaper price, less weight, smaller size. Thanks for the videos. Gonna need to travel back to Australia again now that I have a decent camera :)
Exactly. Multiple youtubers have reviewed this lens and complain about things no one would expect at that price point, and compare it to lenses that are several times more expensive
@@Leo_Santisteban yeah that's why I like Jan's reviews. He tells what his decision would be for himself without knocking it for others who may have different needs and priorities.
@@todduyeda5929 yeah, exactly. Some people just can’t afford spending $3k on a lens, or some just prefer a smaller, lighter lens even if it’s not as good
@@Leo_Santisteban I actually traded up for the RF100-500 and the more I used it, the more it made me appreciate the RF100-400. I don't like the way it looks when it zooms (my wife and I referred to it as "that skinny lens") and it has 100mm less reach, but otherwise it was so much easier to take along for a trip or a hike and so much easier to handhold. I don't think I will trade back for it but I do recommend it for average Joe photographers wanting a telephoto zoom.
@@todduyeda5929 I’ve not tried any of those 2, but yeah, you’re completely right. Weight and size really make a difference, especially for wildlife photography where you often hike around for hours
Hi, thanks for the informative movies, Are u recommend to switch my 100-400 mark 1 to the 100-400 rf?
Have been using it with the Eos R and at fairly close range on static birds it performs very well. Found it is very light and great to take in the field and will also focus down enough to get plants and butterflies in fairly sharp focus. At the price point it is superb but would like to try it on a R6 or R5 and hopefully it will be compatible with the R7 if it ever happens
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for your great video. Your RF 100-400mm results are better then my RF 100-500mm. 😜😀🙏 Yes, I always say a great photography means about 70% or 80% depends on your skills.
ha! Yes, skill helps :D
I have this lens and the 1.4 extender. I satisfied with the results I get, and don't think so much about blurring the background because the background, for me, is part of the "story" of the subject of the image.
Yes, there's many ways to look at that, it's just something I thought was worthwhile mentioning
Can I use an EF extender? or only for RF lenses? I saw that they are different. :(
I agree with background being part of the story. In my case I do a lot of urban wildlife photography and want to show that the animal is in the city. If I want to isolate my subject from the background I have other lens better suited for that. The RF 100-400 can give you background blur if you get close to your subject. Just this old photographer's thoughts ...
This is a really interesting lens that I really considered for birding especially with its small size and weight. Biggest turn off for me was actually that it wasn't weather sealed, then next of course the small aperture. I just bought the RF 100-500 and I love it!
100-500 is better of course, but for the money this is pretty nice
@@jan_wegener Of course! As you and others have said, it would be fantastic for travelling
Great video mate, it is such a great little lens, just need a 90D mirrorless to go with it. I need to visit that carpark for those Curlew :-) Cheers, Duade
Sure is. If you're nice I will take you there in May :D
The R7 is that 90D mirrorless lens and they pair very nicely
i have this lens with R7 and im very pleased with it for wildlife, if you have an aportunity can you make a video with R7 and RF 100-400.
i admire your work and always watch your videos, Gafur from Norway
Hi, I have 800mm f11. 100 to 400 will give me a good option to capture closer images. Definitely will buy!!!
This lense is super good am using it already with my canon R7. And it is good because am not in to earning from photography. Where as for a professionals like you , yes 100-500 or costly Primes only can satisfy your needs. :-)
Good video. I have this lens and love it. It is so light I can carry it and hand hold it all day and the image quality is very good. I don’t have $3,000 to spend on a 100 mm - 500 mm!!! It even performed well with birds in flight for me.
Yup, i have it too, and i can confirm that it takes great shots of flying things, i even managed to take great shots of bees in flight. Tho where the autofocus lacks is when the bird is in a lot of branches and moving, then the af starts losing the bird very often for me
Yes, the weight and size is amazing. The AF is pretty good, just seemed slow to adjust when things happened fast sometimes
I just got the lens and other than it feeling much lighter than the Tamron 150-600mm lens, and something that didn't occur to me before is the focal length is shorter, which means slower shutter speeds, which equals more light. I like this very much. Loving it so far, and it does focus quickly and accurately ... so far, in bright conditions.
