I dont get the people saying this lens is so awesome. Sure enough, it has good stabiliser, is light and "small" for a 100-400, but the F8 sucks especially since its just 400mm and the price is also not that great beside being not that tack sharp as most other RF lenses. I had only the RF 800 F11 on full frame and later "downgraded" to APS-C, basically rendering the RF 800 to only one reason: "long range" birding of super small, jumpy birds. I basically needed something to have in between effective 220mm (my longest "short" telezoom, a 28-135mm) and 1200mm+ with the RF 800, the Sigma 150-600C (240-960mm on Canon APS-C) The options i had were: - new RF 100-400, 700€ - new Sigma 150-600C, 1100€ - new Sigma 60-600S, 2000€ - Canon RF 100-500, definately preferred but so much over budget. - Either a 150-600C or a 60-600S Sigma 2nd hand, much better prices. After a while i found a 150-600C for less than 700€ 2nd hand, so in fact cheaper than the RF 100-400 new. Its heavier, needs a tripod for video usage, but it is SO MUCH BETTER than the lower end RF 100-400
This is a great comment, would have loved to talk more about this, but I was already running long, and haven't used the Sigma yet. And probably a better conversation for longer form, or a gear bag/purchasing mentality video, or direct comparison if I get the chance. From a value perspective, I tend to think the 100-400 is closer to awesome than not, so that's why most people tend to say it. I can't speak for others, but I didn't consider the 150-600c much because of the cost, weight, size, and some negative reviews around the AF on mirrorless. I felt like getting the $519 USD refurb was a steal, especially knowing that it'd be checked for good working order. This is the type of lens that in an ideal world, I'd go with the 100-500 or respective first party, high-end option. If I was going to go that big/heavy, I'd want to be more confident in the AF, would want to ditch the adapter, and would probably keep it really long term. If I shot Sony, I'd probably be picking up the 100-400 and 1.4, and at this point, would wait until the ii. If Canon can make a similar 200-600 but shrink it a little, that would be a super cool offering as well. I did consider the RF 100-500 briefly, had the budget at the start of the year, but wisely (in retrospect) put that into a computer. I was really happy with the $519, especially after selling my RP for similar. It's a length I thought I would love but didn't want to go all in just yet. And maybe this is silly, but I'm really trying to avoid EF mount lenses at this point in case I want to resell. Made an exception for the Sigma 28mm and have nothing but love so far, but hoping that's the last one. One thing I miss in going this route is the 400-600 range for sure. On the R6 I'm already cropping heavy at 400, and range is probably the biggest thing for others to consider beyond size.
Hey Dan, I can't speak to how it compares to Topaz Denoise, but I use DXO PureRaw 2 for my wildlife photography to great effect. Coming to Canon recently from Micro Four Thirds, I'm quite used to having to deal with noise in my images, and DXO does a really impressive job of reducing noise while retaining (or seemingly adding) detail. It doesn't have sliders, you just apply it to get a denoised and demosaiced RAW file that you can import into Lightroom. While f8 may seem like a small aperture on full frame, it gives equivalent depth of field to f4 on m43. As such, you end up giving up your two stop noise advantage with full frame cameras, but the quality of this lens seems to be quite high, so I haven't found it to be a huge deal yet. I was happy shooting my m43 cameras up to 12,800 ISO with DXO, and now I'm happy shooting the R8 at 51,200 ISO to extremely similar results. This lens is roughly the same weight as the Panasonic 50-200 f2.8-4 for m43, and has the same equivalent field of view and depth of field. It also seems to have about the same level of sharpness, which is really impressive, given the Panasonic lens costs twice as much. Not a perfect lens, but really cool to get the size and weight advantages of m43 on a full frame body, while still being able to throw on my 70-200 f4 to enjoy the image quality and depth of field on that lens, which is not available on m43. Best of both worlds! I've discovered your channel recently and have really been enjoying your videos. I appreciate all the example photos and practical advice. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for the comment! I've heard great things about PureRaw. I might consider tools outside of Adobe if I ended up using this heavily on lots of batch processing. Then taking it out of Adobe might be faster (in the current implementation it is a bit slow, even on a powerful machine). But otherwise I prefer to keep the workflow within Adobe and only use it on maybe 25% of images and mostly with this lens. And great insights on m43, I don't know too much about it but would like to try some other systems. I feel like I might really enjoy something small on m43 or apsc with a ~20mm fov equivalent for longer hikes. That's one of the ways I plan to use the R8 with the 28mm while I have it.
