# Here is the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 8, 2021)

> An image and some specifications for the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM have leaked out ahead of next week’s official announcement. I will note that the lens is a bit slower at the long end than my original report of f/7.1.
> This lens looks to be extremely compact for what it is.
> The Canon RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 IS USM has a minimum focusing distance of 88cm at 200mm, a maximum magnification of 0.41x at 400mm, and up to 6 stops of IS when paired with the EOS R5 or EOS R6. When using this lens with the EOS R or EOS RP, image stabilization is about 5.5 stops of correction.
> Another interesting design choice is that this lens is compatible with both the RF 1.4x and RF 2.0x teleconverters. Canon has also added a dedicated control ring to the front of the lens.
> The Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM will be priced at $649...



Continue reading...


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 8, 2021)

Kinda slow, but that MFD is nice. If it's sharp, it'd be nice for a hiking telephoto.


----------



## sanj (Sep 8, 2021)

Cant have speed and compact.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 8, 2021)

I'm assuming this is sort of an equivalent of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II lens for the RF lineup. The loss of the 70-100 range is presumably countered by the fact that the standard kit lenses for the R range all cover the 24-105 range already.


----------



## Caseydull (Sep 8, 2021)

I think the price will be higher with the latest price increases. If this can use the RF extenders will anyone buy the 600 or 800 f11 lenses at a much higher price?


----------



## EricN (Sep 8, 2021)

Caseydull said:


> I think the price will be higher with the latest price increases. If this can use the RF extenders will anyone buy the 600 or 800 f11 lenses at a much higher price?


IQ may not be as good


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

TC compatibility, I wonder if that’s limited like the 100-500. Regardless…1-2 stops lost from f/8 is dark.


----------



## arbitrage (Sep 8, 2021)

Caseydull said:


> I think the price will be higher with the latest price increases. If this can use the RF extenders will anyone buy the 600 or 800 f11 lenses at a much higher price?


Well 800/11 is a heck of a lot better than 800/16 and having to use a 2xTC on a cheap zoom lens to get there. I don't even need to use the lenses to know which one will have better IQ.

600 f/11...yeah that may be more competitive. 560/11 out of this lens but again needing a TC to get there. That remains to be seen how close they'd be for IQ.


----------



## Doug7131 (Sep 8, 2021)

F8 will ensure some excellent forum comment sections!


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> TC compatibility, I wonder if that’s limited like the 100-500. Regardless…1-2 stops lost from f/8 is dark.


Who uses TC on these entry level tele zooms? I have seen people using TC on 70-200mm lenses(both f4 and f2.8) havent seen anyone using it on 70/75-300mm & 100-400mm(also equivalent 3rd party) lenses.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 8, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> F8 will ensure some excellent forum comment sections!


Prediction: lots of bitching by non-owners, lots of really happy owners who are just fine with f/8.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> Prediction: lots of bitching by non-owners, lots of really happy owners who are just fine with f/8.


0.41x at 400mm for $649! If I didn't have the 100-500 already, I'd be getting this one for chasing dragonflies. And with the leftover money I can try to hire @AlanF to run the images through DxO PL for me


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 8, 2021)

And only $649? I was expecting north of $1000, honestly. That's just a bit more than the 70-300 II. I don't mind f/8 that much, since I shoot with the 2x on my 500 pretty regularly.
Edit: Based on some quick and dirty math, the 100-400 is about 5.5 inches long, which makes it even shorter than the 70-300 II. Impressive. Rough mockup
size comparison:


----------



## FuzzyFotos (Sep 8, 2021)

I just can't find my feet in this new RF system. This is not the lens for me. I bought the 800, f11 and yeah it's light and compact, but unusable in most situations I found out, unless I really jackup the ISO. This is kinda the same. Really wish Canon come up with something like the Sony 200-600 f6.3 not just these low end toys. People much buy them because they are cheap i suppose.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

FuzzyFotos said:


> I just can't find my feet in this new RF system. This is not the lens for me. I bought the 800, f11 and yeah it's light and compact, but unusable in most situations I found out, unless I really jackup the ISO. This is kinda the same. Really wish Canon come up with something like the Sony 200-600 f6.3 not just these low end toys. People much buy them because they are cheap i suppose.


Try the 100-500L. Or the 600/4. Those aren’t ‘low end toys’.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Try the 100-500L. Or the 600/4. Those aren’t ‘low end toys’.



There should be something between a $650 100-400 and $3000 100-500. Same for the $200 RF 50 1.8 and $3000 50 1.2


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> There should be something between a $650 100-400 and $3000 100-500. Same for the $200 RF 50 1.8 and $3000 50 1.2


Should there be? Why…because you say so?


----------



## JustUs7 (Sep 8, 2021)

FuzzyFotos said:


> I just can't find my feet in this new RF system. This is not the lens for me. I bought the 800, f11 and yeah it's light and compact, but unusable in most situations I found out, unless I really jackup the ISO. This is kinda the same. Really wish Canon come up with something like the Sony 200-600 f6.3 not just these low end toys. People much buy them because they are cheap i suppose.


Cheap suggests poor quality. That remains to be seen. It does open up areas of photography that were beyond the financial reach of some though. That’s pretty exciting. And for Canon, it creates a crowd of future L buyers when we in the unwashed masses decide that the images just aren’t doing it for us anymore. 

I’m not seeing your middle of the road pricing outside of Sigma and Tamron though. I had a Sigma and it’s the only lens I’ve had that started to fall apart. The zoom grip quite literally fell off. It would telescope on its own unless locked. That was “cheap” to me.

That Sony lens is $2,000.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Should there be? Why…because you say so?



Because the market says so. I see many people who would buy a bit higher end lenses without spending thousands on top L glass.
For example a weather sealed 85mm 1.4 which has a focus motor at least as good as the original EF 85mm 1.8 from 30 years ago.

Not the slow and noisy RF 85 F2 with external focusing. Or should we be happy the filter thread is not rotating?


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 8, 2021)

Caseydull said:


> I think the price will be higher with the latest price increases. If this can use the RF extenders will anyone buy the 600 or 800 f11 lenses at a much higher price?


Would be F/16 with a 2x to get to 800. And I'm sure the IQ would not be as good. The 800/11 is really sharp for its price point.

-Brian


----------



## slclick (Sep 8, 2021)

I'll be buying this low end toy. A nice fit for my kit.


----------



## xwxw (Sep 8, 2021)

I did a size comparison to the latest 70-300 EF. It's probably 1-2cm longer than the EF. I think we could expect similar optical performance.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 8, 2021)

For the price of $649 US this is a nice budget option that is low cost and lightweight. Glad to see that Canon is still releasing lenses as affordable alternatives to their L series.


----------



## HenWin (Sep 8, 2021)

FuzzyFotos said:


> I just can't find my feet in this new RF system. This is not the lens for me. I bought the 800, f11 and yeah it's light and compact, but unusable in most situations I found out, unless I really jackup the ISO. This is kinda the same. Really wish Canon come up with something like the Sony 200-600 f6.3 not just these low end toys. People much buy them because they are cheap i suppose.


You don't say why it's "unusable in most situations", so your comment isn't very helpful.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> There should be something between a $650 100-400 and $3000 100-500.


There's a 100-400 II L.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 8, 2021)

I got the 600 f/11 for a remote outdoor setup, but this looks like it would be much better for same purpose - and more versatile (and probably more protectable). The price being this low makes it the best option.


----------



## xwxw (Sep 8, 2021)

Kit. said:


> There's a 100-400 II L.


Great observation. And there are 3rd parties as well. Why would Canon be obligated to plug all the holes.


----------



## hoodlum (Sep 8, 2021)

Canon is certainly setting up the lenses for a cheaper and more compact FF or APS-C RF body for next year.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> 0.41x at 400mm for $649! If I didn't have the 100-500 already, I'd be getting this one for chasing dragonflies. And with the leftover money I can try to hire @AlanF to run the images through DxO PL for me


I am either free or very expensive! Anyway, I'll be getting this lens - my wife is beginning to struggle with the 100-400mm II, and I'll use it when I want a lightweight compact set up. f/8 doesn't worry me.


----------



## xwxw (Sep 8, 2021)

I sold my 100-400 II last year for $1400. Happy to use half the proceeds towards this downsized/downgraded version. The weight savings will be worth the image degradation for my use scenarios.


----------



## xwxw (Sep 8, 2021)

Adding the 100-400 II for kicks. Sizing was done in photoshop so please pardon any inaccuracies.


View attachment 200085


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 8, 2021)

I just bought a 70-300 II for hiking when I don't want to bring the 100-400 II. This would be a nice compromise, if it's as sharp as the 70-300.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2021)

xwxw said:


> Adding the 100-400 II for kicks. Sizing was done in photoshop so please pardon any inaccuracies.
> 
> 
> View attachment 200085


Thanks for the comparison! The RF100-400 will end up even more compact on an RF camera, since the EF lenses need the adapter as well. I think that will push it to the same length as the 70-300+adapter.


----------



## xwxw (Sep 8, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> I just bought a 70-300 II for hiking when I don't want to bring the 100-400 II. This would be a compromise, if it's as sharp as the 70-300.



I would think there is a good chance so.

From my size comparison, I especially like the more slender shape of the new lens (less girth than the 70-300 II).

The macro functionality is an added bonus. I enjoyed using the 100-400 II for pseudo macro work. But with this, the magnification goes one step further.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 8, 2021)

Man, I'm not really sure what to think about this maximum aperture at 400mm. The price seems good and the size/weight are very appealing...but this isn't as compact and tidy as I was hoping for in my head for this sacrifice in light gathering. Oh well I was waiting for price/performance...but it looks like I'm getting the Fuji XF 70-300 instead for my casual walk-around super telephoto.


----------



## Eersel (Sep 8, 2021)

I would imagine that this will be a sub $1000 lens. Good choice for amateur wildlife folk.
Working in a camera store we are getting older photographers who want telephoto but don’t want to carry around the RF 100-500mm.

Won’t be too bad of a lens, I found the 800mm to even be a little fun!


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 8, 2021)

They've put the zoom ring—the most imporant of the three rings—in the wrong place again, as with the 70-200 f/4. You always want the most important control to be as far forward on the lens as possible for maximum stability. Putting the zoom ring to the rear means most of the lens' weight in use is going unsupported, hanging free several inches away. Even with lens IS, that's not good. At the very minimum it puts more wear on the extension mechanicism when the forward weight isn't supported. I suppose if you know you're only going to be using it at 400mm (which I expect many people will) then you could just leave it there and keep your hand on the control ring, but even then it still seems erroneous to place the zoom ring so far away from the control ring.
Also confused as to why they didn't combine the control and manual focus rings. Seems like an obvious, easy cost saving and streamlines the operation of a lens like this which is so very rarely going to be focused manually.

But still, appears to be a good size, I'm happy to see them vaguely (between this, the 24-105 f/7.1, 85mm f/2 and 100mm f/2.8) adopting the modern standard 67mm filter size, and while I don't expect the optics to be anything special, just hitting 400mm (probably actually 380-390mm) at a price below what second hand 400mm f/5.6Ls cost, and presumably a weight far below that lens (not that the L lens is particularly heavy to begin with) is a good combination. With the close focus, I can see this lens plus the 800mm f/11 becoming 'the' combo for the wildlife amateur who wants to shoot _everything_ from butterflies to birds and large mammels with the lightest possible kit. If an RP-size camera can be made that is just a little faster, that and this lens will be a helluva starter combination for kids.
It does raise the question of the purpose of the 600mm f/11, though, since I'm sure many people would much rather have the extra stop of f/8 than the extra 200mm, and conversely if you can live with f/11 and do value more reach then surely you'd go to the 800mm.

Should make a good landscape lens, too; I know many people think "landscape" only means 16-35s, but for my money landscape begins at 100mm.

I wasn't that fussed when the rumours started flying, but now seeing the even smaller than expected size and uncharacteristically reasonable price (unless Canon screws over the UK on the conversion again, as they've done with most RF products so far), I can see myself picking one up for the times when I'm not anticipating seeing anything special and/or I just can't be bothered to carry one of my Great Whites, moreso than I ever considered the f/11 lenses. Overcast England does not like f/11, but f/8 is right at the limit of usable.




blackcoffee17 said:


> Because the market says so. I see many people who would buy a bit higher end lenses without spending thousands on top L glass.
> For example a weather sealed 85mm 1.4 which has a focus motor at least as good as the original EF 85mm 1.8 from 30 years ago.
> 
> Not the slow and noisy RF 85 F2 with external focusing. Or should we be happy the filter thread is not rotating?


Samyang/Rokinon/Bower already made the lens you're asking for. 85mm f/1.4, sealed and with a _much_ better focus motor than the terrible STMs (which is a motor Canon should be ashamed of, quite frankly). As a bonus, if you buy the Samyang-branded version it will even have a red ring, because sure why not. (The Samyang-branded version is actually temporarily unavailable due to their distribution problems with covid, but the Rokinon and Bower versions are still around and the Samyang will come back... eventually...)


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 8, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> They've put the zoom ring—the most imporant of the three rings—in the wrong place again, as with the 70-200 f/4. You always want the most important control to be as far forward on the lens as possible for maximum stability. Putting the zoom ring to the rear means most of the lens' weight in use is going unsupported, hanging free several inches away. Even with lens IS, that's not good. At the very minimum it puts more wear on the extension mechanicism when the forward weight isn't supported. I suppose if you know you're only going to be using it at 400mm (which I expect many people will) then you could just leave it there and keep your hand on the control ring, but even then it still seems erroneous to place the zoom ring so far away from the control ring.
> Also confused as to why they didn't combine the control and manual focus rings. Seems like an obvious, easy cost saving and streamlines the operation of a lens like this which is so very rarely going to be focused manually.
> 
> But still, appears to be a good size, I'm happy to see them vaguely (between this, the 24-105 f/7.1, 85mm f/2 and 100mm f/2.8) adopting the modern standard 67mm filter size, and while I don't expect the optics to be anything special, just hitting 400mm (probably actually 380-390mm) at a price below what second hand 400mm f/5.6Ls cost, and presumably a weight far below that lens (not that the L lens is particularly heavy to begin with) is a good combination. With the close focus, I can see this lens plus the 800mm f/11 becoming 'the' combo for the wildlife amateur who wants to shoot _everything_ from butterflies to birds and large mammels with the lightest possible kit. If an RP-size camera can be made that is just a little faster, that and this lens will be a helluva starter combination for kids.
> ...



Yes, that focusing motor in the RF 85 F2 is a disgrace. But i heard Samyang had some issues with the RF mount and they are stopping releasing RF lenses.


----------



## MartinVLC (Sep 8, 2021)

It will be ineresting how IQ holds up against the Tamron 100-400 f/4.5-6.3 that has some very positive reviews. If the Canon is at least as good the 100 Euro/Dollar extra for not having to use the EF-RF adapter should be worth it. If it´s significantly worse in IQ it would be quite sad for canon.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 8, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> Man, I'm not really sure what to think about this maximum aperture at 400mm. The price seems good and the size/weight are very appealing...but this isn't as compact and tidy as I was hoping for in my head for this sacrifice in light gathering. Oh well I was waiting for price/performance...but it looks like I'm getting the Fuji XF 70-300 instead for my casual walk-around super telephoto.


Sadly, Canon seem to have decided that all non-L zooms lenses must be one stop slower than EF zooms. I doubt we'll see them change that design philosophy any time soon.

That said, the Fuji 70-300 is equivalent to 106-456mm f/6-8.5, so other than perhaps a little bit of size and the addition of weather sealing and a hood included in the box, the fundamentals of this lens and the Fuji really are not very different. Which isn't to say "how dare you, you _must_ buy Canon" or anything—I have a bunch of Fuji gear myself and there are certainly other reasons to opt for theirs over Canon—just that you might want to wait for proper in-depth reviews (not just one day's hands-on) to come out for both lenses before choosing, since at least in terms of the most important spec they're not as different as they may first seem. Especially since I see you have the R6 and R5, I can guarantee from experience that you'll get a cleaner and more detailed image shooting either of those cameras at f/8 ISO 1600 than you will shooting the X-E4 at f/5.6 ISO 800, for example. (Especially if you downsample the R5, obviously.)


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yes, that focusing motor in the RF 85 F2 is a disgrace. But i heard Samyang had some issues with the RF mount and they are stopping releasing RF lenses.


As I said, some of Samyang's lenses are temporarily on hold as they have ongoing distribution problems around covid. (Source: spoke to two Samyang reps directly.) Samyang's distribution normally covers the largest area and most countries of the three brands the lenses are produced for, so their distribution is much more complex and, unsurprisingly, much more affected and disrupted by the pandemic. Production of all electrical goods is also reduced right now due to both covid and the semiconduct or shortage, so for now the Samyang brand has scaled back to only its most sure-fire top-selling lenses (i.e. the most standard focal lengths in E-mount). Like I said, the Rokinon and Bower brands (same lens, different names for different countries) which operate in more limited areas and aren't having to ship around as many units anyway have kept producing the RF lenses. The Samyang-branded ones will be back.