Awesome
I've had this lens since it was released and I'm well impressed with the image quality. Whilst the lens is a good value the lens hood is excessively priced in the UK so I've gone for a 3rd party one. I do see the 100-500 lens in my future RF kit but I will keep this lens in case I need to travel light.
Yes, no lens hood is annoying!
Excessively priced if you go for the Canon model, I personally went 3rd party at a great price.
Excellent for insects as well. I have taken some great shots of bees with it even flight shots. Stunning for the money and weight, compactness.
Great to hear!
Good!!! 👍
Hi Jan, is this lens compatible with m50 mark ii wth adaptor? will this affect the quality of the images/videos?
Thanks for your great video. I would like to learn your comments about the performance of this lens with R6 or R5 for BIF. Thank you.
I didn't do much of that. I don't think it will perform overly well
Am I better off with this or a 2x extender for my Canon 70-200 2.8?
Thank you for this very informative video. Great info that is easy to understand as a new person to photography. I am on the fence about buying this lens or buying the Canon RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1 IS STM Lens which comes out late March. Would you have any recommendation. I enjoy photographing birds and wildlife. I own the R10. Thank you.
It depends what you want to photograph. 210 is a lot shorter than 400 and 55 is a lot wider than 100
i think you just convinced me, i do mainly landscape so it should be enough :)
I was definitely surprised by it
I found the 100-400 was really good for sunrises, hills, mountains, clouds, where you may want to zoom in and out to varying degrees but not need too much reach.
@@todduyeda5929 Thanks!
I think the RF 100-400 compares well with my much more expensive EF100-400 mark ii especially as it's sharp wide open whereas the EF one isn't and I shoot my EF 100-400 at f/8 (or darker) all the time to ensure sharp images.
I'm planning to sell my EF100-400 and upgrading to the RF200-800 but I might buy the RF100-400 eventually as well so I can have a lightweight lens for long bush walks with my R6 ii
Ova ol a good review
Hi Jan, thanks so much for making this review of the RF 100mm to 400mm. I've been looking for a light weight option to my RF 100mm to 500mm that I use on a Canon R6 with Battery Grip, SmallRig frame and Sennheiser MKE 440 mic. I love this combination for filming, but at 3.5kg it is a daily workout that I have to keep trained up for! The limitation is it is just to big and heavy to carry in a waist bag all the time. There are so many days where I miss filming magic Wildlife Moments when I'm out on my way back from check in guests, or doing camping ground jobs, when I can't just race back to the studio to grab the R6 rig. I have a plan of using the 100mm to 400mm on a Canon R7 (or hopefully a Canon R7ii), carried in a waist bag all the time, so that I can capture those currently missed moments.
The RF 100mm to 400mm is sounding perfect, with such good image quality for a cheaper lens... Even that the background will not be able to smooth out is not a problem, as I'm mainly wanting to show the wildlife and birds in the contexts of the environment in which they live. That it is capable of being hand held is super critical (good to know the half press of the trigger button trick - many thanks), Even that there is the option of using my 1.4 teleconverter is a bonus, though whenever I can get to my R6 with 100mm to 500mm I would be grabbing it instead.
The big question I have, that I've not been able to find an answer to, is the Nano USM motor on the RF 100mm to 400mm quiet enough not be picked up a sensitive on camera microphone?
all the RF lenses are pretty quiet when it comes to the motor
@@jan_wegener Thank you, that is so helpful to know to know I can have confidence in the quietness of the RF lens motors. The two RF lenses I have (the 100mm to 500mm and the 100mm f/2.8L 1.4xMacro) are both exceptionally quite for auto focus, however the EF 400mm f/5.6 L motor is too noisy for the very sensitive mics I'm using.