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 call for me to say, as I haven't used the R10 or Sigma. 400mm always feels shorter than I want for birds on FF. I quite like it for landscape, but I'm usually cropping hard for any wildlife. Using this on the R7 felt much better from a reach perspective. This is one of those situations where it would be great to try one of the two, if you can. There's also the possibility that Sigma makes something native now that they've been cleared for RF-S lenses... I wouldn't count on that, progress has been slow there, but it's possible.
I am confused between rf 200-800mm and rf 100-400mm. I want to get a lens for both landscaping and animals. I already have 105 mm Marco from sigma and rf 15-35 mm. I am happy with them. I would love your opinion.
I haven't used the 200-800mm yet, but they are two fairly different lenses given the size, weight, cost, and range differences. Assuming you're shooting a FF body, if you want to shoot small birds you'll likely want more than 400mm. The 100mm end of the 100-400mm will be more versatile for landscapes if you truly want something to do a bit of both.
I've had this lens for about a year with an R7 and I love it. You just have to use the sunshine when you have it. It's small size is a big part of the appeal, I just hiked Cascade Mountain in Banff and I don't think I would have found room for a 100-500 if I had it. I got an awesome keeper shot of a pika. Gotta go, I see some bluejays across the street.
Banff has been high on my list for years, hopefully it won't take me many more to get there. Would love to rent the R7 for a trip too, just to try it out with a little extra reach.
I don't have ton of video time on this, but I think you'll want to anchor your tripod as much as possible. On small travel tripods, I've started hanging my heavy bag on the center column hook more consistently. But depending on what/why you're shooting, maybe a more video-focused tripod/head is worth looking at, depending on what you have already.
I have this lens and love it. It replaced my already very light EF 70-200 F4L IS as my main travel telephoto zoom, and makes for a fantastic 1-2 punch with my main lens, the RF 24-105L. My only gripe after months of owning this lens is that the zoom ring is too big and leaves little room for your hand to find a base to turn against. What you won't know until owning or using this lens is that the non-rubberized plastic ring in front of the rubberized zoom ring is actually part of the zoom ring itself and turns with it. Had they made this it's own, non-rotating peice it would've improved the handling significantly when trying to zoom, IMO.
Thanks for the comment, I hadn't even noticed that! I either had surely zoomed from that accidentally and liked it (or was at least unbothered) or don't get quite that far with my typical grip. I could see how that might be weird though.
So it has a turning/extruding front element when focussing? Not really, i hope i just misunderstand you since the 100-400 might be on my wish list as soon its below 300$ 2nd hand in very good shape. The turning front element while focussing and no MF possible in AF mode was the super annoying reason i sold my 55-250 EF-S once for a 75-300 IS USM beside the atrocious image quality and build quality the APS-C 55-250 had.
I haven't had the RP for awhile, but this was working great on the R8 because of the AF system. Shooting birds in flight would likely be tricker with the RP, but I think I could have gotten many of the same still shots. The 4k video clips would have been tougher - the AF in 4k on the RP was a very noticeable step down from the R6, and R8. I would often shoot my talking head video in 1080p and scale up when that was my main camera to ensure that it would lock onto my eye. From a balance perspective, this lens is light enough to use with the R8 which is partially what makes it so fun.
Over the last month I've had some hesitation about buying a lens and I went for the sigma 100-400 contemporary but then I had some shipping issues and now after refunding the Sigma after not receiving it because the shipping problems I've looked at the Canon RF version whole lot more. Budget sucks!