The idea that they abandoned RF due to IBIS not working fully with them is an incorrect assumption a few kneejerk YouTubers made based on a brief problem with how Canon implemented IBIS, which was in fact fixed with a firmware update almost right away. (Note the same lenses have been released on Sony E and never had a problem with IBIS there; the problems were entirely due to Canon, not Samyang, and are now fixed.) It's just unlucky timing that the release of the R5 and R6 came at the same time Samyang started to have their distribution problems, and people who are more interested in clicks than facts put the two together in all-caps headlines with lots of derpy faces and red arrows in the thumbnails.

TL;DR: Both the 14mm and 85mm work perfectly with all RF cameras, assuming you are up to date with the latest firmware. The Samyang brand has covid-related problems, but that is not permanent, and the 'sister' brands are carrying on with no change.


----------



## slclick (Sep 8, 2021)

MartinVLC said:


> It will be ineresting how IQ holds up against the Tamron 100-400 f/4.5-6.3 that has some very positive reviews. If the Canon is at least as good the 100 Euro/Dollar extra for not having to use the EF-RF adapter should be worth it. If it´s significantly worse in IQ it would be quite sad for canon.


Same. I'll be using the Tammy for a benchmark in terms of IQ. However with the adapter, size and weight will be on Canon's size. I have a feeling it will fare better than we think since in real world applications in capable hands all the lower tier RF glass is optically better than the pundits and spec sheets lead us to believe at launch. As for the aperture, if you have paid attention, the f/8 600/800 have shown us these lenses are more than capable even outside bright sunlight.


----------



## okaro (Sep 8, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> I'm assuming this is sort of an equivalent of the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II lens for the RF lineup. The loss of the 70-100 range is presumably countered by the fact that the standard kit lenses for the R range all cover the 24-105 range already.


I put this more like equivalent of the EF-S 55-250 mm (88-400 mm). Canon seems to be pushing full frame even to entry level shooters. IMO this makes sense and makes things much less complicated.


----------



## efmshark (Sep 8, 2021)

Caseydull said:


> I think the price will be higher with the latest price increases. If this can use the RF extenders will anyone buy the 600 or 800 f11 lenses at a much higher price?


Most likely, not as good image quality compared to the primes. Max aperture of the zoom will also be f/16 at 800mm with 2x TC.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 8, 2021)

xwxw said:


> Adding the 100-400 II for kicks. Sizing was done in photoshop so please pardon any inaccuracies.
> 
> 
> You need to add the EF-RF adapter to get a valid comparison.


----------



## melgross (Sep 8, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Who uses TC on these entry level tele zooms? I have seen people using TC on 70-200mm lenses(both f4 and f2.8) havent seen anyone using it on 70/75-300mm & 100-400mm(also equivalent 3rd party) lenses.


People who either don’t want to spend more money, or would rather have a decent zoom that fairly small, with some added boost in those circumstances where they need it.

Right or wrong thinking, there is a market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Because the market says so. I see many people who would buy a bit higher end lenses without spending thousands on top L glass.
> For example a weather sealed 85mm 1.4 which has a focus motor at least as good as the original EF 85mm 1.8 from 30 years ago.
> 
> Not the slow and noisy RF 85 F2 with external focusing. Or should we be happy the filter thread is not rotating?


The ‘many people you see’ aren’t ‘the market’. Somehow, many randos on CR Forum think they have better information about what ‘the market says’ than a multinational, multibillion dollar corporation who’s business is making products for that market.

When pressed for their market research, the answer is always, “Well of course I don’t have any. Where’s yours?” The point is that none of us individuals have it…but Canon does. So if there was as much demand for Product X as forum dwellers claim, Canon would know it.

As usual, it boils down to a forum dweller wanting Product X, and baselessly claiming ‘everyone wants it’ because they do (and maybe the two other people of whom they asked a leading question).


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 8, 2021)

melgross said:


> People who either don’t want to spend more money, or would rather have a decent zoom that fairly small, with some added boost in those circumstances where they need it.
> 
> Right or wrong thinking, there is a market.


And while the RF extenders are basically the same price as this lens, it's still cheaper than a longer lens, although the 800mm comes close.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 8, 2021)

FuzzyFotos said:


> I just can't find my feet in this new RF system. This is not the lens for me. I bought the 800, f11 and yeah it's light and compact, but unusable in most situations I found out, unless I really jackup the ISO. This is kinda the same. Really wish Canon come up with something like the Sony 200-600 f6.3 not just these low end toys. People much buy them because they are cheap i suppose.


That depends on the IQ of this lens. The 24-240 is in the same price range and if you let the digital corrections do their thing, the results are darn good. I use the 24-240 for and everyday lens on the R5 and haven't been disappointed.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 8, 2021)

It would be nice to see a 70-300 scaling of this for the M line.


----------



## Juangrande (Sep 8, 2021)

HenWin said:


> You don't say why it's "unusable in most situations", so your comment isn't very helpful.


Well he did mention needing to up the iso to get useable images so “unusable in most situations” sounds like you need bright sunlight to get good images without resorting to higher iso settings. Useable being subjective here.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> There should be something between a $650 100-400 and $3000 100-500. Same for the $200 RF 50 1.8 and $3000 50 1.2





neuroanatomist said:


> Should there be? Why…because you say so?



I tend to agree with blackcoffee17 actually. (But I concede that I do not *know* and I am speculating here):

And I think Canon does too. It's just that they can't release everything at the same time. A few years down the line I expect we'll start seeing some "midgrade" lenses. (And I might even be in the market for some of them.) Of course that's me guessing what's in Canon's mind(s), so we'll just have to see.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> There should be something between a $650 100-400 and $3000 100-500. Same for the $200 RF 50 1.8 and $3000 50 1.2


Yep. Expect to see a 200-600 style lens akin to Sony's $2k offering. It will be neither as compact as the 100-400 nor have quite the IQ of the 100-500, but its price will be somewhere in the middle.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 8, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> Kinda slow, but that MFD is nice. If it's sharp, it'd be nice for a hiking telephoto.



Good on Canon for bringing out more affordable lenses out for RF - hopefully optical quality is reasonable.


----------



## danfaz (Sep 8, 2021)

SteveC said:


> It's just that they can't release everything at the same time. A few years down the line I expect we'll start seeing some "midgrade" lenses.


Yes, thank you! Canon can't release every lens all at once. Let's try WAITING a bit for the remainder of the lineup before bashing Canon for lack of mid-grade lenses. At first there were sooo many complaints that there weren't enough cheap RF lenses. Now that they are putting them out, the complaint is there are not enough mid-grade lenses.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 8, 2021)

danfaz said:


> Yes, thank you! Canon can't release every lens all at once. Let's try WAITING a bit for the remainder of the lineup before bashing Canon for lack of mid-grade lenses. At first there were sooo many complaints that there weren't enough cheap RF lenses. Now that they are putting them out, the complaint is there are not enough mid-grade lenses.



[Five year from now;] There aren't enough medium-high grade lenses (2 on 1-5 scale)! There aren't enough medium-low grade lenses (4 on a 1-5 scale)!


----------



## David_D (Sep 8, 2021)

SteveC said:


> And I think Canon does too. It's just that they can't release everything at the same time. A few years down the line I expect we'll start seeing some "midgrade" lenses.



My guess is that Canon are just trying to prioritise the release order to:

Keep the most people happy
Make the most profit
Imagine ranking the entire market by the amount people are willing to pay (from really cheap to money is no object), suitably scaled by amount of profit they would make at that price point. If they can make a cheap lens and an expensive lens that can attract the bottom 40% and top 40% they are not missing out on too many sales. Over time they may add a mid-price lens to pick up the middle 40% (in my model the low and high segment overlap the mid segment by a bit, whereas the low and high segments don't overlap)..


----------



## vangelismm (Sep 8, 2021)

okaro said:


> I put this more like equivalent of the EF-S 55-250 mm (88-400 mm). Canon seems to be pushing full frame even to entry level shooters. IMO this makes sense and makes things much less complicated.



Yes, the range is almost a match. 
If we assume nobody bought the 55-250 to shoot at 55mm, it makes even more sense. 

There problem is now the wide angle zoom to replace ef-s 10-18, equiv. 16-28mm.
The rumored 18-45 would be an acceptable replacement.


----------



## JPAZ (Sep 8, 2021)

Unless the IQ is terrible, this lens on an RP could be a nice "backpacking" rig.


----------



## esglord (Sep 8, 2021)

This is a focal range where smaller size and and small cost are what I'm looking for. I'd like to try it out with a teleconverter to see if sharpness is adequate. Could be a fun lens.


----------



## Dustspeck (Sep 8, 2021)

Nice. Too bad all my Canon gear is EF mount. Eventually I suppose I'll be switching to Fuji or Sony. Sad to see Canon essentially abandon long time EF users as the EF lens portfolio shrinks.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 8, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> That said, the Fuji 70-300 is equivalent to 106-456mm f/6-8.5, so other than perhaps a little bit of size and the addition of weather sealing and a hood included in the box, the fundamentals of this lens and the Fuji really are not very different. Which isn't to say "how dare you, you _must_ buy Canon" or anything—I have a bunch of Fuji gear myself and there are certainly other reasons to opt for theirs over Canon—just that you might want to wait for proper in-depth reviews (not just one day's hands-on) to come out for both lenses before choosing, since at least in terms of the most important spec they're not as different as they may first seem. Especially since I see you have the R6 and R5, I can guarantee from experience that you'll get a cleaner and more detailed image shooting either of those cameras at f/8 ISO 1600 than you will shooting the X-E4 at f/5.6 ISO 800, for example. (Especially if you downsample the R5, obviously.)



I honestly feel like Canon is doing an excellent job making APS-C basically irrelevant for the RF mount. I get the sense Canon looked at APS-C, asked themselves, "what are people getting out of these crop lenses?" and is building that out in a full frame format for the low end RF mount. 

When cheap focus systems could only focus to F/5.6, they had way more limits on lens design. But now that any DPAF sensor can easily focus at F/16 or even higher, they've totally taken away that limit on lens design, so instead of compromising on the sensor, you're compromising on the aperture.

It honestly makes for a far better upgrading experience, because instead of compromising on the sensor quality and needing to upgrade the body, you can upgrade the lens and get the full experience of full frame. 

It almost feels like Canon is setting themselves up to be to full frame what Fuji is to APS-C. If they can release a $800 full frame that someone can grab used in two/three years for $500, I think a lot of entry level people will end up grabbing a Canon as their first camera because they're all told "full frame is better."


----------



## slclick (Sep 8, 2021)

Dustspeck said:


> Nice. Too bad all my Canon gear is EF mount. Eventually I suppose I'll be switching to Fuji or Sony. Sad to see Canon essentially abandon long time EF users as the EF lens portfolio shrinks.


Canon is the ONE brand to make the new mount adaptable. You are not left out in the cold, in fact if you could see it as glass half full you could see how versatile your kit is. This has been regurgitated over and over in the past couple of years, your post is like a time machine back to those days of grumbling yore.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 8, 2021)

Seems like a handy travel lens, if thats the price and its reasonably sharp I'd say its a good buy.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 8, 2021)

Dustspeck said:


> Nice. Too bad all my Canon gear is EF mount. Eventually I suppose I'll be switching to Fuji or Sony. Sad to see Canon essentially abandon long time EF users as the EF lens portfolio shrinks.



They have not abandoned EF users. You can still use your EF lenses on RF cameras and they work just as well. 
It's unreasonable to expect Canon to keep developing the EF mount when the whole world and competition is turning mirrorless.


----------



## slclick (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> They have not abandoned EF users. You can still use your EF lenses on RF cameras and they work just as well.
> It's unreasonable to expect Canon to keep developing the EF mount when the whole world and competition is turning mirrorless.


and the shrinking comment....smh


----------



## rontele7 (Sep 8, 2021)

Meanwhile Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k, and it's phenomenal. Internally zooming too! 

Canon has absolutely nothing even close to that.

Why do we need another junky slow novelty lens? Where are all the innovative lenses Canon promised when they switched to RF mount? 

Other than the 28-70 none of the RF lenses are unique.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> It's unreasonable to expect Canon to keep developing the EF mount when the whole world and competition is turning mirrorless.


Exactly. Why, over the past three years alone, the mirrorless portion of the ILC market has grown by an astounding 3% (from 54% to 57%). A whopping 1% per year shift from DSLR to MILC. The domination by mirrorless is clear, which is why it makes total sense for Canon to stop DSLR development.

Or…not.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Meanwhile Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k, and it's phenomenal. Internally zooming too!
> 
> Canon has absolutely nothing even close to that.
> 
> ...


RF 800mm f/11 and RF 600mm f/11 not unique?


----------



## Chig (Sep 8, 2021)

Caseydull said:


> I think the price will be higher with the latest price increases. If this can use the RF extenders will anyone buy the 600 or 800 f11 lenses at a much higher price?


The extenders are very pricy too, and I doubt you can use them at the wide end like with the 100-500


----------



## Chig (Sep 8, 2021)

1.4x T.C works great on my EF100-400ii with my 7Dii
Also it works over the _whole zoom range_ not like the crippled RF100-500 + T.Cs set up!
2x works as well but only manual focus on my 7Dii , apparently works pretty ok on mirrorless and matches the 800mm f/11 of the RF800
I would just keep my EF zoom if I go mirrorless rather than buy this new RF one.


----------



## Chig (Sep 8, 2021)

FuzzyFotos said:


> I just can't find my feet in this new RF system. This is not the lens for me. I bought the 800, f11 and yeah it's light and compact, but unusable in most situations I found out, unless I really jackup the ISO. This is kinda the same. Really wish Canon come up with something like the Sony 200-600 f6.3 not just these low end toys. People much buy them because they are cheap i suppose.


Well the excellent Sony 200-600 costs $2000 USD 
Be nice if Canon decides to make a RF200-600mm DO f/4-5.6 which potentially might weigh only about 2kg but wouldn't be cheap of course


----------



## Chig (Sep 8, 2021)

Marximusprime said:


> I just bought a 70-300 II for hiking when I don't want to bring the 100-400 II. This would be a nice compromise, if it's as sharp as the 70-300.


Pretty much all lenses are very sharp


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2021)

Chig said:


> 1.4x T.C works great on my EF100-400ii with my 7Dii
> Also it works over the _whole zoom range_ not like the crippled RF100-500 + T.Cs set up!
> 2x works as well but only manual focus on my 7Dii , apparently works pretty ok on mirrorless and matches the 800mm f/11 of the RF800
> I would just keep my EF zoom if I go mirrorless rather than buy this new RF one.


The 100-400mm II + 2x TC does not match the 800mm f/11 on the R5. The zoom is OK at 800mm, but not much more than that, while the 800mm f/11 is significantly better - I have both lenses. The 100-500mm + 2x TC at 1000mm is very good.


----------



## Chig (Sep 8, 2021)

LSXPhotog said:


> Man, I'm not really sure what to think about this maximum aperture at 400mm. The price seems good and the size/weight are very appealing...but this isn't as compact and tidy as I was hoping for in my head for this sacrifice in light gathering. Oh well I was waiting for price/performance...but it looks like I'm getting the Fuji XF 70-300 instead for my casual walk-around super telephoto.


Didn't know the Fuji XF 70-300 is a super telephoto


----------



## rizkypratama24 (Sep 8, 2021)

While I don't like a lens being too narrow, I like that it uses true stops rather than 6.3 or 7.1 thingy.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

SteveC said:


> [Five year from now;] There aren't enough medium-high grade lenses (2 on 1-5 scale)! There aren't enough medium-low grade lenses (4 on a 1-5 scale)!


I know you're joking but, I was kind of surprised to see that there were so many comments asking for a mid-range zoom when we already have the 100-500mm. A zoom that is between $700 and $2800 might be between the quality of the RF 100-400 and the 100-500, but I thought the 100-500 was the "mid-range" option given the aperture at 500mm. Surely some day there will be a higher priced options like RF 200-400 or 200-500 F4 priced in the $10,00-$12,000 ball park and that will be the eventual high end option. It would also be nice to see something a bit less expensive, but still brighter than the 100-500mm (like the 400mm DO II equivalent but for zooms). 

So yeah, eventually to make everyone happy you would fill about 5 price tiers ($700 100-400, $1500 future medium-low grade zoom, $2800 100-500, $5000-7000 medium-high grade zoom, and $10000-12000 high-high grade zoom.


----------



## Chig (Sep 8, 2021)

Dustspeck said:


> Nice. Too bad all my Canon gear is EF mount. Eventually I suppose I'll be switching to Fuji or Sony. Sad to see Canon essentially abandon long time EF users as the EF lens portfolio shrinks.