Bird detail is amazing ! However I don’t know many birds I see around here that I can get anywhere that close to like that . Maybe some tame ducks and mean seagulls at the park. Don’t think this lens holds up as well in more real world birding situations I’ve seen with other reviewers. Amazing results under specific conditions. Great review. Thanks 😊👍🕊
I think it comes down to taking lenses & using them where they can succeed. Every lens has limitations, so taking them somewhere where they'd fail makes little sense.
Nice video, thanks so much. I currently have a EF 150-600 SIGMA, Canon EF 70 300 Nano HSM and the Canon f11 800mm. How does the auto focus behave with the extender? Is it getting slower or inaccurate? I recognised canons STM auto focus is already very slow compared to the HSM.
This one has USM, but it is slower than some other lenses. It did ok with extender, but not ideal long term I'd say
@@jan_wegener thanks for the fast response. So I will reorganise my focal length and sell above lenses and get the 100-500 L with 2x extender for wildlife and the 24-105 L for city trips.
Hello Jan, thanks for this....so if you had to pick one for a safari (not a pro photographer)...would you recommend this over the 100-500?
There's probably no lens I'd recommend over the 100-500, unless price is the main factor
Good day, the video looks great and also the results if you buy a Wildlife photo/video lens that would be top:
Sigma 150-600c canon 400mm 5.6 or canon RF 100-400 thank you, I take nice pictures of deer in the wild
Hi Jan, after a few months in QLD, you've trained the curlews well to be very skilled models 😛 Can you please send some of them over to Europe ??
It looks like this lens is aiming for the crown of best beginners birding lens. Certainly when paired with the R7 (if affordable ;-) ) or as Duade says a mirrorless R90D. If I were Canon I'd suggest it as kit lens for those APS-C R bodies.
For me it misses weather sealing, and I guess the F8 or a crop body will make it even less bokeh-friendly.
Less bokeh friendly, but also tighter field of view. What it delivers for 650$ is pretty cool
@@jan_wegener in summary: a must-have for those of us who haven't been spoiled yet by L-glass ;-)
I love my 600mm f/11, but as you mentioned you're very limited with it. Having this lens would open up a lot of options.
Just bought this lens with the Canon R10! Thanks for the review really helpful😃Although I was wondering, are the backgrounds from the 100-500 really so much better as it is at a rather slow f7.1 but does that one stop make loads of difference in the depth of field? Thanks.
the extra focal length makes more difference and just a different built
@@jan_wegener What about using it on the APSC sensor though? That gives it 640mm of focal length! Thanks😃
I own and use this lens. I would say that given the image quality and focal length range it is a phenomenal value. I am not a pro so spending $2-$3K on a lens isn't sensible for me. I think Canon really hit a sweet spot of performance and price with the RF 100-400 for sure.
Hi Jan,
I have the 800mm F11, do you suggest to get this one over the 100-500 if I like to have something for closer birds and cheaper?
hard to say, depends on what you shoot. The 100-500 is the better overall lens and gives more flexibility. The 800 has more reach
Nice video. I get mine tomorrow and the reason I'm getting one is, shore birds often walk very close to me when I'm laying still and my Tamron 150-600mm won't focus that close and the Canon focuses quicker. I won't complain about it being about 3 lbs. less, either. 😉
It’s a great little lens
@@jan_wegener Thanks, Jan, can't wait to try it out.
I sold this and got an old ef 300 f4 IS for about the same price as this and that was a major step up. Wish I just looked for the 300 first lol.
Very different lenses. The 300 is a nice little lens for sure
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 an EF 70-200 f4 L used somewhere
I have the same thought since i find my ef 100-400 a bit too heavy(even though the iq with and without extender is amazing)
I don’t own the 100-500, but I do own several other very sharp lenses, and while I have enjoy the reach of this lens, and it’s portability, I’m often disappointed with how soft it is sometimes. It’s pretty good, but still leaves me wanting a better option.