I haven't used the Sigma, and it's too early to celebrate, but it looks like we may finally get some native Sigma stuff in 2024. And something in this range but faster still would be an obvious hole in the lineup for them to try to fill. If you're really stuck, they're both relatively affordable rentals if you can plan a shoot to give em a spin.
It does not make sense to me to bring along both tele-zooms on a hiking tour - the 100-400 AND the 70-200/4 L. If landscape is the main topic - then perhaps only the 70-200, as it is weather sealed and has better optics. On the other hand, also in landscape photography more than 200mm are sometimes useful ... and the 100-400 gives you more options when animals cross your pathway. So I probably will never buy the 70-200/4 L.
I hear ya, I have yet to carry these together on the same hike. I probably will soon, but more for comparison... and certainly not if I need to pack light for flying.
FWIW I don't see this as a wildlife or sports lens - it's slow and it doesn't have the different stabilizer modes. To me this is strictly a stills lens, and to the end it's perfect, as I would already be shooting at the maximum aperature of this lens for those subjects.
I think that's fair and pretty accurate, though at the price and given the lack of other affordable options, these two uses are likely how most people are using it when there is enough light.
It has different stabilizer modes, as even the very old EF-S 17-55 2.8 has for example. They are just automatic chosen depending on the movement the gyro measures. Even my Sigma 150-600C was working well for a panning shot in regular stabilizer mode (Mode1 should be smooth/video stab, Mode 2 for only horizontal stabilisation and no vertical) without any "wrong" looking movements. In fact it was even smoother than if i would have used it on my dirty cheap tripod 3 way head which is just sluggish for anything which demands a fluid panning movement or following BIF. Also, i just have 800mm F11 and 150-600 F 6.3 experience when it comes to the long end, but i would rather say 100-400 F8 and 600/800 F11 are more video lenses than photo, especially regarding to wildlife. For shooting stills, you want often 1/250 SS at absolute least, better 1/500 to 1/4000 for frozen motion of the jumpy and fast subjects. For video.... you will likely use 1/50 to 1/250 SS, probably 1/500 or so for 120 fps slowmo if you you also slow it down further. So you have much lower ISO values due to lower shutter speed than in the regular photo usage. At least i prefer my 150-600C sigma a lot for photo usage, video only/exclusively on tripod if its not 120 fps slowmo. Where as i try to avoid photo usage on the RF 800 F11, too slow aperture and i also want to avoid ISO 32.000 on the R7, 12800 is my regular Auto ISO maximum and in the wildlife/BIF/fast shooting custom mode the maximum is 25.600, manual ISO 32.000 also possible but thats a no go (much more noise than 25.600 for not even 1 stop more light...)
ICU !? never use abbreviations, they are very irritating. SO WHAT IS IT? 🙂 for the rest a good summary again and I would (again) recommend the RF 600 F11 also for the longer end if you want more longer ends and lightweight compact photography and still be professional. I also regret to say that your commend how to deal with F8 and F11 with the 600mm is indeed ... yes editing with modern software. AI (artificial intelligence) and software do have the future and is there to stay already, I think you also do underestimate this without knowing it. 🙂 *Also about weather sealing: do use extra plastics custom made for your gear and good drying micro-phase cloths also as a standard. Filmmakers do it always in real rain and harsh conditions. Friendly greetings without abbreviations from the Netherlands, Onno Nugteren photographer and filmmaker.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Crank that shutter, jack up that ISO, and crop, baby, crop! Denoise AI is your new best friend 🤝
I dont get the people saying this lens is so awesome.
Sure enough, it has good stabiliser, is light and "small" for a 100-400, but the F8 sucks especially since its just 400mm and the price is also not that great beside being not that tack sharp as most other RF lenses.
I had only the RF 800 F11 on full frame and later "downgraded" to APS-C, basically rendering the RF 800 to only one reason: "long range" birding of super small, jumpy birds.
I basically needed something to have in between effective 220mm (my longest "short" telezoom, a 28-135mm) and 1200mm+ with the RF 800, the Sigma 150-600C (240-960mm on Canon APS-C)
The options i had were:
- new RF 100-400, 700€
- new Sigma 150-600C, 1100€
- new Sigma 60-600S, 2000€
- Canon RF 100-500, definately preferred but so much over budget.