All your EF glass _*works better*_ adapted on R cameras than it did on EF cameras and _*far better*_ than if you tried to adapt them for Fuji or Sony .
The change from EF to RF mount is better than any other mount change by any manufacturer ever, every EF and EF-s lens ever made _*works flawlessly*_ adapted on all the R cameras.
Not sure how you think Canon is abandoning EF users ?


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 8, 2021)

Chig said:


> The extenders are very pricy too, and I doubt you can use them at the wide end like with the 100-500


Yeah, it's hard to imagine someone who buys a lens for $650 feeling that a TC is a good "value" at $500 (1.4x) or $600 (2x).


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 8, 2021)

Dustspeck said:


> Nice. Too bad all my Canon gear is EF mount. Eventually I suppose I'll be switching to Fuji or Sony. Sad to see Canon essentially abandon long time EF users as the EF lens portfolio shrinks.


Well, you do realize ( I assume) that the EF portfolio of lenses is extremely wide ranging and essentiall complete, and you can buy EF lenses covering virtually any range or speed you want for your EF mount gear. And - get this - they will work just as well if you decide to get a Canon RF mount camera. If you switch to Sony or Fuji, what exactly do you gain, whereas you will lose a lot.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 8, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I honestly feel like Canon is doing an excellent job making APS-C basically irrelevant for the RF mount. I get the sense Canon looked at APS-C, asked themselves, "what are people getting out of these crop lenses?" and is building that out in a full frame format for the low end RF mount.
> 
> When cheap focus systems could only focus to F/5.6, they had way more limits on lens design. But now that any DPAF sensor can easily focus at F/16 or even higher, they've totally taken away that limit on lens design, so instead of compromising on the sensor, you're compromising on the aperture.
> 
> ...


This may indeed be what Canon is thinking, but I believe that they would be wrong in doing so. When I check Amazon, it appears that entry level folks are buying the cheapest APS-C cameras for around $400. Those are always the best selling ILCs. Entry level buyers are not reading Canon Rumors (thank goodness) and probably don't know or care about what size the sensor is.

I know this is argued ad infinitum on these forums, but clearly some folks (myself included) find that crop cameras work best for at least a substantial amount of their shooting. Whether it is cost effective for Canon to go there, I have no idea, but since they haven't gone there with a system larger and more complete than their M system, I (and I'm sure others) have had to look elsewhere when it comes to getting more reach, whether for wildlife or other types of shooting.


----------



## tigers media (Sep 8, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Even better news for me then the 16mm ! Thank you Canon this is a definite buy for me as i was in process of buying a 100-400 ef thsi will be perfect for me preorder for this at $881 aussie dollars a bargain very happy photographer


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2021)

Dustspeck said:


> Nice. Too bad all my Canon gear is EF mount. Eventually I suppose I'll be switching to Fuji or Sony. Sad to see Canon essentially abandon long time EF users as the EF lens portfolio shrinks.


This type of comment attracts a lot of push back and for good reason. EF lenses won't work as well on Sony or Fuji but will work better on RF bodies than EF bodies.
You could see that EF lens range eventually reduce but the second hand market and repairibility to be onging for a decade (or more). RF lenses will reduce somewhat over time and the second hand market will be more reasonable once production can resume full capacity.

Can you give us your reasoning on why you would switch? It is interesting for most posters to understand your rationale.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2021)

Chig said:


> 1.4x T.C works great on my EF100-400ii with my 7Dii
> Also it works over the _whole zoom range_ not like the crippled RF100-500 + T.Cs set up!
> 2x works as well but only manual focus on my 7Dii , apparently works pretty ok on mirrorless and matches the 800mm f/11 of the RF800
> I would just keep my EF zoom if I go mirrorless rather than buy this new RF one.


Isn't it great that Canon has given us the ability to use both RF and EF lenses? Best of both worlds
You just need to select a RF mount body


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 9, 2021)

xwxw said:


> Great observation. And there are 3rd parties as well. Why would Canon be obligated to plug all the holes.


Let's say that there aren't great 3rd party RF options available. With both Sigma and Tamron silent, there are options in the cheaper end but not much in the mid range eg Sigma Art type quality/pricing.
No issues for mid range with adapted Canon EF lenses especially EF "L" lens below the RF "L" lens pricing.


----------



## gbc (Sep 9, 2021)

FuzzyFotos said:


> I just can't find my feet in this new RF system. This is not the lens for me. I bought the 800, f11 and yeah it's light and compact, but unusable in most situations I found out, unless I really jackup the ISO. This is kinda the same. Really wish Canon come up with something like the Sony 200-600 f6.3 not just these low end toys. People much buy them because they are cheap i suppose.


I'm having similar dilemmas with the RF lenses. I bought two (well, the 28-70 2.0 is still on backorder), and the one i use is, surprisingly, the 24-240. As long as it's daytime, I've found that to be a really capable lens. But i hate that the 70-200 isn't compatible with the TC. I use the EF 70-200 with the 2x TC all the time, and would loved to have one less adapter when I use a TC on my R bodies. If the RF 70-200 were compatible I would've bought it months ago. But so far, most of these lenses don't inspire me to replace any of my EF lenses.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 9, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> As I said, some of Samyang's lenses are temporarily on hold as they have ongoing distribution problems around covid. (Source: spoke to two Samyang reps directly.) Samyang's distribution normally covers the largest area and most countries of the three brands the lenses are produced for, so their distribution is much more complex and, unsurprisingly, much more affected and disrupted by the pandemic. Production of all electrical goods is also reduced right now due to both covid and the semiconduct or shortage, so for now the Samyang brand has scaled back to only its most sure-fire top-selling lenses (i.e. the most standard focal lengths in E-mount). Like I said, the Rokinon and Bower brands (same lens, different names for different countries) which operate in more limited areas and aren't having to ship around as many units anyway have kept producing the RF lenses. The Samyang-branded ones will be back.
> 
> The idea that they abandoned RF due to IBIS not working fully with them is an incorrect assumption a few kneejerk YouTubers made based on a brief problem with how Canon implemented IBIS, which was in fact fixed with a firmware update almost right away. (Note the same lenses have been released on Sony E and never had a problem with IBIS there; the problems were entirely due to Canon, not Samyang, and are now fixed.) It's just unlucky timing that the release of the R5 and R6 came at the same time Samyang started to have their distribution problems, and people who are more interested in clicks than facts put the two together in all-caps headlines with lots of derpy faces and red arrows in the thumbnails.
> 
> TL;DR: Both the 14mm and 85mm work perfectly with all RF cameras, assuming you are up to date with the latest firmware. The Samyang brand has covid-related problems, but that is not permanent, and the 'sister' brands are carrying on with no change.



Latest lens firmware, or latest camera firmware? I own both lenses and have been reluctant to keep them due to issues with newer RF bodies.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 9, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I know you're joking but, I was kind of surprised to see that there were so many comments asking for a mid-range zoom when we already have the 100-500mm. A zoom that is between $700 and $2800 might be between the quality of the RF 100-400 and the 100-500, but I thought the 100-500 was the "mid-range" option given the aperture at 500mm.


I believe your impression is wrong.

It's every bit as good as the 100-400 II L, plus you can extend it to 500mm, albeit not at f/5.6 But let's see, 500mm at f/7.0 is superior to no 500mm at all.

There are two worse things about the lens compared with the old EF 100-400 II L: Apparently you can't use extenders at low zoom, and you can't adapt it to work on an M-series camera. To most people those are minor negatives.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 9, 2021)

Interesting lens. Lots of thoughts about this one.

Personally, most of my tele shooting is done outdoors so f/8 isn't a problem for me. Especially with an R sensor that can AF to f/22 and has good noise performance at moderate ISO. Now I only hope Canon doesn't "dumb down" the noise performance too much when they release the economical body to match.

Many folks are saying (hoping) that it's like the EF 70-300 (the non-L version). I certainly hope it compares well with that lens, and that it doesn't end up looking more like the EF 75-300.

Some posts have also likened it to the EF-S 55-250 STM but for full frame. Again, I hope that's a favorable comparison. The EF-S 55-250 STM is an amazing value, proof that Canon can make a great performer at an economical price.

At $649 US, I'm eager to see how the IQ and AF compare against the Sigma and Tamron EF 100-400's. Those are in the same price class, and both compare favorably with the Canon EF 100-400L II. This lens has the advantage of smaller size and lighter weight, and, of course, a native RF mount.

One person's "cheap and plasticky" is another person's "lightweight and portable". I doubt you'll see any pros shooting with this on the sideline of next year's Superbowl, but if the IQ is decent, it could make a great hiking/biking lens.

Unlike the RF 600 and 800 f/11, this seems like a lens that will see regular use by a lot of people. IMO, the 600/800 f/11's are one trick ponies. Good and useful lenses, to be sure, but I believe a big part of the reason Canon made them at all was so they could attach an RF 2X extender and show the world that the R5 and R6 really can AF at f/22.

I totally agree with @aceflibble that the zoom ring should be the farthest from the mount for stability in handling. That was my biggest gripe with the EF 70-200 f/4L, and yes, it was the IS version.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 9, 2021)

It's an attractive price (and the close focusing characteristic is useful). I won't pre-order, but if the reviews are good, it will definitely be on my medium-term list.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Sep 9, 2021)

This lens is definitely interesting to me. For several years, I have been contemplating picking up an EF 400mm f/5.6L at a comparable price to this (used obviously). This RF offering would be a stop darker, but also be more compact/lighter, and include image stabilization. I've always been a fan of prime lenses, as I feel the "limitations" assist my creativity. I'll be reading and watching reviews to learn more once it is released.


----------



## slclick (Sep 9, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Meanwhile Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k, and it's phenomenal. Internally zooming too!
> 
> Canon has absolutely nothing even close to that.
> 
> ...



Email them and make your demands known!


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The ‘many people you see’ aren’t ‘the market’. Somehow, many randos on CR Forum think they have better information about what ‘the market says’ than a multinational, multibillion dollar corporation who’s business is making products for that market.
> 
> When pressed for their market research, the answer is always, “Well of course I don’t have any. Where’s yours?” The point is that none of us individuals have it…but Canon does. So if there was as much demand for Product X as forum dwellers claim, Canon would know it.
> 
> As usual, it boils down to a forum dweller wanting Product X, and baselessly claiming ‘everyone wants it’ because they do (and maybe the two other people of whom they asked a leading question).



You don't even have to get as far as market research to see that these kinds of demands shouldn't guide product development.

Yes, people whine that the 85 f/2 extends as it focuses and isn't weather-sealed, but how many people whining about that kind of thing have bought something else because of that? Yeah, some people whine that the 85 f/2 is too slow and the 85 f/1.2 is too expensive, but how many of these people have bought (or stuck with) any of the several options in between those two because of it? It's probably not zero, but the alternatives they would supposedly prefer don't seem to be selling at numbers that suggest it would be beneficial to Canon to further split their market to satisfy that gap, especially this early in the system's life.


----------



## Minh Nguyen (Sep 9, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Because the market says so. I see many people who would buy a bit higher end lenses without spending thousands on top L glass.
> For example a weather sealed 85mm 1.4 which has a focus motor at least as good as the original EF 85mm 1.8 from 30 years ago.
> 
> Not the slow and noisy RF 85 F2 with external focusing. Or should we be happy the filter thread is not rotating?


Don't worry, I'm with you. I think if/when Sigma comes in there will be a nice option that's more middle of the road. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing a Sigma RF 150-600. You're right the market does say so. In fact, Sigma coming in with mid-price, high end glass is what saved Sony's Alpha.


----------



## dcm (Sep 9, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Yeah, it's hard to imagine someone who buys a lens for $650 feeling that a TC is a good "value" at $500 (1.4x) or $600 (2x).


That may be true in some cases, but not all. I already have the RF 800. I added the RF 1.4x to get 1120 at f/16 and it works quite well. I also have the RF24-240 and the RF 50 f/1.8. I figured I was done for a while since I have existing EOS M6 kit and EOS 1DxII kit with several L lenses.

There are some times when I want to fill the gap between 240 and 800. The RF 100-400 will do nicely for the price and pair well with the RF 800. Using the extender would be a bonus. The 24-240 probably pairs better withthe RF 600. I'd still like a cheap wide zoom to go with the 800/100-400 combo if I was to go that route. The f/8 aperture is not really an issue for me now that I've been using f/11 on the RF 800.

The 16 would be an intriguing addition as well - the 35 just didn't seem wide enough for my purposes. No rush to do this, but if I didn't have the other kits this I'd seriously consider these new lenses. I have time to see what else develops.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 9, 2021)

From the optical limits, its quite similar like a 55-250 5.6 for crop format. Seems FF sensors are not so expensive anymore, so the system size and price can be kept down in different way now, using a slower lens with longer reach for a bigger sensor, at the same size. How much was a 18-55 & 55-250 kit with a entry level DSLR? Still some margin remaining for FF prestige when i combine this to a RP with 24-105 & 100 400 kit.

Recently i bougt a phone for 400$ for my child, it has surprisingly well cameras, i wish i had bought it for myself


----------



## degos (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The ‘many people you see’ aren’t ‘the market’. Somehow, many randos on CR Forum think they have better information about what ‘the market says’ than a multinational, multibillion dollar corporation who’s business is making products for that market.



The market says that Tamron, Sigma and Tokina have done very well over the years producing midrange lenses that Canon's 'market data' says don't need to exist...

No company is omniscient.


----------



## Daner (Sep 9, 2021)

JMV Portraits said:


> You don't even have to get as far as market research to see that these kinds of demands shouldn't guide product development.
> 
> Yes, people whine that the 85 f/2 extends as it focuses and isn't weather-sealed, but how many people whining about that kind of thing have bought something else because of that? Yeah, some people whine that the 85 f/2 is too slow and the 85 f/1.2 is too expensive, but how many of these people have bought (or stuck with) any of the several options in between those two because of it? It's probably not zero, but the alternatives they would supposedly prefer don't seem to be selling at numbers that suggest it would be beneficial to Canon to further split their market to satisfy that gap, especially this early in the system's life.


I have those gripes about my RF 85 f/2, but it is still a step up from my EF 85 f/1.8 as a portrait lens, and the half-macro function makes it good fun in the forest. My likely upgrade path will be to sell it to get a used EF 85 f/1.4L, and add a used EF 100 macro to scratch that itch until I can afford the RF 100 macro. Plenty of options.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 9, 2021)

$650’for 400 f8 sounds more like it. $2800 is way too high in the 100-500. I always hear “it’s a superb lens”, well it should be great wide open at such a small aperture, and f7.1 is f7.1 no matter the price. As always, we don’t all live in California…


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2021)

Viggo said:


> $650’for 400 f8 sounds more like it. $2800 is way too high in the 100-500. I always hear “it’s a superb lens”, well it should be great wide open at such a small aperture, and f7.1 is f7.1 no matter the price. As always, we don’t all live in California…


in that case, why are there so many happy users who don’t live in California? It seems to boil down to those who actually use the lens and appreciate it, and those who have not used it and look for reasons for panning it.


----------



## padam (Sep 9, 2021)

Viggo said:


> $650’for 400 f8 sounds more like it. $2800 is way too high in the 100-500. I always hear “it’s a superb lens”, well it should be great wide open at such a small aperture, and f7.1 is f7.1 no matter the price. As always, we don’t all live in California…


There is way more to a lens than just the max. aperture and its cost...


----------



## Tremotino (Sep 9, 2021)

xwxw said:


> Adding the 100-400 II for kicks. Sizing was done in photoshop so please pardon any inaccuracies.
> 
> 
> View attachment 200085


May someone with your skills add the rf 100-500 for size comparison, please?


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 9, 2021)

After all’s those f7.1 - 11 lenses…. can we get maybe a 300-800 5.6?! with new tech etc … or something similar…. and build in TC please!
Also a nice not overpriced 120-300 2.8..


----------



## padam (Sep 9, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> May someone with your skills add the rf 100-500 for size comparison, please?


Almost the same size as the 100-400 II (without the EF adapter)


https://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-RF-100-500mm-F4.5-7.1-L-IS-USM-Lens/Canon-RF-100-500mm-F4.5-7.1-L-IS-USM-Lens-Comparison.jpg


----------



## Talys (Sep 9, 2021)

Viggo said:


> $650’for 400 f8 sounds more like it. $2800 is way too high in the 100-500. I always hear “it’s a superb lens”, well it should be great wide open at such a small aperture, and f7.1 is f7.1 no matter the price. As always, we don’t all live in California…


The 100-500 is actually remarkably awesome. It really exceeded my expectations, as did RF70-200. In my opinion, RF100-500 is no more "way too high" in price than the EF100-400L2...


----------



## Chig (Sep 9, 2021)

drhuffman87 said:


> This lens is definitely interesting to me. For several years, I have been contemplating picking up an EF 400mm f/5.6L at a comparable price to this (used obviously). This RF offering would be a stop darker, but also be more compact/lighter, and include image stabilization. I've always been a fan of prime lenses, as I feel the "limitations" assist my creativity. I'll be reading and watching reviews to learn more once it is released.