Awesome lens but for younger photographers like myself - the 100-400 ii and 100-500 are light enough that this lens doesn’t have much value to my kit (especially since I wouldn’t use it with extenders).
Just got the r-10 with this lens and it’s super light weight.
I was about to say you were extremely close to the bird when testing this lens. That is why you still got great detail and sharpness. It is cheating. 😆 But then you said image quality suffers when taken from farther away. Thank you for being very honest. Some folks might think that this is even better than the 100-500 if you didn’t mention the latter. Great video as always. This might be a great lens for birders as most of them care more about getting documentary images than quality.
I think it comes down to taking lenses & using them where they can succeed. Every lens has limitations, so taking them somewhere where they'd fail makes little sense.
Yes, pretty nice for birders for sure
I have been rather surprised at the image quality from this lens. Yes it’s no RF 100-500mm but because of its size & weight it’s a great hiking lens something you would struggle doing with either the EF 100-400mm MKII or the RF 100-500mm.
Canon only issue is they should slightly increase the cost and include the lens hood it needs it.
Yes, no lens hood is a bit silly!
Jan, I am a beginner bird photographer at best, I am looking at the Canon R7 and pairing it with this lens to get started with a better setup than I currently have. My current setup is a FujiFilm FinePix S9400w bridge camera.
I know this lens isn’t as gif as the Canon 100-500 RF that so many of you professionals used, but do you think it is a good way to get started in Bird photography?
It's a fantastic lens to start out with, without paying a fortune
@@jan_wegener thanks, that is the consensus I was getting from you and others. I think it will be my starting setup for bird photography.
This will give me a good base to start my journey and if I stick with it, I may invest in a better lens later on.
That's the set up I bought - the R7 and this lens - after using a Panasonic Lumix bridge camera for bird photography. I've used this lens only a few times, but I don't find the focal length adequate. It's inexpensive, comparatively, and while I'm learning the camera, I think I'll keep it, but I'm definitely not getting the reach I want and, as the video says, the background is too much in focus. Disappointing.
I'm planning to get a Canon R6 with matching lens like RF 100-400mm. What bag do you recommend for this combo? I'm eyeing on the Wandrd Prvke 21L with Essential camera cube. Not certain if you've looked into this bag before but I'm trying to figure out if the camera and lens will fit into the cube.
For such a small combo there will be almost endless bag options. Very hard for me to recommend a certain one, since most bags I use and am familiar with will be a bit too big
For small things like that I sometimes just use the xtra small Nya-evo icu with a strap to put over my shoulder, but that doesnt really replace a proper back pack
Hi Jan, thanks for the video. I have a question. I am currently using Nikon p1000 and i want to upgrade to DSLR/mirrorless but i am tight on budget. Considering they are around similar prices which would be wiser? choosing Nikon d500 with 200-500 mm lens or Canon r7 with this 100-400 mm lens.
R7 & 100-400 & for more reach maybe an 800/11 at some stage. The AF will be much better on the R7
Aras, I have shot the Nikon 200-500mm for several years, and it takes great and sharp photos, even with the TC14e iii teleconverter. My bodies have been the D750 and Z50 (with MTZ adapter). However, the lens is heavy at over 5 pounds. It's getting to be too much to carry along on long outings. So, I'm looking at the Canon R7 and RF 100-400mm as a replacement, possibly upgrading to the RF 100-500mm in the future.
@@rruntsch thanks for the answer. I bought the R7 and RF 100 400 and it is a great combo. Best for its price i think. I also tried the RF 100-500mm anfd i can say 100-400 is better in macro shots, it is really light and gets really Sharp photos even in flying birds. The images i took with 100-500 mm had better colors and contrast but i am not sure if it is worth the price difference. R7 and RF 100-400 mm is a really great combo.
@@arasmetin5570 , thank you for the additional information. The R7 and RF 100-400mm should be a good first Canon kit for me.