- Either a 150-600C or a 60-600S Sigma 2nd hand, much better prices.
After a while i found a 150-600C for less than 700€ 2nd hand, so in fact cheaper than the RF 100-400 new. Its heavier, needs a tripod for video usage, but it is SO MUCH BETTER than the lower end RF 100-400
This is a great comment, would have loved to talk more about this, but I was already running long, and haven't used the Sigma yet. And probably a better conversation for longer form, or a gear bag/purchasing mentality video, or direct comparison if I get the chance.
From a value perspective, I tend to think the 100-400 is closer to awesome than not, so that's why most people tend to say it. I can't speak for others, but I didn't consider the 150-600c much because of the cost, weight, size, and some negative reviews around the AF on mirrorless. I felt like getting the $519 USD refurb was a steal, especially knowing that it'd be checked for good working order. This is the type of lens that in an ideal world, I'd go with the 100-500 or respective first party, high-end option. If I was going to go that big/heavy, I'd want to be more confident in the AF, would want to ditch the adapter, and would probably keep it really long term. If I shot Sony, I'd probably be picking up the 100-400 and 1.4, and at this point, would wait until the ii. If Canon can make a similar 200-600 but shrink it a little, that would be a super cool offering as well.
I did consider the RF 100-500 briefly, had the budget at the start of the year, but wisely (in retrospect) put that into a computer. I was really happy with the $519, especially after selling my RP for similar. It's a length I thought I would love but didn't want to go all in just yet. And maybe this is silly, but I'm really trying to avoid EF mount lenses at this point in case I want to resell. Made an exception for the Sigma 28mm and have nothing but love so far, but hoping that's the last one. One thing I miss in going this route is the 400-600 range for sure. On the R6 I'm already cropping heavy at 400, and range is probably the biggest thing for others to consider beyond size.
Been looking forward to this review for a while. Thank you!
Thanks for watching! I needed to get out a lot more than normal for this one to start feeling comfortable.
Hey Dan, I can't speak to how it compares to Topaz Denoise, but I use DXO PureRaw 2 for my wildlife photography to great effect. Coming to Canon recently from Micro Four Thirds, I'm quite used to having to deal with noise in my images, and DXO does a really impressive job of reducing noise while retaining (or seemingly adding) detail. It doesn't have sliders, you just apply it to get a denoised and demosaiced RAW file that you can import into Lightroom.
While f8 may seem like a small aperture on full frame, it gives equivalent depth of field to f4 on m43. As such, you end up giving up your two stop noise advantage with full frame cameras, but the quality of this lens seems to be quite high, so I haven't found it to be a huge deal yet. I was happy shooting my m43 cameras up to 12,800 ISO with DXO, and now I'm happy shooting the R8 at 51,200 ISO to extremely similar results.
This lens is roughly the same weight as the Panasonic 50-200 f2.8-4 for m43, and has the same equivalent field of view and depth of field. It also seems to have about the same level of sharpness, which is really impressive, given the Panasonic lens costs twice as much. Not a perfect lens, but really cool to get the size and weight advantages of m43 on a full frame body, while still being able to throw on my 70-200 f4 to enjoy the image quality and depth of field on that lens, which is not available on m43. Best of both worlds!
I've discovered your channel recently and have really been enjoying your videos. I appreciate all the example photos and practical advice. Keep up the great work!
Thanks for the comment! I've heard great things about PureRaw. I might consider tools outside of Adobe if I ended up using this heavily on lots of batch processing. Then taking it out of Adobe might be faster (in the current implementation it is a bit slow, even on a powerful machine). But otherwise I prefer to keep the workflow within Adobe and only use it on maybe 25% of images and mostly with this lens.
And great insights on m43, I don't know too much about it but would like to try some other systems. I feel like I might really enjoy something small on m43 or apsc with a ~20mm fov equivalent for longer hikes. That's one of the ways I plan to use the R8 with the 28mm while I have it.