Well for a wildlife / birding lens 1 stop of light makes a huge difference. I'd rather carry the barely noticeable 1.25kg weight of the EF400mm f/5.6 and have twice the light.
I used to own this prime and it's a fantastic lens and I only sold it after I bought my EF100-400mm ii which is more versatile but also a lot heavier and not any better image quality.
Personally for my birding I often find f/5.6 too dark and f/8 would be hopeless.
Perhaps you will use this only in very bright sunlight in which case it'll be fine.


----------



## Chig (Sep 9, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> After all’s those f7.1 - 11 lenses…. can we get maybe a 300-800 5.6?! with new tech etc … or something similar…. and build in TC please!
> Also a nice not overpriced 120-300 2.8..


An 300-800mm f/5.6 is an interesting idea but how much would it weigh and what would it cost ?
The EF800mm f/5.6 prime costs USD13,000 and weighs 4.5kg . I suspect the zoom would be both heavier and more expensive.
A 120-300mm f/2.8 isn't likely to affordable or lightweight either


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

Chig said:


> Well for a wildlife / birding lens 1 stop of light makes a huge difference. I'd rather carry the barely noticeable 1.25kg weight of the EF400mm f/5.6 and have twice the light.
> 
> Personally for my birding I often find f/5.6 too dark and f/8 would be hopeless.
> Perhaps you will use this only in very bright sunlight in which case it'll be fine.


The 400/5.6 is a lens from the time when ISO 1600 film was ‘fast’ and we tried to find the very noticeable grain ‘pleasing’. The original 7D was at about that noise level.

Current sensors combined with AI-driven noise reduction can produce much cleaner images at 5-digit ISOs, so we’ve effectively gained 3-4 stops of light that way. An f/7.1 or f/8 lens with an R5/6 will perform better in terms of light/noise than an f/5.6 lens with a 5DIII or 1D X. Also, consider that the 100-500 at 500/7.1 is effectively identical (in terms of light gathered) to the 100-400 II at 400/5.6 if you crop the 400mm image to the 500mm FoV.

When I test my 600/4 on my 1D X against the 100-500 on my (forthcoming) R3, I strongly suspect the latter combo will deliver better overall results in low light. Of course, I’ll use the 600/4 with the R3 for the best of both worlds.

The bottom line is that the RF lens 500/7.1 or even 400/8 on an R5/6 will outperform 400/5.6 on an older body (at least in terms of light, can’t speak to the optical performance of the new 100-400, but we know the 100-500 is excellent).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 9, 2021)

Chig said:


> A 120-300mm f/2.8 isn't likely to affordable or lightweight either



It's not that much heavier but does change a £5000 lens into a £9000 lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> It's not that much heavier but does change a £5000 lens into a £9000 lens.


That’s 4000 pounds heavier!!


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 9, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> After all’s those f7.1 - 11 lenses…. can we get maybe a 300-800 5.6?! with new tech etc … or something similar…. and build in TC please!
> Also a nice not overpriced 120-300 2.8..


Sigma will sell you one: https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/s013_120_300_28/


----------



## Viggo (Sep 9, 2021)

padam said:


> There is way more to a lens than just the max. aperture and its cost...


Of course, but IQ doesn’t matter at iso 100 when you have to shoot at 6400. What I’m saying is that such a narrow aperture makes the lens unfit for a lot of stuff where an f4 would have gotten by.

I’m used to f1.2 and that is simply because I had all the f4 lenses and they are way too often too dark. Even when I shot a lot of soccer with the 200 f2, a 2.8 would have made those shots difficult and a f7.1 wouldn’t have been remotely possible.

and when the 100-500 costs a huge amount of money, it should be f5,6 at least. The R5 is good at high iso, but not THAT good…


----------



## Nemorino (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s 4000 pounds heavier!!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s 4000 pounds heavier!!



Perhaps if you had to tape 200,000 £1 coins to it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> Perhaps if you had to tape 200,000 £1 coins to it.


So a lens that's two tons heavier and 40 times the cost? Pass.


----------



## xwxw (Sep 9, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> May someone with your skills add the rf 100-500 for size comparison, please?




Here it is.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 9, 2021)

EricN said:


> IQ may not be as good


Keep in mind that a 400mm f/8.0 is a 800mm f/16.0 lens with a 2x TC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

xwxw said:


> View attachment 200100
> Here it is.


Thanks! 

And here it is in a way that's relevant to the EOS R series cameras (which is really the only relevant comparison when considering an RF lens).


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 9, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> When I check Amazon, it appears that entry level folks are buying the cheapest APS-C cameras for around $400. Those are always the best selling ILCs.


Yes, APS-C still sells more, but that market domination has been steadily shrinking and, most importantly, Canon aren't in the same boat as any of the other companies. Fuji buy most of their tech from Sony, so their R&D is lower. Nikon is in a similar boat, they've always bought their sensors and processors from other companies. Sony don't actually make much money from their cameras at all—in fact they've _lost_ money in more financial quarters than they've profited—but they do that intentionally, positioning their cameras as loss leaders, as their real business is selling their sensor and processor tech to other companies (like Fuji), so they don't need their consumer cameras to actually make much money.
Canon don't buy in from anyone and they're not selling their consumer camera parts, either. When they put a camera out it actually has to make profit on the body itself. It's much harder for them to justify making products at those lower price points. Given they've effectively abandoned EF-M, despite selling so many units, it's hard to imagine they'll support APS-C much in the future. At least not to the extent EF-S and EF-M were.

As I've said in the 16mm f/2.8 thread, I do think RF APS-C _bodies_ will happen, but they'll be high-density equivalents to the 7D for wildlife and open air sports shooters, and maybe a video-optimised vlogging camera; I don't think we'll see Canon making APS-C RF lenses, nor do I think we'll see any kind of RF equivalents to EOS M/Fuji X/Sony axxxx cameras. Maybe they'll put out one last M body if development and production of RF continues to be hampered, but don't expect much beyond that from Canon.

If you want a system that is really dedicated to APS-C, you're going to want to move to Fuji who are all-in on the format, or Sony who at least keep producing the bodies, even if they don't particularly make many dedicated lenses. As much as I don't like Canon's fastly-increasing prices, especially how they keep screwing over the UK by charging triple our actual tax rates, I do respect the fact that their business requires them to prioritise the more big-profit products.



navastronia said:


> Latest lens firmware, or latest camera firmware? I own both lenses and have been reluctant to keep them due to issues with newer RF bodies.



To be on the safe side, I'll say both. I was told the (then-coming) lens firmware would fix it and sure enough my 85 worked fine after updating to firmware version 3, but I also already had the bodies on the latest firmware, anyway, so maybe there is some part of the body firmware that does matter and I just didn't spot it because my bodies were up to date already. And in fact I would've updated the lenses regardles, simply because there's no real reason to not update firmware on any lens or body.



drhuffman87 said:


> This lens is definitely interesting to me. For several years, I have been contemplating picking up an EF 400mm f/5.6L at a comparable price to this (used obviously). This RF offering would be a stop darker, but also be more compact/lighter, and include image stabilization.



I would not expect this lens to come anywhere close to the 400 f/5.6 in image quality, focus speed, or build quality. That EF lens has been a top-seller and 'the' defacto wildlife lens for decades for good reason. The only Canon-mount zooms which match its image quality (they do not exceed it) are the Canon 100-400 mk II, 200-400 f/4L, and now the RF 100-500; all L lenses, all much more expensive and heavier. No other Canon zooms can match it and no Sigma or Tamron zooms have matched it, either. Importantly, its focus is much faster than _all_ the zooms and its build quality is superb; though it does lack full weather sealing, I used mine in heavy downpours and it didn't have a problem, and you don't have to look far to find many other people with the same sort of experiences. The phrase "built like a tank" gets thrown around too often these days and now usually only means "has some metal in it", but the EF 400mm f/5.6L genuinely is a tank of a lens.
The reality of using these long focal lengths is that zoom range and IS are very rarely of any use; what are you photographing at 400mm that you can use a shutter below 1/500th with, and when are you_ not_ going to want the maximum focal length? And if you're photographing anything which might move (which is 99% of super-tele use) then your panning can screw up stabilisation systems anyway, even in the panning modes, hence why you'll find many pros just keep the IS off entirely.
A lot of people buy a 100-400 then only use the lens at 400mm with shutters upwards of 1/1000th, rendering the zoom design and stabilisation pointless. The 400mm f/5.6L has remained the standard by which all others are judged because for the purposes these sorts of lenses are most commonly used for, it offers the best-possible optics for the price range, the best-possible focus for the price range, and build quality which is only bettered by a small handful of lenses. (Which this RF 100-400 f/8 certainly will not be part of.)

This new lens does interest me greatly and as long as the first full reviews give it an even just mediocre pass, I'll probably buy one. But I'll be doing that as someone who has moved up through the whole super-tele ecosystem, from the lamest kit zooms to the 400mm f/5.6 to the 100-400s and 150-600s, then on to the _really_ big whites, and now I do want something as light as possible to carry on my evening strolls. If I were in the position where I was contemplating buying the EF 400mm f/5.6 used—so I'm assuming you don't have any other, bigger, higher-end lenses—I would not consider this sort of zoom lens as an alternative. The chances of it matching the optical performance are essentially zero; the 100-500 ''only'' matches the old prime, and there's no way Canon are going to produce a much cheaper, smaller lens like this which equals their premium lens in optical quality. It's very unlikely to match the old lens in focus, too; it's much easier for the larger full USM motor to move a primes' optics around than it is for the 'nano USM' motor to move around a zoom. And we know there's no way it'll match the build quality; it's a plastic, extending zoom that doesn't even have a hood included.

I have my fingers crossed this new lens is good and like I said, there's a high probability I'll buy one myself, but it is extremely difficult to recommend _any_ lens over the old 400 5.6, at least within this price bracket, if someone doesn't already have a really high-quality optic to pair the lighter, weaker lens. The quality of that 400 all-round is superb, on par or better than anything else under the two grand mark, and the fact you can now buy one second hand so cheap and easily resell it for the same price also makes it the lowest-risk lens of its type. When you want quality, portability, a relatively low cost and you only want/can only have one lens, the 400mm f/5.6 has been the king for nearly three decades and probably will not be beaten until an RF 400mm 5/6.L is made.

Buy the old 400 used as you planned, and at worst if you don't like it you can sell it for what you paid and get this new zoom which by that point should have actually been out and been reviewed thoroughly.



Daner said:


> My likely upgrade path will be to sell it to get a used EF 85 f/1.4L, and add a used EF 100 macro to scratch that itch until I can afford the RF 100 macro.



Do yourself a favour and, if you do get the 85mm f/1.4L, just buy some extension tubes to do the macro shots with that lens. The two EF 100mm macros, and the RF 100 now, have really strong focus breathing, so by the time you're even at 'just' half magnification they're really more like 85mm and by the time you get to 1:1 they're at only about 65mm. The 85's stabilisation is also more competent than the EF 100mm f/2.8L's (of course the non-L doesn't hjave stabilisation at all) and the close-up quality of the 85 on tubes is better than either of the EF 100s, and by using tubes rather than inherent focus you're keeping more of the focal length, so the 85 1.4 on tubes actually ends up with a longer working distance at 0.5X and larger magnifications than the bare 100s do. This is why a lot of full-time macro pros use the EF 100mm f/2.8L_ on extension tubes_, so they avoid both the breathing and the magnified fringing that happens if you use that lens at 1:1 bare. RF macro tubes right now are bizarrely expensive (nobody should be paying £200 for what is essentially just a spacer!), but when adapting the EF lens you can use EF tubes which are dirt cheap.

I think it'll be a long time before the EF 85mm f/1.4L _isn't_ the best all-round short-tele to use on RF bodies, no matter if you want it for portraits, indoor sports or macro. And I say that even as someone who prefers 100mm over 85mm for most purposes; the EF f/1.4L is just_ that_ good and the other Canon lenses are _that_ compromised.


----------



## jam05 (Sep 9, 2021)

FuzzyFotos said:


> I just can't find my feet in this new RF system. This is not the lens for me. I bought the 800, f11 and yeah it's light and compact, but unusable in most situations I found out, unless I really jackup the ISO. This is kinda the same. Really wish Canon come up with something like the Sony 200-600 f6.3 not just these low end toys. People much buy them because they are cheap i suppose.


"Low end toys. People much buy them ....". So condescending? Don't purchase it. Easy peasy. Photographers. Always concerned about why others like certain equipment and go out of their way to personalize every choice by others. As an ex music and studio producer it's notewothy and not uncommon to see musicians and other artist with multiple instruments and devices often in excess of 10 or 11 on stage, a session or performance from different brands, play and use all of them and nobody even mutters a word akin to brand loyalty or speak in brash terms about others choices. Photogs seem to be so self concience about their own purchases so much as to discredit the choices of others. Why is this?


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 9, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Keep in mind that a 400mm f/8.0 is a 800mm f/16.0 lens with a 2x TC.


That, plus I've never seen a zoom lens on even just a 1.4x TC which is as good optically as the two f/11 primes are bare, except for the 200-400 which has a custom 1.4x built-in and optimised for that specific optic. Even then, by the time you either add another 1.4x on the back of it, or skip the built-in extender and use a 2x TC, it ''only'' matches the f/11 primes in optical quality, and the focus gets slower.

I still don't like the f/11 lenses for my own purposes, as the typical light and weather in this country simply does not support using f/11 no matter how advanced any sensor and processor may be, but I respect that the basic image quality of those lenses is absolutely superb for the money and is only really beaten by other primes. As I said in my wall of text above, I do hope this new lens is good, of course, but the idea that a consumer 100-400 f/8 could be even remotely comparable to the f/11 primes' quality is wholly unrealistic. Canon literally would not have made the f/11 lenses at all if they had a lighter, cheaper, smaller zoom in the works which came anywhere close to that quality with a TC.

Remember, the EF 100-400 L mk I was _awful_ with TCs, and though the mk II improved the image quality a lot, it did so at a much higher price and a 2x TC was still a bit too much for it. We're looking at a sub-grand consumer-grade lens here; not only will its aperture be tiny with a TC, but I can't imagine the image quality on a 2x TC will be anything other than dreadful.


----------



## esglord (Sep 9, 2021)

dcm said:


> That may be true in some cases, but not all. I already have the RF 800. I added the RF 1.4x to get 1120 at f/16 and it works quite well. I also have the RF24-240 and the RF 50 f/1.8. I figured I was done for a while since I have existing EOS M6 kit and EOS 1DxII kit with several L lenses.
> 
> There are some times when I want to fill the gap between 240 and 800. The RF 100-400 will do nicely for the price and pair well with the RF 800. Using the extender would be a bonus. The 24-240 probably pairs better withthe RF 600. I'd still like a cheap wide zoom to go with the 800/100-400 combo if I was to go that route. The f/8 aperture is not really an issue for me now that I've been using f/11 on the RF 800.
> 
> The 16 would be an intriguing addition as well - the 35 just didn't seem wide enough for my purposes. No rush to do this, but if I didn't have the other kits this I'd seriously consider these new lenses. I have time to see what else develops.


I agree with you. This lens plus a TC (while not inexpensive) falls within my budget, or the 800mm f/11 is in my budget, whereas other options to shoot at 800mm are simply beyond what I'd ever spend for the reach. I'd want to rent this lens and a TC to see if I'm comfortable with the amount of noise. The results won't be professional IQ, but it could be a lot of fun.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 9, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I tend to agree with blackcoffee17 actually. (But I concede that I do not *know* and I am speculating here):
> 
> And I think Canon does too. It's just that they can't release everything at the same time. A few years down the line I expect we'll start seeing some "midgrade" lenses. (And I might even be in the market for some of them.) Of course that's me guessing what's in Canon's mind(s), so we'll just have to see.


I dunno. In the old days there was always a cliff between the cheaper long focal length options and the expensive ones. You couldn't go above 500mm native without spending thousands, no matter how much people bemoaned the fact.


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2021)

Like most of the "budget" RF lenses, this is an interesting marketing experiment.

With no competition from Tamron or Sigma it could prove very popular, but it's clearly going to be inferior in almost every way to the much more expensive RF 100-500mm and the EF 100-400mm.

Optically it will probably be very good in the centre (edge performance is less important with many telephoto subjects), but F8 is a serious limitation for subjects that demand fast shutter speeds and a reasonable ISO setting.

So, perhaps a great option for people buying their first telezoom, and who shoot primarily for undemanding applications such as web galleries, social media and smallish prints. Those who need better optical quality, weather-sealing, higher durability and better AF performance would be better advised to save up for L glass, and if on a tight budget to consider secondhand.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 9, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Don't purchase it. Easy peasy. Photographers. Always concerned about why others like certain equipment and personalize every choice by others. As an ex music and studio producer it's notewothy and not uncommon to see musicians and other artist with multiple instruments and tools on stage, a session or performance from different brands, play and use all of them and nobody even mutters a word. Photogs seem so self concience about their own purchases so much as to discredit the choices of others. Why is this?