Another weakness of the lens is that it doesn’t have any weather sealing. At that price point it is hard to expect that feature but most would agree that weather sealing is important for wildlife photography.
Yes, that could be an issue at times
Very true. I think adding some sealing wouldn't even be super expensive, but this is used to distinguish the L lenses...
I think it would be a good option to have weather sealing as the sigma did with there 150-600mm. ☔
I have used a rain cover with mine and had no problems with moisture.
I always use a rain cover on every lens I own, whether the lens has "weathersealing" or not. In the first place, no lens is completely "weatherproof". Any lens can be damaged if exposed to rain. Rain covers are cheap insurance.
Can't get over how tame those stone curlews are.
haha! It gets boring there after a while :D
Hello! How are you?
I have an R6 and use it mainly with the EF 400mm f5.6 and the EF1.4...
but sometimes I need less focal length...
I'm between the RF 100-400 or an EF 70-200 USM F4...
What do you recommend me...??
if youre taking pictures of people, 70-200 f4, if youre taking pictures of wildlife and sports 100-400
I'm coming to this really late, but I had a simple question. You talked a lot about the background blur not being great, due to the f/8 max aperture at 400mm. But the RF 100-500L only does f/6.3 at 400mm and f/7.1 at 500mm. Is that half of a stop really that big of a difference in terms of bokeh? Maybe I am missing something, but it seems like the difference would be pretty small if comparing both at 400mm.
This is really relevant for me, as I am about to list my EF 100-400 mark I for sale, and am debating between the EF 100-400 Mark II, and the two RF options. The fact that my second camera is a 7D Mark II just makes the choice that much harder. :( I hadn't realized just how soft the version 1 of the EF lens was until I got this mirrorless camera. It's REALLY soft, sadly.
I guess the different builds of the lens cause different BGs. The 100-500 does dissolve it smoother. Even when both are at F8 and 400mm
@@jan_wegener Appreciate the feedback, sir! Looks like I will have to start budgeting for the 100-500.
I don't really get why wildlife (and others as well) photographers are so keen on blurring the backround? I mean for sure it's sometimes desired and argumented to get that look, but I also think that it's often just lazy and not thinked through composition wise. It's much more interesting to use the not too blurry backround as a part of the image and to get interesting textures composited with the subject rather than always have the almost ''back drop'' kind of dull backround.
For sure when you have the really bokehy backround you get that ''Yep I shot this with an expensive lens'' tag to the image which is mostly seen just by other photographers/camera geeks. But if you look at work of any kind of legendary photographers is there much bokeh there?
Everyone like to do things differently. And with photography that’s easily possible so that’s great
@@jan_wegener Well I agree to certain extent, but that ''Everyone'' seems to be mostly the bokehhhhhh nowadays :)
It seems you always want to blur the background as much as possible, Jan, and I guess there's nothing wrong with that. For a book with all the birds of Australia, for instance, it would be exactly what you'd want. The lovely drawings of books from the time of my childhood replaced with high quality photos - all with no distracting objects. Beautiful!
But also a little clinical, I feel. And how do we know that the bird was not photographed in a studio in front of a painting? The background gives away nothing to reveal the location.
I mostly like to include the environment, and only put it gently out of focus so as to concentrate the viewer's attention on the bird. That, by the way, also saves me a lot of money as it means I won't have to buy those expensive "fast" lenses.
Not necessarily, but it's something I wanted to mention. I know many people have no problem with it, but personally I like it a little smoother
I try to use this lens with the coming R7, the price range will be within my budget, other options is just too expensive for a amateur like me.
it should perform well
Is this the lens that you were talking about? I thought its going to be an rf telephoto lens since you talked about putting a lens coat on it.