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 call for me to say, as I haven't used the R10 or Sigma. 400mm always feels shorter than I want for birds on FF. I quite like it for landscape, but I'm usually cropping hard for any wildlife. Using this on the R7 felt much better from a reach perspective. This is one of those situations where it would be great to try one of the two, if you can. There's also the possibility that Sigma makes something native now that they've been cleared for RF-S lenses... I wouldn't count on that, progress has been slow there, but it's possible.
I am confused between rf 200-800mm and rf 100-400mm. I want to get a lens for both landscaping and animals. I already have 105 mm Marco from sigma and rf 15-35 mm. I am happy with them. I would love your opinion.
I haven't used the 200-800mm yet, but they are two fairly different lenses given the size, weight, cost, and range differences. Assuming you're shooting a FF body, if you want to shoot small birds you'll likely want more than 400mm. The 100mm end of the 100-400mm will be more versatile for landscapes if you truly want something to do a bit of both.
I've had this lens for about a year with an R7 and I love it. You just have to use the sunshine when you have it. It's small size is a big part of the appeal, I just hiked Cascade Mountain in Banff and I don't think I would have found room for a 100-500 if I had it. I got an awesome keeper shot of a pika. Gotta go, I see some bluejays across the street.
Banff has been high on my list for years, hopefully it won't take me many more to get there. Would love to rent the R7 for a trip too, just to try it out with a little extra reach.
Any thoughts on shooting video on it on the Oregon Coast/outside? My video ends up so shakey even with a tripod 😢
I don't have ton of video time on this, but I think you'll want to anchor your tripod as much as possible. On small travel tripods, I've started hanging my heavy bag on the center column hook more consistently. But depending on what/why you're shooting, maybe a more video-focused tripod/head is worth looking at, depending on what you have already.
7:51 Never knew you could do that!
I only learned it in the last year probably, but way better than sharpening everything!
I have this lens and love it. It replaced my already very light EF 70-200 F4L IS as my main travel telephoto zoom, and makes for a fantastic 1-2 punch with my main lens, the RF 24-105L. My only gripe after months of owning this lens is that the zoom ring is too big and leaves little room for your hand to find a base to turn against. What you won't know until owning or using this lens is that the non-rubberized plastic ring in front of the rubberized zoom ring is actually part of the zoom ring itself and turns with it. Had they made this it's own, non-rotating peice it would've improved the handling significantly when trying to zoom, IMO.
Thanks for the comment, I hadn't even noticed that! I either had surely zoomed from that accidentally and liked it (or was at least unbothered) or don't get quite that far with my typical grip. I could see how that might be weird though.
So it has a turning/extruding front element when focussing? Not really, i hope i just misunderstand you since the 100-400 might be on my wish list as soon its below 300$ 2nd hand in very good shape.
The turning front element while focussing and no MF possible in AF mode was the super annoying reason i sold my 55-250 EF-S once for a 75-300 IS USM beside the atrocious image quality and build quality the APS-C 55-250 had.
No it doesn’t, it’s completely independent and is the multi function ring
How do you feel the performance with lense with RP body
I haven't had the RP for awhile, but this was working great on the R8 because of the AF system. Shooting birds in flight would likely be tricker with the RP, but I think I could have gotten many of the same still shots. The 4k video clips would have been tougher - the AF in 4k on the RP was a very noticeable step down from the R6, and R8. I would often shoot my talking head video in 1080p and scale up when that was my main camera to ensure that it would lock onto my eye. From a balance perspective, this lens is light enough to use with the R8 which is partially what makes it so fun.
Over the last month I've had some hesitation about buying a lens and I went for the sigma 100-400 contemporary but then I had some shipping issues and now after refunding the Sigma after not receiving it because the shipping problems I've looked at the Canon RF version whole lot more. Budget sucks!
I haven't used the Sigma, and it's too early to celebrate, but it looks like we may finally get some native Sigma stuff in 2024. And something in this range but faster still would be an obvious hole in the lineup for them to try to fill. If you're really stuck, they're both relatively affordable rentals if you can plan a shoot to give em a spin.