I think it's two things:
1) To a small extent, in the music world more of us just want to hear a nice tune and we respect that many people are trying to put out their own voice, however it is they may get there, while with photography there is a higher percentage of people who are just really, really into pushing buttons and don't see cameras as anything other than new toys to show off.
2) Mostly you're looking in the wrong places.
*
(Everybody else should skip this anecdote)*
I used to do some studio tech work, I've been a guitar and bass tech, a session musician, and I've made a few amps, guitars and basses here and there. In my time in the music industry I met many people and communities cared much more about the equipment than the music they might play on it. People will pay a huge premium for an instrument made with a high-grade piece of a specific wood species, or seek out boutique pedals and amplifiers with very specific high-priced components _just_ so they can say they have it. A few times when I was playing regularly I had some local engineers and randoms come up to me and say they liked my playing but why on earth was I using [brand] guitar/amp? It's especially the case in blues, rock and metal with valves vs solid state, analogue vs digital, Gibson vs Fender, etc.
There was one time that really stands out to me. I was at Gibson's London offices to back a solo singer on some ballad. I was just going to play some simple bits in the background with clean tones. We get to the recording area and one of the guys hands me an ES, I forget the model number, with P-90s. I asked for a solid Les Paul instead and he looked at me like I'd slapped him with a dead fish. He couldn't get his head around the idea of someone wanting a solid body with humbuckers for clean tones instead of a hollow body with P-90s. Then he had a total meltdown when I asked for the single channel Marshall Plexi reissue and V30 4x12 he'd set up ahead to be swapped for a multi-channel JVM and T75 2x12. At first he actually refused. For a solid three or four minutes he ranted at me about how this Plexi head had been modded with whatever special pots and resistors and they'd used cyrogenically treated valves and it was the best clean Brit tone ever and how the JVM was only some stock POS and the T75s were "sterile" and all this garbage.
Eventually the guy in charge told him to just do what I asked, we got the amp swapped over, we got the recording done and everyone said it went great. Everyone except that one studio tech. He insisted that my guitar and amp choice had been totally wrong and ruined the whole thing. The recording went up online and... no problems. Nobody cared but that one tech. But he _did_ really, really care. I later learned I'd been dropped from Gibson's books, right after that guy had taken over as the head producer of their live sessions. He'd not complained about my playing; my choice of equipment was the deal-breaker for him.
*(Done.)*

This site is for product rumours and info. The people who you see on here are mostly here because they care primarily about the next product coming out. They want to know what buttons they'll get to push next. They want to know what the next focus algorithm is. They want to see test charts showing X camera has a fifth of a stop more highlight detail than Y camera. This audience is the equivalent of that irate Gibson studio tech.

If you want photographers who talk more about the photos than the equipment, you need to stop coming to websites which are focused on the equipment. Try Flickr groups; they're all about the photos, since the basic posting mechanic of that whole site revolves around photos being posted. Dive deeper into Instagram maybe. Give 500px a shot. Or try Fujifilm cameras, as that audience is in general more about the outcome than the method. But if you come to a website which only reports on Canon equipment, don't be confused as to why the comments are all about what Canon equipment should be used and how. These people do exist, everywhere, in all hobbies and industries, and that audience is what this site caters to.

*I do agree* that if someone isn't convinced by a particular product or product line they should simply leave it alone, and too many people do seem to think it's somehow reasonable to demand every single product is tailored to their specific requirements. (I'm looking at you, DPReview.) However, this is a gear website and people are going to talk about that gear, both what they like and what they don't like, and that is not exclusive to photography nor should be unexpected.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

entoman said:


> Like most of the "budget" RF lenses, this is an interesting marketing experiment.


I think Canon already conducted the experiment, since this lens is effectively the RF successor to the 70-300 non-L.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 9, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> There should be something between a $650 100-400 and $3000 100-500. Same for the $200 RF 50 1.8 and $3000 50 1.2


Did they discontinue the 100-400L? Fantastic lens that works brilliantly with the 1.4X tele.


----------



## FrenchFry (Sep 9, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I believe your impression is wrong.
> 
> It's every bit as good as the 100-400 II L, plus you can extend it to 500mm, albeit not at f/5.6 But let's see, 500mm at f/7.0 is superior to no 500mm at all.
> 
> There are two worse things about the lens compared with the old EF 100-400 II L: Apparently you can't use extenders at low zoom, and you can't adapt it to work on an M-series camera. To most people those are minor negatives.


I didn’t say anything negative about the 100-500 L, but offered the opinion that it sits in-between the inexpensive $650 100-400, and the future/rumored expensive $10-12k 200-400/500 F4 L. Because something roughly 4x less expensive is on the cusp of release and something roughly 4x more expensive is likely to eventually be released, the 100-500 could be considered an excellent mid-range lens. Mid because it is in between the two other options. This is not a knock on the lens' quality, which is excellent. 


aceflibble said:


> Yes, APS-C still sells more, but that market domination has been steadily shrinking and, most importantly, Canon aren't in the same boat as any of the other companies. Fuji buy most of their tech from Sony, so their R&D is lower. Nikon is in a similar boat, they've always bought their sensors and processors from other companies. Sony don't actually make much money from their cameras at all—in fact they've _lost_ money in more financial quarters than they've profited—but they do that intentionally, positioning their cameras as loss leaders, as their real business is selling their sensor and processor tech to other companies (like Fuji), so they don't need their consumer cameras to actually make much money.
> Canon don't buy in from anyone and they're not selling their consumer camera parts, either. When they put a camera out it actually has to make profit on the body itself. It's much harder for them to justify making products at those lower price points. Given they've effectively abandoned EF-M, despite selling so many units, it's hard to imagine they'll support APS-C much in the future. At least not to the extent EF-S and EF-M were.
> 
> As I've said in the 16mm f/2.8 thread, I do think RF APS-C _bodies_ will happen, but they'll be high-density equivalents to the 7D for wildlife and open air sports shooters, and maybe a video-optimised vlogging camera; I don't think we'll see Canon making APS-C RF lenses, nor do I think we'll see any kind of RF equivalents to EOS M/Fuji X/Sony axxxx cameras. Maybe they'll put out one last M body if development and production of RF continues to be hampered, but don't expect much beyond that from Canon.
> ...



Have you used any RF extension tubes ? Were any worth recommending?
Do any of them preserve autofocus capabilities?


----------



## entoman (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think Canon already conducted the experiment, since this lens is effectively the RF successor to the 70-300 non-L.


Yes that's one way of looking at it. I don't know the sales figures but I get the feeling that the budget RF lenses are all big sellers. Affordable enough for novices on a tight budget. Good enough for "serious" photographers that are looking to experiment.

The 600/11 and 800/11 are both popular with bird photographers, most of who seem to be older people who can't lug around a 500/4, 600/4 etc, even if they can afford them. Likewise, in the absence of competition from Tamron and Sigma, this 100-400mm should sell well to those who don't want to spend large sums on pro glass.

Currently I only own 2 RF lenses - the 800mm F11, for when I need the extra reach when photographing birds from hides, and the 24-105mm F4 which is my walkabout multi-purpose travel lens. I'll stick with adapted EF glass for other focal lengths - the RF 100-500 doesn't really offer me any advantage over the EF 100-400mm. Likewise I never need to get closer than 1:1 so the RF 100mm macro doesn't offer me anything over the EF 100mm macro.


----------



## xwxw (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks!
> 
> And here it is in a way that's relevant to the EOS R series cameras (which is really the only relevant comparison when considering an RF lens).
> 
> View attachment 200101


Good job!


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 9, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> what are you photographing at 400mm that you can use a shutter below 1/500th with, and when are you_ not_ going to want the maximum focal length?


Piston engine airplanes, e.g., WWII vintage fighters. But even modern turboprops.

Too fast of a shutter will make it look fake because there won't be any "blur" in the propeller. I typically use shutter priority at 1/250. I've seen great handheld shots by others as long as 1/160, but I can't pan well enough to do that.

I use a Sigma 100-400C with APS-C and I'm usually varying the zoom somewhere beyond 300 mm, which is equivalent FOV to 450 or 480 mm on full frame (depending on whether I'm using Canon or Sony APS-C).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> That, plus I've never seen a zoom lens on even just a 1.4x TC which is as good optically as the two f/11 primes are bare, except for the 200-400 which has a custom 1.4x built-in and optimised for that specific optic. Even then, by the time you either add another 1.4x on the back of it, or skip the built-in extender and use a 2x TC, it ''only'' matches the f/11 primes in optical quality, and the focus gets slower.
> 
> I still don't like the f/11 lenses for my own purposes, as the typical light and weather in this country simply does not support using f/11 no matter how advanced any sensor and processor may be, but I respect that the basic image quality of those lenses is absolutely superb for the money and is only really beaten by other primes. As I said in my wall of text above, I do hope this new lens is good, of course, but the idea that a consumer 100-400 f/8 could be even remotely comparable to the f/11 primes' quality is wholly unrealistic. Canon literally would not have made the f/11 lenses at all if they had a lighter, cheaper, smaller zoom in the works which came anywhere close to that quality with a TC.
> 
> Remember, the EF 100-400 L mk I was _awful_ with TCs, and though the mk II improved the image quality a lot, it did so at a much higher price and a 2x TC was still a bit too much for it. We're looking at a sub-grand consumer-grade lens here; not only will its aperture be tiny with a TC, but I can't imagine the image quality on a 2x TC will be anything other than dreadful.


I own the RF 100-500mm, the RF 800mm f/11 and the RF 1.4x and 2x, and have posted a comparative thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/
I found on the R5 the 100-500mm + RF 2x at 1000mm, f/14 outresolves the bare RF 800mm f/11, and I had to put the 1.4x on the 800mm to give 1120mm f/16 for it catch up. The TCs might not be as good on the new 100-400 f/8, but we don't know yet other than diffraction will be worse. On the 100-500, they are incredibly good.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

xwxw said:


> Good job!


Seeing the 100-400 II next to the 100-500 reminds me of buying 'white' paint for the walls...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

entoman said:


> Currently I only own 2 RF lenses - the 800mm F11, for when I need the extra reach when photographing birds from hides, and the 24-105mm F4 which is my walkabout multi-purpose travel lens. I'll stick with adapted EF glass for other focal lengths - the RF 100-500 doesn't really offer me any advantage over the EF 100-400mm. Likewise I never need to get closer than 1:1 so the RF 100mm macro doesn't offer me anything over the EF 100mm macro.


I have the RF 24-105/4L and the 100-500, which I bought to replace the EF 70-300L (I used to have the 100-400L, sold that after getting the 600/4 II). I am debating between the 24-70/2.8 IS and the 28-70/2 for use with the R3. On the 1D X, the 24-70/2.8 II was my most-used lens, but a significant part of the rationale for it was that f/2.8 lenses enable better AF specs on a DSLR; that's not the case with a MILC so I may end up using the 24-105 as my main 'walk around' lens on the R3. Going to try it, at least.

I may get replace my EF 70-200/2.8 with the RF version. Haven't been any kids' sports or performances for the past 18 months and won't be for some time to come, but the RF version is significantly smaller than the adapted EF version. For that, f/2.8 is important for indoor lighting.

Like you, I see no benefit in the RF 100L Macro. I do frequently want higher mag than the EF 100L, but that's why I have the MP-E 65 (and when that's not enough, I mount my camera on a Zeiss Stemi DV-4 stereomicroscope for 20-80x magnification).


----------



## xwxw (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seeing the 100-400 II next to the 100-500 reminds me of buying 'white' paint for the walls...
> 
> View attachment 200103


Haha Pantones.

But honestly I think the II and the 100-500 should not be that different. The II already came in an updated grayish white (similar to 70-300L and 70-200 III, and starkly different from the 100-400 I or 70-200 II). Lighting may have played a bigger role in those product pictures.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 9, 2021)

hoodlum said:


> Canon is certainly setting up the lenses for a cheaper and more compact FF or APS-C RF body for next year.


And the RP 2 years ago


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 9, 2021)

slclick said:


> glass half full


Pun intended?


----------



## jvillain (Sep 9, 2021)

sanj said:


> Cant have speed and compact.


I hate what you wrote. But it is absolutely true so I gave you a like.


----------



## padam (Sep 9, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Of course, but IQ doesn’t matter at iso 100 when you have to shoot at 6400. What I’m saying is that such a narrow aperture makes the lens unfit for a lot of stuff where an f4 would have gotten by.
> 
> I’m used to f1.2 and that is simply because I had all the f4 lenses and they are way too often too dark. Even when I shot a lot of soccer with the 200 f2, a 2.8 would have made those shots difficult and a f7.1 wouldn’t have been remotely possible.
> 
> and when the 100-500 costs a huge amount of money, it should be f5,6 at least. The R5 is good at high iso, but not THAT good…


The EF 100-400 L II is a stable member in the bag of many photojournalists, landscape, wildlife, etc. photographers. When they are shooting action in low light, it is probably not their weapon of choice.

This new RF 100-500 L offers better quality, better flexibility, better portability, better stabilisation, higher magnification, less focus breathing. It will cost quite a bit more, inevitably, because that's what's called progress against an older, discounted lens and also increased manufacturing and development costs.
It's the exact same story with the RF 14-35 etc. etc. newer, better, considerably more expensive (and despite it's high cost, it will be difficult to get for many months).

Comparing it against 400/2.8 and the like is completely pointless. They serve a completely different purpose and there is a need for both.


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 9, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Sigma will sell you one: https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/s013_120_300_28/


I know this one … it’s nice! But Sigma Lenses are always heavier then Canon ones
Sigma had also the called 300-800! But it’s very old and veerry huge! New tech should lower the weight!


----------



## Viggo (Sep 9, 2021)

padam said:


> The EF 100-400 L II is a stable member in the bag of many photojournalists, landscape, wildlife, etc. photographers. When they are shooting action in low light, it is probably not their weapon of choice.
> 
> This new RF 100-500 L offers better quality, better flexibility, better portability, better stabilisation, higher magnification, less focus breathing. It will cost quite a bit more, inevitably, because that's what's called progress against an older, discounted lens and also increased manufacturing and development costs.
> It's the exact same story with the RF 14-35 etc. etc. newer, better, considerably more expensive (and despite it's high cost, it will be difficult to get for many months).
> ...


The 14-35 relies on software correction and costs a ridiculous amount of money for an f4, same with the 70-200. But, unlike the 100-500 they’re the same aperture, much better IQ and AF and they’re tiny. I think the 70-200 f2.8 is priced insanely , but less insane than the new f4 lenses. A RF 70-200 f4 here costs more than a used 200 f2. The EF 70-200 f4 L IS II costs $1650 and the RF 70-200 f4 L costs $2650, I don’t understand how the pricing makes sense. To me at least I would like something that feels of significantly higher value when the prices are so high. I think the RF 50 L and RF 85 L are too expensive, but they feel more worth it comparing it to their EF counterpart, none of the other RF- L’s do…


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

Viggo said:


> The EF 70-200 f4 L IS II costs $1650 and the RF 70-200 f4 L costs $2650, I don’t understand how the pricing makes sense.


In the USA, the RF 70-200/4 is $1600 an the EF 70-200/4 IS II is $1300. That makes sense, unlike the prices in your geography.


----------



## Nemorino (Sep 9, 2021)

The Canon Germany shop sells the RF at 1799 and the EF at 1409€


----------



## Chig (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 400/5.6 is a lens from the time when ISO 1600 film was ‘fast’ and we tried to find the very noticeable grain ‘pleasing’. The original 7D was at about that noise level.
> 
> Current sensors combined with AI-driven noise reduction can produce much cleaner images at 5-digit ISOs, so we’ve effectively gained 3-4 stops of light that way. An f/7.1 or f/8 lens with an R5/6 will perform better in terms of light/noise than an f/5.6 lens with a 5DIII or 1D X. Also, consider that the 100-500 at 500/7.1 is effectively identical (in terms of light gathered) to the 100-400 II at 400/5.6 if you crop the 400mm image to the 500mm FoV.
> 
> ...


The 400 f/5.6 is still an excellent lens and performs better with the new bodies and image quality wise is at least as good as my 100-400ii , the RF100-500 is regarded as slightly better overall than the EF100-400ii but again image wise no better than this ancient prime.
This new RF100-400 at f/8 will collect half as much light as the old prime at f/5.6 which is fine in good light but even with the amazing sensors of the latest bodies this will be a huge disadvantage in the low light conditions which are ironically the best light for bird photography at dawn and dusk around estuaries and beaches.
This style of bird photography pushes the capability of cameras and bodies to their limits especially in flight shots where higher shutter speeds are needed. I'm constantly struggling to keep my shutter speeds up and aperture fast and trying for more reach whilst trying to keep the iso manageable with my old 7Dii and when I upgrade to an R5 , R6 or maybe the new R3 these sensors will definitely help but even then losing 1 stop of light would negate some of these gains which I'd want for boosting shutter speed or adding a T.C for more reach.