No, that one will be revealed Wednesday
I wonder if you can help Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens or Canon RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM which would be better and why
The Canon one will work better in terms of IS & AF. Sigma has some focus pulsing issues on the mirrorless cameras
Hey jan would you sell your EF 100-400 is ii for the RF 100-400 + RF 800 + RF 1.4 extender. I was wandering if I would benefit image quality. That’s all. Tbh I actually own the RF 800mm and it’s amazing image quality I couldn’t believe it, better than my 100-400 is ii. The minimal focusing distance is a bind though. . What would you do in my position . Canon R6 user . I cannot justify the 100-500 at the moment .
If you already have the 100-400 EF, the main advantage would be less weight and cost and no need for an adapter. I don't think You'd gain in IQ.
4:51 is this video taken with the lens? What camera?
R5 and 100-400 handheld
@@jan_wegener so with r6 I would get similar quality?
@@pianosfilipem more or less yes
Really wondering if I should ditch my Tamron G2 for this. I have f5.6 at 500mm and of course it goes up to 600mm, but it has it's problems, isn't the sharpest or quickest to focus. But f8 at 400? It's pretty dark for most of the year in the UK. Not sure that aperture is usable on the R7.
I had the same dilemma but I've decided to get the RF 100-400. I have the Tamron 150-600 G2 but it's just cumbersome and it's let me down a lot in terms of sharpness and AF, even after updating the lense's firmware.
I find I have to shoot at f8 anyway in order to get decent sharpness.
The loss of 200mm is a bit of a sacrifice but I know I'd get more keepers with the 100-400 and I'm based in Ireland.
The ISO capabilities of the newer cameras as well as how much easier this lens is to handhold negate the drawbacks.
@@johnreynolds3348 Same dilemma here and thinking of getting the 100-400. How's it been holding up for you so far?
@@numitr0n291 love it. I can zoom into a bird in flight and track it without any fatigue and the AF is brilliant. It's also great for things like butterflies and it's just great fun to use.
Do you think Canon will bring a "professional zoom" like Nikon or Sony.
(For example 200-500mm, 200-600mm or even 200-400mm F4 with inbuilt 1.4 TC.)
Like the 100-500? ;)
@@jan_wegener
For a wildlife lense I don‘t need everything under 300mm or maybe even 400mm.
Plus aperture F7.1 isn‘t acceptable.
Form Canon, during the fact that they take their time and are Nr. 1, I expect at least F5.6 better F4.
Your examples look great, but all the birds you show are large, stationary and close. Have you had a chance to try this lens on more difficult subjects as well? If so, how did it do?
It does better up close and with slower subjects, like I said in the video. I took it to places where I knew it could do well. No point really using it somewhere, where it will look bad. I think that's important with gear, use it where it can shine. I wouldn't use this lens in a rainforest or for fast action
Have u tried the 18-500 tamron?
No
I had the 18-400 Tamron. No comparison in IQ.
The question is: How does this compare to the similarly priced Sigma 100-400 Contemporary? I know Sigma doesn't yet make an RF version, but they do make an EF version which can be adapted.
I have never used it, but from my experience with third party lenses on the RF system, I would assume the IS and AF to be worse
But from my experience I would expect the Sigma to be sharper.
Great review, learned a lot. I do have a question, how do you think this lens would do in a zoo?
Greetings from Belgium, Europe
Quite well, at least outdoors
does this lense work on the cannon r100?
Yes
Have you tried this lens with 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter? I saw image where someone has it added to this lens..
Not really, it will still work, but IQ will suffer a bit for sure
what does the backround look like?
depends how far away it is, but pretty good overall
Can i put it on my R10?
yes
@@jan_wegener thx for replying
Hi there will this fit on canon 7d
No
If you are not a pro photographer, this lens is perfect. Pair it with the APS-C R7 coming next month and this lens will come into it's own.
agreed
Great for sunspots focus very well on the sun at dawn and sunset, the 800 impossible
I have an EF 70-200f2.8II. I travel a kit with 8 Zeiss primes, a daily walk set of 3-5 of those and the 70-200 never gets brought. Had an EF F4 long ago and loved it, so I picked up the RF 70-200f4. Its only ok, not amazing. So I’m returning it, trying this. At least it’ll be longer- oh and I can get a Zeiss 135 f2 for less money.