U shot the moon at just 800 iso and 1/800 SS r u kiding me ???!!!
Nikon p 1000 is better?
Not sure, never used it
Sigma 150-600 FTW
Have yet to try it!
It does not make sense to me to bring along both tele-zooms on a hiking tour - the 100-400 AND the 70-200/4 L. If landscape is the main topic - then perhaps only the 70-200, as it is weather sealed and has better optics. On the other hand, also in landscape photography more than 200mm are sometimes useful ... and the 100-400 gives you more options when animals cross your pathway. So I probably will never buy the 70-200/4 L.
I hear ya, I have yet to carry these together on the same hike. I probably will soon, but more for comparison... and certainly not if I need to pack light for flying.
FWIW I don't see this as a wildlife or sports lens - it's slow and it doesn't have the different stabilizer modes. To me this is strictly a stills lens, and to the end it's perfect, as I would already be shooting at the maximum aperature of this lens for those subjects.
I think that's fair and pretty accurate, though at the price and given the lack of other affordable options, these two uses are likely how most people are using it when there is enough light.
It has different stabilizer modes, as even the very old EF-S 17-55 2.8 has for example. They are just automatic chosen depending on the movement the gyro measures.
Even my Sigma 150-600C was working well for a panning shot in regular stabilizer mode (Mode1 should be smooth/video stab, Mode 2 for only horizontal stabilisation and no vertical) without any "wrong" looking movements. In fact it was even smoother than if i would have used it on my dirty cheap tripod 3 way head which is just sluggish for anything which demands a fluid panning movement or following BIF.
Also, i just have 800mm F11 and 150-600 F 6.3 experience when it comes to the long end, but i would rather say 100-400 F8 and 600/800 F11 are more video lenses than photo, especially regarding to wildlife. For shooting stills, you want often 1/250 SS at absolute least, better 1/500 to 1/4000 for frozen motion of the jumpy and fast subjects.
For video.... you will likely use 1/50 to 1/250 SS, probably 1/500 or so for 120 fps slowmo if you you also slow it down further. So you have much lower ISO values due to lower shutter speed than in the regular photo usage.
At least i prefer my 150-600C sigma a lot for photo usage, video only/exclusively on tripod if its not 120 fps slowmo. Where as i try to avoid photo usage on the RF 800 F11, too slow aperture and i also want to avoid ISO 32.000 on the R7, 12800 is my regular Auto ISO maximum and in the wildlife/BIF/fast shooting custom mode the maximum is 25.600, manual ISO 32.000 also possible but thats a no go (much more noise than 25.600 for not even 1 stop more light...)
Undidnt even say what xamera u r using !....
1:08
ICU !? never use abbreviations, they are very irritating. SO WHAT IS IT?
🙂 for the rest a good summary again and I would (again) recommend the RF 600 F11 also for the longer end if you want more longer ends and lightweight compact photography and still be professional.
I also regret to say that your commend how to deal with F8 and F11 with the 600mm is indeed ... yes editing with modern software.
AI (artificial intelligence) and software do have the future and is there to stay already, I think you also do underestimate this without knowing it. 🙂
*Also about weather sealing: do use extra plastics custom made for your gear and good drying micro-phase cloths also as a standard.
Filmmakers do it always in real rain and harsh conditions.
Friendly greetings without abbreviations from the Netherlands, Onno Nugteren photographer and filmmaker.
Haha internal camera unit 😜 Hoping to try the 600mm someday!
you see I'm not amused!! 🙂 internal camera unit icu! 😞@@DanYosua
🤔 Promo>SM
??
Senza il sapiente uso di post produzione e perdita di tempo, è un obiettivo davvero mediocre.
Cosa raccomanderesti? Non è il massimo, ma non c'è molto a questo prezzo, e quindi secondo me è un ottimo antipasto
@@DanYosua il 100-500 sicuramente, anche se i costi aumentano. Almeno hai soddisfazione.
Ho capito, mi mancano solo i duemila dollari di riserva 😅
@@DanYosua per il momento anche a me 🤣