Doesn't matter what body you use with it the old prime will always outperform this new zoom if it's on the same body so for an inexpensive birding lens I would recommend it over this darker zoom lens and of course it's an all metal L lens that will last forever but is still very light at only 1.25kg. My copy was made in 1992 and was still perfect when I sold it for slightly more than I paid for it.


----------



## Chig (Sep 9, 2021)

Codebunny said:


> It's not that much heavier but does change a £5000 lens into a £9000 lens.


Well the Sigma 120-300 weighs 3.4kg which is 20% heavier than my ancient EF300mm (non IS) f/2.8 and 40% heavier than the EF300mm f/2.8 mark ii which is only 2.4kg
Personally if I could afford a new Great White I'd buy the EF400 DO f/4ii which at 2.1 kg is the only one light enough for handholding for any length of time.
Hopefully Canon will make a RF version or maybe a RF500 or RF600 DO ? 
I suggest a RF600mm DO f/5.6 would be a great lens to pair with an R5 or R3 and they might be able to get the weight down to about 2kg.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> In the USA, the RF 70-200/4 is $1600 an the EF 70-200/4 IS II is $1300. That makes sense, unlike the prices in your geography.


That I can agree with.


----------



## xwxw (Sep 9, 2021)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Keep in mind that a 400mm f/8.0 is a 800mm f/16.0 lens with a 2x TC.


I think you got it backward That would be 1200mm f32.

But I understand what you meant.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

xwxw said:


> But honestly I think the II and the 100-500 should not be that different. The II already came in an updated grayish white (similar to 70-300L and 70-200 III, and starkly different from the 100-400 I or 70-200 II). Lighting may have played a bigger role in those product pictures.


Here's a shot I grabbed of several 'white' lenses. I don't have the 100-400 II, but I do have the 70-300L, 600/4 II and the MkIII extenders, all of which were the updated grayish white, compared to the 70-200/2.8 II which is the older, creamier white. The RF 100-500 is a brighter white than the now-not-so-updated grayish white.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

Chig said:


> Doesn't matter what body you use with it the old prime will always outperform this new zoom if it's on the same body so for an inexpensive birding lens I would recommend it over this darker zoom lens and of course it's an all metal L lens that will last forever but is still very light at only 1.25kg.


For flying birds where high shutter speeds are needed, yes. For perched birds where a slower shutter speed can be used, the IS on the RF 100-400 may enable better shots at lower ISO than with the 400/5.6L.


----------



## xwxw (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a shot I grabbed of several 'white' lenses. I don't have the 100-400 II, but I do have the 70-300L, 600/4 II and the MkIII extenders, all of which were the updated grayish white, compared to the 70-200/2.8 II which is the older, creamier white. The RF 100-500 is a brighter white than the now-not-so-updated grayish white.
> View attachment 200104


Ahh thanks a lot for sharing that. I have not yet owned any RF whites. Have owned 3 of the lenses in your pic in the past.

Glad to see they continue evolving the color of the whites. Now they are "whiter" than before. So long as they do not move the color all the way to the Sony-like chalk white, I am game.


----------



## Chig (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> For flying birds where high shutter speeds are needed, yes. For perched birds where a slower shutter speed can be used, the IS on the RF 100-400 may enable better shots at lower ISO than with the 400/5.6L.


Even for perched birds a fairly high shutter speed (1/500+) helps a lot as they twitch around constantly in which case IS makes no difference and one whole stop of light makes a huge difference , also even for perched birds the best images are in soft light at dawn or dusk or overcast/rain and I usually use my old EF300 f/2.8 with or without T.Cs as even my EF100-400ii often isn't bright enough.
I can't imagine when this RF100-400's f/8 would be useful for my bird photography and the EF400 f/5.6 I used to have would always be better for anything other than harsh light in the middle of the day when I never shoot.

The RF100-400 will be great for shooting outdoor sports though if you can't afford better zooms and primes aren't as versatile.
Should be a hit with soccer mums


----------



## Chig (Sep 9, 2021)

xwxw said:


> Ahh thanks a lot for sharing that. I have not yet owned any RF whites. Have owned 3 of the lenses in your pic in the past.
> 
> Glad to see they continue evolving the color of the whites. Now they are "whiter" than before. So long as they do not move the color all the way to the Sony-like chalk white, I am game.


Brighter white isn't better for wildlife but most people cover them up anyway


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's a shot I grabbed of several 'white' lenses. I don't have the 100-400 II, but I do have the 70-300L, 600/4 II and the MkIII extenders, all of which were the updated grayish white, compared to the 70-200/2.8 II which is the older, creamier white. The RF 100-500 is a brighter white than the now-not-so-updated grayish white.
> View attachment 200104


Yes, it's brighter. But also has a different texture: much smoother, more matt, and lacks the stipple of the Mk II whites.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2021)

Chig said:


> Brighter white isn't better for wildlife but most people cover them up anyway


Much more important, the R bodies don't sound like a machine gun and scare off close subjects. My 100-500 is covered in camo - to protect it against knocks, the wild life usually sees the lens front end on.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Sep 9, 2021)

Chig said:


> The 400 f/5.6 is still an excellent lens and performs better with the new bodies and image quality wise is at least as good as my 100-400ii , the RF100-500 is regarded as slightly better overall than the EF100-400ii but again image wise no better than this ancient prime.
> This new RF100-400 at f/8 will collect half as much light as the old prime at f/5.6 which is fine in good light but even with the amazing sensors of the latest bodies this will be a huge disadvantage in the low light conditions which are ironically the best light for bird photography at dawn and dusk around estuaries and beaches.
> This style of bird photography pushes the capability of cameras and bodies to their limits especially in flight shots where higher shutter speeds are needed. I'm constantly struggling to keep my shutter speeds up and aperture fast and trying for more reach whilst trying to keep the iso manageable with my old 7Dii and when I upgrade to an R5 , R6 or maybe the new R3 these sensors will definitely help but even then losing 1 stop of light would negate some of these gains which I'd want for boosting shutter speed or adding a T.C for more reach.
> 
> Doesn't matter what body you use with it the old prime will always outperform this new zoom if it's on the same body so for an inexpensive birding lens I would recommend it over this darker zoom lens and of course it's an all metal L lens that will last forever but is still very light at only 1.25kg. My copy was made in 1992 and was still perfect when I sold it for slightly more than I paid for it.


Everything you say is true, if an only if, you are quick enough with your eye to catch the bird at full focal length without needing the wide end of the zoom to hunt before zooming in. Birds have not been a priority for me but that means I've done a lot of hunting with a 300/4 with or without a 1.4 TC on a cop body, so I can appreciate that it's great at a feeder, it's great once the subject is framed, but having a zoom, or more skill, is really necessary to catch some of these little guys in foliage before they fly away.


----------



## JMV Portraits (Sep 9, 2021)

degos said:


> The market says that Tamron, Sigma and Tokina have done very well over the years producing midrange lenses that Canon's 'market data' says don't need to exist...
> 
> No company is omniscient.



Does the market say that those would be profitable categories for Canon to pursue on that basis?

The largest of those, in terms of annual sales, is Tamron. The latest figures I could get on them were from 2017, where they had total sales of about 500 million USD. Canon's Imaging division that same year had annual sales of about 10 *billion* USD- about twenty times as much. If Tamron made all of this money just on selling midrange lenses such as those being discussed here, it would already be a tenuous argument for Canon to divide their product lineup and invest in the R&D to compete over that, but really those lenses are a small fraction of Tamron's sales. Not only are Tamron's sales spread across lenses made for multiple manufacturers, they're also spread across multiple categories, not all targeting the range of the market between Canon's current budget RF offerings and Canon's current premium RF offerings, so the size of the market represented by these lenses is very small indeed relative to Canon Imaging's sales.

These manufacturers seem like a big deal in internet forums, because they tend to make lenses that the larger manufacturer's don't (like Tamron's new fast variable-aperture zooms), and because they also make a lot of lenses with similar designations to the larger manufacturer's top-end lenses at a cheaper price- appealing to the enthusiasts that tend to be those forum's primary audience, but lacking in areas important to the gear houses and more demanding professionals their flagship lenses tend to be marketed to, and still too niche to do the volume slow variable aperture zooms do.

While there will likely be more in-between options years down the road as the system fills out, it will likely continue to follow the pattern that Canon has with their EF, EF-S, and EF-M lines. Most lenses will tend to cater either to high volume budget options, or to low-volume high-markup options. Sticking to the 85mm as an example- Canon did eventually introduce and 85mm f/1.4 IS for the EF in between the 85 1.2 and 85 1.8, but still squarely in the high end of the range. It's interesting that the RF 85 f/2 that people are complaining about is, in terms of price point, features, and practical optical measures, very much between between the old EF 85mm 1.8 and the EF 85mm 1.4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

JMV Portraits said:


> Does the market say that those would be profitable categories for Canon to pursue on that basis?
> 
> The largest of those, in terms of annual sales, is Tamron. The latest figures I could get on them were from 2017, where they had total sales of about 500 million USD. Canon's Imaging division that same year had annual sales of about 10 *billion* USD- about twenty times as much. If Tamron made all of this money just on selling midrange lenses such as those being discussed here, it would already be a tenuous argument for Canon to divide their product lineup and invest in the R&D to compete over that, but really those lenses are a small fraction of Tamron's sales. Not only are Tamron's sales spread across lenses made for multiple manufacturers, they're also spread across multiple categories, not all targeting the range of the market between Canon's current budget RF offerings and Canon's current premium RF offerings, so the size of the market represented by these lenses is very small indeed relative to Canon Imaging's sales.
> 
> ...


Very refreshing when someone brings data and logical interpretation of them to a discussion!


----------



## slclick (Sep 9, 2021)

I appreciate the comments which point out the (obvious to me but maybe not others) uses of this lens. Not everything is about speed and ginormous aperture shooting. Like a wise poster said a couple pages back, to paraphrase, my style of shooting will work well with this lens' limitations. For a minute this thread devolved into a 'Why would anyone buy this since I won't" post. Those are the worst and far too common as of late here on CR. The myriad genres and styles of photography make it a beautiful craft, from pinholes made from Beats earphone box to portraits with a 200 f/2L. 
Can't wait to add this to my kit. (I sold my 100-400 ll to get my R6, a great decision....love that camera)


----------



## Chig (Sep 9, 2021)

illadvisedhammer said:


> Everything you say is true, if an only if, you are quick enough with your eye to catch the bird at full focal length without needing the wide end of the zoom to hunt before zooming in. Birds have not been a priority for me but that means I've done a lot of hunting with a 300/4 with or without a 1.4 TC on a cop body, so I can appreciate that it's great at a feeder, it's great once the subject is framed, but having a zoom, or more skill, is really necessary to catch some of these little guys in foliage before they fly away.


Yep , I actually mounted a Red Dot gun sight on my EF400 , this was lined up with my left eye and worked great but my EF100-400ii zoom is easy to use without this.
I also mounted one on my old EF300 f/2.8 using an adapter I made on the mounting point of the tripod foot but then I couldn't use the tripod mount and I had to use it without the hood as this blocked the sightline 
This would be a useful feature to have on long Primes. I would use my left eye to track the bird and then look through my viewfinder with my right eye which worked great.
Below are some shots taken with my phone of how it works


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 9, 2021)

JMV Portraits said:


> These manufacturers seem like a big deal in internet forums, because they tend to make lenses that the larger manufacturer's don't (like Tamron's new fast variable-aperture zooms), and because they also make a lot of lenses with similar designations to the larger manufacturer's top-end lenses at a cheaper price- appealing to the enthusiasts that tend to be those forum's primary audience, but lacking in areas important to the gear houses and more demanding professionals their flagship lenses tend to be marketed to, and still too niche to do the volume slow variable aperture zooms do.



Truly great summation of the bubble that this forum exists in. I realistically almost never see third party lenses in the wild other than mid-level enthusiasts who frequent these kinds of forums to begin with. At the high end, professionals/companies using equipment most often stick to one brand for lenses and cameras so that they can get the professional support of the manufacturer when something inevitably breaks.

When it comes to working around other professionals, a solid 95% of the time it's Canon/Sony/Nikon lenses on the respective cameras. Maybe a few times I've seen lenses like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, which is a lens I solidly think Canon should make, and then often low-mid range portrait/wedding photographers with third-party primes.

Hands down the most common lenses I ever see on vacations are kit lenses, 18-55, 15-45, 24-105, and then slow variable aperture zooms, 55-250, 75-300, 70-300. I can totally anticipate seeing this 100-400 and a $800 R series camera included in that out in the wild in a year or two at this price. By that point, I imagine I'll also be seeing the 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11 out there.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 9, 2021)

Chig said:


> Yep , I actually mounted a Red Dot gun sight on my EF400 , this was lined up with my left eye and worked great but my EF100-400ii zoom is easy to use without this.
> I also mounted one on my old EF300 f/2.8 using an adapter on the mounting point of the tripod foot but then I couldn't use the tripod mount and I had to use it without the hood as this blocked the sightline
> This would be a useful feature to have on long Primes. I would use my left eye to track the bird and then look through my viewfinder with my right eye which worked great.



Didn't someone used to sell a hotshoe mounted red-dot sight, or am I imagining that?


----------



## Chig (Sep 9, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Didn't someone used to sell a hotshoe mounted red-dot sight, or am I imagining that?


Yes , but it wouldn't work as well (plus very expensive and quite fragile) as you'd need to move your eye from the sight to the viewfinder (and you'll probably lose track of the bird) whereas my system you don't move and just shut your right eye until your left eye has framed the bird then open your right eye and shut the left , it's super easy ! These gun sights are really cheap but fabricating a mounting point was quite a challenge.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 9, 2021)

JMV Portraits said:


> Does the market say that those would be profitable categories for Canon to pursue on that basis?
> 
> The largest of those, in terms of annual sales, is Tamron. The latest figures I could get on them were from 2017, where they had total sales of about 500 million USD. Canon's Imaging division that same year had annual sales of about 10 *billion* USD- about twenty times as much. If Tamron made all of this money just on selling midrange lenses such as those being discussed here, it would already be a tenuous argument for Canon to divide their product lineup and invest in the R&D to compete over that, but really those lenses are a small fraction of Tamron's sales. Not only are Tamron's sales spread across lenses made for multiple manufacturers, they're also spread across multiple categories, not all targeting the range of the market between Canon's current budget RF offerings and Canon's current premium RF offerings, so the size of the market represented by these lenses is very small indeed relative to Canon Imaging's sales.
> 
> ...


Never mind the fact that we _do not know_ if Canon is planning to _not _serve the mid market (which I herein define as "below L but not basic.") Just that they haven't done so yet.


----------



## esglord (Sep 9, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> I think it's two things:
> 1) To a small extent, in the music world more of us just want to hear a nice tune and we respect that many people are trying to put out their own voice, however it is they may get there, while with photography there is a higher percentage of people who are just really, really into pushing buttons and don't see cameras as anything other than new toys to show off.
> 2) Mostly you're looking in the wrong places.
> 
> ...


As I'm also a guitar guy, I'd have to say that crowd is at least as bad on internet forums regarding gear with many people acting like you need to a $150 cable into an amp or your tone will be terrible. Most of the good guitarists I know and good photographers I know all have their preferred gear but aren't phased if they to the job done with most anything decent at hand. Since I'm mediocre at both endeavors, I need the good gear so I have no one to blame but myself, haha. Long live the rare vintage germanium transistors that Jimi Hendrix stood next to once and the zeiss 40mm f/0.33!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2021)

Chig said:


> Yep , I actually mounted a Red Dot gun sight on my EF400
> 
> This would be a useful feature to have on long Primes.
> 
> Below are some shots taken with my phone of how it works


I used a TruGlo red dot sight for a while when I first got my 600/4 II (when it launched in 2012).



H. Jones said:


> Didn't someone used to sell a hotshoe mounted red-dot sight, or am I imagining that?


I don’t recall an integrated product like that, but it’s a big world. Since sights use a Weaver mount (apparently that’s the equivalent of Arca-Swiss for the other type of shooting), I mounted it using a Firefield Weaver Camera Adapter. Unfortunately for anyone wanting to go that route, it looks like they’re no longer available, but it was an <$20 widget with a Weaver plate on top and a universal hotshoe mount on the bottom.

I used it for a while as a training tool, but soon learned to find subjects without it. It’s packed away somewhere in one of my four plastic storage bins of photography accessories.


----------



## slclick (Sep 10, 2021)

esglord said:


> As I'm also a guitar guy, I'd have to say that crowd is at least as bad on internet forums regarding gear with many people acting like you need to a $150 cable into an amp or your tone will be terrible. Most of the good guitarists I know and good photographers I know all have their preferred gear but aren't phased if they to the job done with most anything decent at hand. Since I'm mediocre at both endeavors, I need the good gear so I have no one to blame but myself, haha. Long live the rare vintage germanium transistors that Jimi Hendrix stood next to once and the zeiss 40mm f/0.33!