Not that I wouldn't like to have the option to open up the lens by a stop or so but I really don't mind having a bit of the background be recognizable. I think that, sometimes, that whole shallow depth of field thing is a bit overrated. Also, the long end of this lens is only a third of a stop slower than the 100-500 so the depth of field is would be pretty much the same on the more expensive lens anyway. Still, wouldn't mind if both lenses were a constant f4 all the way through. As it is, this 100-400 seems like pretty good bang for the buck.
It is. The 100-500 is 500 on the long end, so that does make a bit of different, but not a lot.
The EF 200-400 f/4 lens is nice but it's $11k. 200-500mm f/4 is going to be well past that amount. Not going to be a reality due to the price plus it would probably be an 8-10 pound lens at least. The sigma 200-500 f/2.8 was $26k and 36 (yes, 36) pounds for perspective.
I just got this lens and there is an internal element that moves around. Does anyone else have this issue?
It's normal to see the inside shift if you look through the front element
@@jan_wegener thanks for getting back to me.
Jan Wegener, according to dpreview tests, this lens has a strong drop in sharpness across the entire field of the frame, starting from 300mm. Can you confirm this?
If you want an excellent, in-depth second opinion, Dustin Abbott recently posted a great review on his TH-cam channel. He addresses sharpness at different focal lengths and apertures and provides samples.
@@timothylinn I've seen his review. There was no comparison of sharpness between 300 and 400 mm at the same size
It is definoitely sharper zoomed out a little bit, but all my examples are at 400 or 560mm so it still does ok
@@jan_wegener Thank you! I didn't buy this lens because of dpreview tests. Instead, I bought a tamron 18-300 for Sony. Maybe it's still worth buying
@@AlexKoro_CinematicTravelif you want a third opinion, Alex Prieditis has some very good technical comparisons on Instagram as to why this is a better bargain than 100-500 and comparable to the 200-400 f4. There's no arguing this lens is softer but whether it makes a huge difference in the real world is another matter (Dustin's tests for example are a flat image). As for bokeh neither the 100-400 nor 100-500 really excel even if it is less distracting on the L lens. What I'm seeing is that the 100-400 has more contrast perhaps to give the impression of more detail but also makes the background busier, while something like the 800f11 with its diffractive optics CAN look smoother (though you need to space out your subject accordingly and there are occasionally onion ring artifacts).
Hello it's USM so it isn't for videos
Why would a lens be responsible for laggy response in autofocus? The camera is the one telling the motor to spin.
but the motor has to be able to do what the camera wants it to do
I bought one. Pretty crap when not a sunny day, bad for birds. Too light to hold still. VERY slow focusing, worse than old EF glass.
Is another "snake oil" lens from Canon. Canon has run out of ideas, they seriously need to take take a page from Nikon and make some more affordable and yet interesting high quality birding lenses such as the Z 800mm f/6.3 PF and not some nonsensical RF 800mm f/11 for example. Likewise this RF 100-400mm is the same. The issue with Canon is after the L quality zoom, you will have to go all the way to a "Big White" such as the coming RF 800mm f/5.6 which costs US$17K available on preorder from B&H. In other words, there is just nothing in between. I don't consider the RF 800mm f/11 as a legit option, sure it is cheap, but there are just so many limitations with that lens. While you may argue the Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 PF is not cheap per se at US$6.5K, it is however only 38% the cost of the Canon RF 800mm f/5.6 and you have yourself a legit prime that is only 1/3 of a stop smaller in aperture than a Canon "Big White" option while being much lighter and handholdable at the same time.
It's some pretty good snake oil :P
I think for the people this lens is made for, it's better than any other options.
I am sure we will see some cool, albeit not cheap, Canon whites coming in the next few years. Mainly zooms and mainly some DO lenses