Funny, as a drummer I find those forums and chat rooms to be incredibly supportive no matter the level, style, gear used and years played. Good folks almost always....On the other hand I spend much more time on cycling sites and it is far more cut throat, divisive and childish than even here as there is a serious noob with a credit card momentum with roadies in the past few years and mentorship and the progression of skills seems to be a lost art....My analogy is using the R6 (occasionally berated and looked down upon here and on other Canon sites) with great results to riding a 20 lb steel bike with greater aplomb than the new guy on his 15 lb $12k carbon sled. Same with my PDP drums which I know how to tune and play with various sticks (like lenses) for the appropriate volume, tone and venue. 

G.A.S. doesn't make you better just gives more debt.


----------



## esglord (Sep 10, 2021)

slclick said:


> Funny, as a drummer I find those forums and chat rooms to be incredibly supportive no matter the level, style, gear used and years played. Good folks almost always....On the other hand I spend much more time on cycling sites and it is far more cut throat, divisive and childish than even here as there is a serious noob with a credit card momentum with roadies in the past few years and mentorship and the progression of skills seems to be a lost art....My analogy is using the R6 (occasionally berated and looked down upon here and on other Canon sites) with great results to riding a 20 lb steel bike with greater aplomb than the new guy on his 15 lb $12k carbon sled. Same with my PDP drums which I know how to tune and play with various sticks (like lenses) for the appropriate volume, tone and venue.
> 
> G.A.S. doesn't make you better just gives more debt.


 I can already tell you are a good drummer based on the use of the words “appropriate volume”. I’m going to buy an R6 eventually when prices fall because that camera is amazing. A new bike is not going to help me come close to keeping up with my father in-law who rides 100 miles every Saturday, so I’m going to make due with the heavy commuter bike. So many fun things to do, never enough time.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Sep 10, 2021)

Chig said:


> Well for a wildlife / birding lens 1 stop of light makes a huge difference. I'd rather carry the barely noticeable 1.25kg weight of the EF400mm f/5.6 and have twice the light.
> I used to own this prime and it's a fantastic lens and I only sold it after I bought my EF100-400mm ii which is more versatile but also a lot heavier and not any better image quality.
> Personally for my birding I often find f/5.6 too dark and f/8 would be hopeless.
> Perhaps you will use this only in very bright sunlight in which case it'll be fine.


Thank you so much for your response! I really appreciate it!


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 10, 2021)

Chig said:


> The 400 f/5.6 is still an excellent lens and performs better with the new bodies and image quality wise is at least as good as my 100-400ii , the RF100-500 is regarded as slightly better overall than the EF100-400ii but again image wise no better than this ancient prime.
> This new RF100-400 at f/8 will collect half as much light as the old prime at f/5.6 which is fine in good light but even with the amazing sensors of the latest bodies this will be a huge disadvantage in the low light conditions which are ironically the best light for bird photography at dawn and dusk around estuaries and beaches.
> This style of bird photography pushes the capability of cameras and bodies to their limits especially in flight shots where higher shutter speeds are needed. I'm constantly struggling to keep my shutter speeds up and aperture fast and trying for more reach whilst trying to keep the iso manageable with my old 7Dii and when I upgrade to an R5 , R6 or maybe the new R3 these sensors will definitely help but even then losing 1 stop of light would negate some of these gains which I'd want for boosting shutter speed or adding a T.C for more reach.
> 
> Doesn't matter what body you use with it the old prime will always outperform this new zoom if it's on the same body so for an inexpensive birding lens I would recommend it over this darker zoom lens and of course it's an all metal L lens that will last forever but is still very light at only 1.25kg. My copy was made in 1992 and was still perfect when I sold it for slightly more than I paid for it.


f/8 or no, I highly doubt this lens will be a good action/sports/wildlife/BIF lens. I expect it will be a competent general purpose tele-zoom for casual use at outdoor kids sports, family vacations, and trips to the zoo. Think of it more like an RF version of the EF 70-300 II or the EF-S 55-250 STM, rather than a $649 version of the EF 100-400L II. If your needs are more specialized, there are better tools in Canon's lineup. Despite the overlap in focal length, the roughly 4x price difference (US) between this and either the EF 100-400L II or the RF 100-500L should provide some indication of their respective capabilities.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Sep 10, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> I would not expect this lens to come anywhere close to the 400 f/5.6 in image quality, focus speed, or build quality. That EF lens has been a top-seller and 'the' defacto wildlife lens for decades for good reason. The only Canon-mount zooms which match its image quality (they do not exceed it) are the Canon 100-400 mk II, 200-400 f/4L, and now the RF 100-500; all L lenses, all much more expensive and heavier. No other Canon zooms can match it and no Sigma or Tamron zooms have matched it, either. Importantly, its focus is much faster than _all_ the zooms and its build quality is superb; though it does lack full weather sealing, I used mine in heavy downpours and it didn't have a problem, and you don't have to look far to find many other people with the same sort of experiences. The phrase "built like a tank" gets thrown around too often these days and now usually only means "has some metal in it", but the EF 400mm f/5.6L genuinely is a tank of a lens.
> The reality of using these long focal lengths is that zoom range and IS are very rarely of any use; what are you photographing at 400mm that you can use a shutter below 1/500th with, and when are you_ not_ going to want the maximum focal length? And if you're photographing anything which might move (which is 99% of super-tele use) then your panning can screw up stabilisation systems anyway, even in the panning modes, hence why you'll find many pros just keep the IS off entirely.
> A lot of people buy a 100-400 then only use the lens at 400mm with shutters upwards of 1/1000th, rendering the zoom design and stabilisation pointless. The 400mm f/5.6L has remained the standard by which all others are judged because for the purposes these sorts of lenses are most commonly used for, it offers the best-possible optics for the price range, the best-possible focus for the price range, and build quality which is only bettered by a small handful of lenses. (Which this RF 100-400 f/8 certainly will not be part of.)
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for your extremely thorough response and feedback about your experience with the EF 400mm 5.6L! Your reply has definitely helped steer me back towards purchasing that lens. The price is right, and I've repeatedly read that the build and image quality are nearly unparalleled. In response to your comment regarding only needing the longest focal length on the zoom; I currently always carry an EF 200mm 2.8 USM L II prime with me for that very reason. You've helped reinforce my original plan, and that will be the next lens I purchase.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 10, 2021)

Viggo said:


> $650’for 400 f8 sounds more like it. $2800 is way too high in the 100-500. I always hear “it’s a superb lens”, well it should be great wide open at such a small aperture, and f7.1 is f7.1 no matter the price. As always, we don’t all live in California…


I don't live in California and am happy with my RF100-500mm. I don't understand the negativity around f7.1 it is the same as EF100-400mm + 1.4xTC. No one has ever complained that there is a built-in 1.4x TC in the EF200-400mm f4 except for the overall weight.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seeing the 100-400 II next to the 100-500 reminds me of buying 'white' paint for the walls...
> 
> View attachment 200103


At least the RF100-500mm shouldn't get any white paint chips around the mount.


----------



## dcm (Sep 10, 2021)

esglord said:


> I can already tell you are a good drummer based on the use of the words “appropriate volume”. I’m going to buy an R6 eventually when prices fall because that camera is amazing. A new bike is not going to help me come close to keeping up with my father in-law who rides 100 miles every Saturday, so I’m going to make due with the heavy commuter bike. So many fun things to do, never enough time.


Still riding my old commuter bike. The extra weight just adds to the exercise factor. I have no need to go fast or keep up with the pack on my daily commute. A lighter bike won't shave that much time off my commute. I might change my mind if I did a century ride on the weekends, but think I'd still commute on my existing commuter.


----------



## Chig (Sep 10, 2021)

drhuffman87 said:


> Thank you so much for your response! I really appreciate it!


No problem , you won't regret it if you buy the EF400 f/5.6 and even if you do you can always sell it for about the same price.
Just make sure it has no fungal growth inside before you buy


----------



## JohnOnTheNet (Sep 10, 2021)

Doug7131 said:


> F8 will ensure some excellent forum comment sections!


Yes, but f8 full frame is brighter than f5.6 cropped. I'd rather have full frame at f8 and a lighter lens than go cropped.


----------



## JohnOnTheNet (Sep 10, 2021)

HenWin said:


> You don't say why it's "unusable in most situations", so your comment isn't very helpful.


I love my 800 f11. Sometimes the limitations are frustrating, but it does things that no other lens I can afford or can carry will do.


----------



## JohnOnTheNet (Sep 10, 2021)

melgross said:


> People who either don’t want to spend more money, or would rather have a decent zoom that fairly small, with some added boost in those circumstances where they need it.
> 
> Right or wrong thinking, there is a market.


People who already have a teleconverter but want a lighter lens might use it. 100-400mm + 800mm + 1.4 TC might make a good light weight outfit for older birders.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 10, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Have you used any RF extension tubes ? Were any worth recommending?
> Do any of them preserve autofocus capabilities?



I've got a set of Meike and a set of JJC ones. They're the same tubes, just different brandings. The Meikes were the first to market so I bought them first; one of them mounted a little bit loose so when the JJC-branded version came out a fraction cheaper, I bought that set and they've been totally fine. If JJC hadn't put out their one cheaper I'd have happily just bought another Meike set. I've had enough tubes for all mounts you can name, going back to the 1960s Canon R & FL mount up through every decade since, Fuji, Sony, Nikon, you name it, and the looseness I found in the first Meike set is totally typical of common copy variation. I don't believe either brand actually has a better or worse chance of being loose than the other, it's just luck.
Yes, they keep autofocus, and all other electronic operation. I've not seen an extension tube made in the last twenty years which doesn't retain autofocus, other than ones made for lenses made pre-autofocus, of course.



AlanF said:


> I own the RF 100-500mm, the RF 800mm f/11 and the RF 1.4x and 2x, and have posted a comparative thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/
> I found on the R5 the 100-500mm + RF 2x at 1000mm, f/14 outresolves the bare RF 800mm f/11, and I had to put the 1.4x on the 800mm to give 1120mm f/16 for it catch up. The TCs might not be as good on the new 100-400 f/8, but we don't know yet other than diffraction will be worse. On the 100-500, they are incredibly good.



Fair enough then, but given my experience with the 100-500 on TCs being weaker than the 800 f11, I'm going to put this down to copy variation and say you can't gurantee results. It could be that you got an unusually good 100-500 or TC, or an unusually poor 800, or I hand my hands on an unusually good 800 or an unusually bad 100-500. Unless someone can test a sample group of at least ten copies of both lenses and TCs, we can't chalk this up as any kind of consistent trend.



JMV Portraits said:


> The latest figures I could get on them were from 2017, where they had total sales of about 500 million USD. Canon's Imaging division that same year had annual sales of about 10 *billion* USD- about twenty times as much.



This is an erroneous point because Canon's 'imaging division' includes much more than just the consumer photographic products. That US$10b includes printers, scanners, medical tools, security cameras, military tools, binoculars, scopes, industrial sensors and processors that they sell to other companies, and even paper.

Right now, according to Canon's 2020 financials, the imaging division has taken a hit of more than 90%, with the overall company losing a bit over US$80m last year and the imaging division in total only generated around US$28m in operating profit.
Now, e_very_ company had a weak 2020 due to covid and the semiconductor shortage totally destroying most industrial sales, so I don't expect Tamron made much more than that either (I haven't looked at Tamron's latest financial reports), but the fact remains that Canon absolutely are not currently raking in US$10b, the consumer products we're talking about here never got them to that figure in the first place, and no matter which way you slice it, Tamron's lenses are and have been the best-selling lenses in the world for the last couple of years by a big margin, and not only does it mean Tamron's lenses have shifted units but it also demonstrates the market share that Sony now has.

Basically, if you're going to bring up the financials, you really need to learn what they really mean and you need to stick to the most recent ones. Every major manufacturer publishes their financial reports publicly and they're usually just a short Google away. Everything you wrote is basically meaningless and inaccurate because you didn't check what "imaging division" means in Canon speak.



drhuffman87 said:


> Thank you very much for your extremely thorough response and feedback about your experience with the EF 400mm 5.6L! Your reply has definitely helped steer me back towards purchasing that lens. The price is right, and I've repeatedly read that the build and image quality are nearly unparalleled. In response to your comment regarding only needing the longest focal length on the zoom; I currently always carry an EF 200mm 2.8 USM L II prime with me for that very reason. You've helped reinforce my original plan, and that will be the next lens I purchase.



No problem, and yeah, I used to opt for the 200mm prime over a 70-200, too. (These days I just don't have a use for that focal length so have neither, but when I did I loved that lens.)
There definitely are good reasons for this cheaper 100-400 to exist, but yeah, the old 400 is such a complete package, at such a crazy price now, that it's very hard to imagine you'll be disappointed. There are a lot of great EF mount lenses out there now which are essentially risk-free if you buy and sell used, and I think many people should reconsider their rush to swap everything for new RFs; newer does not always mean better, especially when comparing EF L to RF non-L.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 10, 2021)

JohnOnTheNet said:


> Yes, but f8 full frame is brighter than f5.6 cropped.


No, that's not how it works.

The *total* light, integrated across the area of the FF sensor at f/8, is indeed greater than the crop sensor at f/5.6. But in terms of exposure, f/8 is still f/8. If you shoot the same scene at the same time and the same ISO with both cameras set to f/8, they will both require the same shutter speed.

What you're saying is equivalent to saying "The sun is brighter at my neighbor's house because he has a bigger yard."


----------



## Kim Bentsen (Sep 10, 2021)

f/8 is beyond the diffraction limit for a 45MP sensor!


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> TC compatibility, I wonder if that’s limited like the 100-500. Regardless…1-2 stops lost from f/8 is dark.


A 2x TC e.g. with that lens would work well on sun's surface. Brings me to astro (and particle) physics: they are striving so hard to solve the riddle of Dark Matter, but they only have to check Canon's new RF lens list now...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 10, 2021)

Kim Bentsen said:


> f/8 is beyond the diffraction limit for a 45MP sensor!


... yepp, and f/11 primes even more! That's why the R6 is the smarter choice for such lenses.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 10, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> The *total* light, integrated across the area of the FF sensor at f/8, is indeed greater than the crop sensor at f/5.6, in terms of exposure, f/8 is still f/8. If you shoot the same scene at the same time and the same ISO with both cameras set to f/8, they will both require the same shutter speed.
> 
> What you're saying is equivalent to saying "The sun is brighter at my neighbor's house because he has a bigger yard."



Yes... and no. If all you care about is getting equivalent brightness and you ignore all other aspects of the image then sure, f/8 is f/8 is f/8.

_(Strap yourselves in, kids, class is in session.)_

But 1) not all cameras produce the same brightness at the same ISO setting, and 2) smaller sensors produce more noise at the same ISO (assuming the cameras are of a similar age and resolution), so you're not ending up with equal quality.

Even if we ignore #1 for now, equalising #2 requires you to get more light onto the smaller sensor so a lower ISO can be used. (Or less light onto the larger sensor, to use a higher ISO.) We do this by changing the aperture, since changing the shutter is usually more destructive and causes other differences in the resulting images, while changing the aperture also allows us to equalise the depth of field at the same time. The difference in both depth of field and noise between 35mm and APS-C tends to be _roughly_ one stop and a quarter, so it's an easy compensation to make by just changing the aperture by one stop. (And for 4/3rds cameras to 35mm, it's two stops.)

In this sense, f/8 is no longer f/8 when moving to a different sensor. 1/100 f/8 ISO 800 on a 35mm sensor and 1/100 f/8 ISO 800 on an APS-C sensor may give you the same brightness and motion blur/freezing, but that APS-C shot will be noiser and have a deeper depth of field. If we change the APS-C camera to 1/100 f/5.6 ISO 400, now we've got the same brightness, (roughly) equivalent depth of field, and (roughly) equivalent noise.

So in a_ total equivalent_ sense, f/8 is _not_ f/8 when you're talking about different sensor formats. Aperture _effectively_ changes just as much as focal length does. ("f/8", after all, does literally mean 'focal length divided by 8', and if you paid attention in algebra class you know that you can't change 'f' without the rest of the maths changing, too; 'equivalents' and 'crop factor' _are_ applied to the whole equation, not just the focal length.)


To use your garden analogy, yes, having a bigger garden does not mean the sun _itself_ is brighter, but it _does_ mean that garden recieved more sunlight. On average throughout the year, in one minute and per square meter, the amount of sunlight that hits the ground is 6kWh/m². If someone's garden is four square meters then in one minute their garden recieved (or saw, caught, or experienced, or whatever other term you care to use) 24kWh; if their neighbour's garden is eight square meters then that garden, in the same time, recieved 48kWh of sunlight. It's double the area so double the sunlight landed on it, even though the sun itself was putting out light at the same rate.


A garden or a sensor, it's the same thing. It's not that the light is brighter, but that that more of the light is able to be captured. The smaller sensor captures less of the light in the first place (and is less light-efficient at the same resolution), so the signal has to be boosted more and hence you end up with more noise. Open up the aperture, let more light in, less boosting (ISO) is needed, and now everything is nice and even.

But then there's point #1 earlier, which causes big problems when comparing different brands, since every manufacturer rates ISOs differently, and in particular Canon and Fuji cameras are sometimes actually shooting at as little as half the stated sensitivity. So, in some ways, the biggest problem with getting equal exposure between cameras isn't the aperture, but the fact that ISO 100 simply is not always ISO 100.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 10, 2021)

Kim Bentsen said:


> f/8 is beyond the diffraction limit for a 45MP sensor!





justaCanonuser said:


> ... yepp, and f/11 primes even more! That's why the R6 is the smarter choice for such lenses.



Kind of, but not really. The differences in diffraction limitations only apply when looking at files at their full sizes, comparing each pixel 1:1. If you downsample the larger files size (45mp, in this case) to match the smaller size it is being compared to (20mp) then the diffraction limitation also scales down and equalises. It's the exact same as with noise.

Also, some lenses showcase diffraction worse than others. Lenses which produce higher contrast can typically get away with pushing past the diffraction limits better than a low contrast lens; a lot of what we perceive as 'sharpness' is actually contrast rather than resolution. In the case of the 600 and 800 f/11s their contrast is good enough that even without downsampling, the R5 files show slightly more clearly-defined detail than the R6's. Downsample the R5 to match the R6 and the results are noticeably better. That the R5 is more than double the resolution of the R6 means you can crop in by about 1.2x, downsample that cropped file, and still match the R6's _whole_ file in regards to diffraction specifically.

The R6 is a great camera, but there's no way around the physics; maths is maths.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> No, that's not how it works.
> 
> The *total* light, integrated across the area of the FF sensor at f/8, is indeed greater than the crop sensor at f/5.6. But in terms of exposure, f/8 is still f/8. If you shoot the same scene at the same time and the same ISO with both cameras set to f/8, they will both require the same shutter speed.
> 
> What you're saying is equivalent to saying "The sun is brighter at my neighbor's house because he has a bigger yard."


Sigh. Why is the concept of _equivalence_ so hard to understand? The short version of @aceflibble‘s class is that’s exactly how it works, because noise is proportional to total light integrated across the sensor. So on FF, you can use a 1.3-stop higher ISO for the same noise.

Another way to look at that is you can shoot at f/8 on both sensors, but for the same noise level you can use a higher ISO on FF to set a 1.3-stop faster shutter speed.


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 10, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Didn't someone used to sell a hotshoe mounted red-dot sight, or am I imagining that?



Nikon makes a dot sight that fits on the hotshoe.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sigh. Why is the concept of _equivalence_ so hard to understand? The short version of @aceflibble‘s class is that’s exactly how it works, because noise is proportional to total light integrated across the sensor. So on FF, you can use a 1.3-stop higher ISO for the same noise.
> 
> Another way to look at that is you can shoot at f/8 on both sensors, but for the same noise level you can use a higher ISO on FF to set a 1.3-stop faster shutter speed.



Sigh. Why is the concept of _reading_ so hard to understand?

The original statement was:



JohnOnTheNet said:


> f8 full frame is brighter than f5.6 cropped.



That statement is incorrect. The total amount of light gathered by the FF sensor may be greater, but that's not meaningful for photography. Individual photosites (pixels) gather the light that reaches their own area. That doesn't change if the total sensor size is APS-C, FF, 8x10, or the size of an American Football field. It is the light reaching the individual photosite that matters for exposure.

Other statements about noise and DOF are besides the point because that's not what @JohnOnTheNet said.

If you want to turn this into a "why I hate crop" discussion, have fun. I won't be drawn in.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> Fair enough then, but given my experience with the 100-500 on TCs being weaker than the 800 f11, I'm going to put this down to copy variation and say you can't gurantee results. It could be that you got an unusually good 100-500 or TC, or an unusually poor 800, or I hand my hands on an unusually good 800 or an unusually bad 100-500. Unless someone can test a sample group of at least ten copies of both lenses and TCs, we can't chalk this up as any kind of consistent trend.


I have analysed carefully two copies of the RF 800 f/11 on the R5. Both had the same IQ, and both better than my 400mm DO + 2xTC @f/8 on my R5 and 5DSR, and the digital picture has the 800 f/11 similarly sharper than the 400mm DO + 2xTC @f/8 on a 5DSR, so we can rule out that I had a bad copy of the 800mm f/11. I used the same RF 1.4x and 2xTCs on the 800mm and the 100-500mm, so the results are in parallel and should rule out any effect of a bad TC - in any case the TCs work really well. So that leaves my having an unusually good copy of the 100-500mm or you having a bad copy.
If you say we can't chalk this up until we have sampled 10 copies of both lenses and TCs, then you should practice what you preach and withdraw:



aceflibble said:


> That, plus I've never seen a zoom lens on even just a 1.4x TC which is as good optically as the two f/11 primes are bare, except for the 200-400 which has a custom 1.4x built-in and optimised for that specific optic. Even then, by the time you either add another 1.4x on the back of it, or skip the built-in extender and use a 2x TC, it ''only'' matches the f/11 primes in optical quality, and the focus gets slower.


until you have documentary evidence on 10 copies of each.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> The total amount of light gathered by the FF sensor may be greater, but that's not meaningful for photography.


Lol. Did you really suggest that ‘total light gathered is not meaningful for photography’?!? That statement deserves an award for oxymoron of the month.

Sorry, but if that’s your level understanding then you need to engage in some self-education before trying to have a meaningful discussion on the concepts under consideration.

Obviously, you’re correct about light per unit area determining the exposure. But exposure is not the sum total of photography.



mdcmdcmdc said:


> If you want to turn this into a "why I hate crop" discussion, have fun. I won't be drawn in.


It’s not about hating crop sensors. That would be pretty silly for me since I have more cameras with APS-C sensors than with FF sensors. It’s about understanding the implications of sensor size for photography, which evidently you don’t.


----------



## Skux (Sep 10, 2021)

So basically, same exposure with the same settings, but more noise on smaller sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2021)

Skux said:


> So basically, same exposure with the same settings, but more noise on smaller sensors.


Exactly. Or the same noise with a narrower aperture or a faster shutter speed on the larger sensor.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 10, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> zoom range and IS are very rarely of any use; what are you photographing at 400mm that you can use a shutter below 1/500th with, and when are you_ not_ going to want the maximum focal length? And if you're photographing anything which might move (which is 99% of super-tele use) then your panning can screw up stabilisation systems anyway, even in the panning modes, hence why you'll find many pros just keep the IS off entirely.


You talk a lot of sense but I'd just like to sound a note of dissent here. The reason I didn't get on with the 400L f/5.6 was precisely because it lacked IS; I found it made a big difference. Admittedly that was on the 50D, so you have the crop magnifying camera shake at a given shutter speed, its high ISO capabilities were fairly limiting, and my technique was still developing back then.
But I've shot (perched) birds at shutter speeds well below 1/500, and IS can be invaluable. Of course I never used a monopod, and rarely a tripod. Different styles but IS can absolutely be of value for bird photography. PS I've never found it interfered in the way you describe, maybe I've been lucky.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 10, 2021)

I like this lens in principle, hopefully the image quality is adequate. When I started out in long lenses on a budget, I mounted the EF 70-200 f/4 with a 2x TC, and it was handy; although my standards are more stringent now, 400 f/8 doesn't worry me.

I'd just like to repeat something I've said on a number of threads where people have asserted f/7.1-8-11 are too dark for bird photography in anything but bright sunshine: that is not true. My usual setup in the last few years has been 1000mm f/10, and except on very dull overcast winter days, at dusk, or in deep shade it works well - and this is on bodies whose noise characteristics was poorer than today's models. Sure, f/4 or f/2.8 will give cleaner images, and especially less cluttered backgrounds, but you absolutely don't need them to photograph birds in Britain or in woodland or cloudy weather.


----------



## JohnOnTheNet (Sep 10, 2021)

The point being that aperture is a ratio, not a size. Canon APSC is less than half the area of full frame, so one stop smaller aperture on full frame allows more than twice the light onto the sensor and consequently halves the effective ISO (noise.) My main complaint with crop sensor cameras is the lack of dedicated crop sensor lenses for them. If I attach my EF100-400 lens on my M6, I'm using less than half of the lens and it matters little how light the camera is because the lens is heavy. My EFS 55-250 STM is brilliant on that camera, but there was no EFS 100-400 or similar. A crop sensor EOS R would be a waste of time without good crop sensor R lenses. This is why Canon id making full-frame lenses with smaller apertures. All things being equal, a f8 full frame will give a similar result to a f5.6 crop sensor. A lot of people want lighter and cheaper lenses and will like this. Other people want heavier and more expensive lenses and they will buy something else. Canon will be only too happy to oblige. Heavy and expensive lenses have a lot going for them - except that they are heavy and expensive.


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you say we can't chalk this up until we have sampled 10 copies of both lenses and TCs, then you should practice what you preach and withdraw:


No, because I rather thought it was common sense that anyone commenting here would be doing so based on their subjective and anecdotal experience, and trying to 'out-lab' each other to prove... I'm not sure what point you're even going after... is childish. The whole point I was bringing up about testing a large number of copies was to highlight that nobody here, no matter how much they may insist they have the one definitive test of a lens, actually does get hands-on with enough units for what they say to ever be anything more than subjectiove interpretation and copy variation, which, as I said, should simply be common sense anyway and shouldn't need to be explained to you multiple times.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 10, 2021)

JohnOnTheNet said:


> The point being that aperture is a ratio, not a size. Canon APSC is less than half the area of full frame, so one stop smaller aperture on full frame allows more than twice the light onto the sensor and consequently halves the effective ISO (noise.) My main complaint with crop sensor cameras is the lack of dedicated crop sensor lenses for them. If I attach my EF100-400 lens on my M6, I'm using less than half of the lens and it matters little how light the camera is because the lens is heavy. My EFS 55-250 STM is brilliant on that camera, but there was no EFS 100-400 or similar. A crop sensor EOS R would be a waste of time without good crop sensor R lenses. This is why Canon id making full-frame lenses with smaller apertures. All things being equal, a f8 full frame will give a similar result to a f5.6 crop sensor. A lot of people want lighter and cheaper lenses and will like this. Other people want heavier and more expensive lenses and they will buy something else. Canon will be only too happy to oblige. Heavy and expensive lenses have a lot going for them - except that they are heavy and expensive.



All great points here, and exactly why this lens exists.

My daily go-to for wildlife is 560mm F/8 from my 100-400 + 1.4x teleconverter, and it hasn't bothered me enough to actually purchase bigger glass yet. I borrow the 600mm F/4L from Canon time to time, but when you use those huge lenses, it really increases the labor involved in a photo outing. 

Not a big deal when it's an important subject and you have a purpose in mind, but if I'm taking a hike to cool off after a long week at work, it's a lot more enjoyable to just grab the 100-400 and teleconverter, throw it in a smaller camera bag, and snap some images. I also find that my reaction time is a lot better with the smaller set-up, and that often gets me images I wouldn't have normally gotten with the bigger glass.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 10, 2021)

aceflibble said:


> Kind of, but not really. The differences in diffraction limitations only apply when looking at files at their full sizes, comparing each pixel 1:1. If you downsample the larger files size (45mp, in this case) to match the smaller size it is being compared to (20mp) then the diffraction limitation also scales down and equalises. It's the exact same as with noise.


I know, I am a physicist, I know about diffraction and Airy discs. That's why I would recommend to select an R6 if you use such slow lenses. Otherwise you'd get only bigger files with no plus of useful information you then can downsample. Not smart if you can have camera that does this job anyway.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> I know, I am a physicist, I know about diffraction and Airy discs. That's why I would recommend to select an R6 if you use such slow lenses. Otherwise you'd get only bigger files with no plus of useful information you then can downsample. Not smart if you can have camera that does this job anyway.


As you are a physicist, you might be interested in that I calculated the MTF values of the different slow lenses based on the Airy diffraction and the sensor MTFs and posted here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/ (I didn't allow for lens aberrations or the Bayer filter).
It's true that you see more advantage with lower resolution sensors of increasing focal length at expense of f-number. I found from actual measurements of putting the 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm and R5 that the resolution increased by ~40% on going from 500mm f/7.1 to 1000mm f/14.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 11, 2021)

Dustspeck said:


> Nice. Too bad all my Canon gear is EF mount. Eventually I suppose I'll be switching to Fuji or Sony. Sad to see Canon essentially abandon long time EF users as the EF lens portfolio shrinks.


I have all the EF lenses that I need, so it doesn’t matter to me whether they make more. If I bought another lens, it would be the 24mm TS-E, but I really would not use it often enough to buy it. I have rented it before, and may well again if some project presents itself.

I will continue to use those lenses with my DSLR. I have concluded that if I spend $6,000 on a camera, I will go to the 102 MP Fujifilm. I would need to define better how and when I use it before I can decide what lens(es) to buy with it. Probably a good strategy would be for me to shoot more landscapes with my current gear. I might get a better sense of how I might use different focal lengths. I might also discover that what I have now is more than adequate for my purposes. So far I haven’t perceived any unmet needs that R series cameras and lenses would solve for me.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 11, 2021)

Let's review. JohnOnTheNet said:



JohnOnTheNet said:


> f8 full frame is brighter than f5.6 cropped.



I replied that this was not correct because:



mdcmdcmdc said:


> The *total* light, integrated across the area of the FF sensor at f/8, is indeed greater than the crop sensor at f/5.6. But in terms of exposure, f/8 is still f/8. If you shoot the same scene at the same time and the same ISO with both cameras set to f/8, they will both require the same shutter speed.
> 
> What you're saying is equivalent to saying "The sun is brighter at my neighbor's house because he has a bigger yard."



Neither one of us said anything about DOF, noise, or "equivalence". The statements were only about the lens being "brighter", i.e, providing greater luminous flux density, when used with one sensor versus another. But the properties of the lens do not change because there is a different size sensor behind it. the amount of light _per unit area_ reaching the sensor is the same (assuming the lens can illuminate the full sensor).

In the context of the original statement, my response was correct and I feel no need to defend it further. Personal attacks on me, @neuroanatomist, won't change that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Let's review. JohnOnTheNet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, so you’re going to be literal. That’s fine. The EF 100-400 f/5.6 is brighter than the RF 100-400 f/8 because the former is painted white and the latter is painted black. Brightness is emission or reflection of light, and the maximum aperture of the iris diaphragm inside the lens changes neither. Paint color affects brightness. I suppose you could also put a light bulb inside a lens to make it ‘brighter’. Likewise, an f/8 lens can be faster than an f/5.6 lens if the former is being transported by jet plane and the latter is being carried by someone walking on a trail.

Now that we have silliness out of the way, it’s pretty obvious that the original comment was in reference to equivalence, since it’s unlikely that someone would be silly enough to suggest that f/8 transmits more light than f/5.6. (Note that I mean relatively more light, since the f/number is a ratio it’s quite possible for an f/8 lens to transmit more absolute light through the iris diaphragm than an f/5.6 lens, if the latter has a sufficiently shorter focal length.)

You just decided to take an unrealistically narrow and silly approach to interpreting the original statement. I did so intentionally above, and I trust you see how ridiculous that approach comes off.

Still, I apologize for my harsh response. But honestly, claiming that total light gathered is meaningless for photography is about as asinine as saying a lens is fast because it’s being transported in a jet.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 11, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Let's review. JohnOnTheNet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are absolutely right, but don’t expect the equivalence gang on this forum to ever admit it. This argument crops up every few weeks and when you prove them wrong they just move the goal posts, claim they said something they didn’t say, twist themselves into pretzels and finally resort to insults. Best to just walk away because their egos are too tender to admit they are wrong.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 11, 2021)

After reading pages and pages on equivalence, I concluded there is no such thing.

The best you can do is “equivalent in what way” or “equivalent for what purpose.”

For example, I decided to get a prime lens for my T3i for portraits. I liked 85mm on my film camera, so the question became what it was about that focal length on full frame that made it good for portraits. After some reading, I decided that subject distance was the key. So I bought a 50mm lens as the closest “equivalent” for my purpose. But I knew that putting it on the T3i was not going to change it optically to 85mm magically.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2021)

stevelee said:


> After reading pages and pages on equivalence, I concluded there is no such thing.
> 
> The best you can do is “equivalent in what way” or “equivalent for what purpose.”


In the context of photography, the term equivalence has a specific definition. Yes, in the sense of a word in the English language, equivalence and equivalent are different parts of speech referring to the same basic definition. But photography has a technical aspect to it, and technical terms like equivalence have a meaning in that context.

As another example, when one photographer says to another, “You might want to add an extra stop,” the recipient of that advice knows it’s not a suggestion to program a favorite pub into the Google maps route home (of course, the latter might be good advice, too).


----------



## degos (Sep 11, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Still, I apologize for my harsh response. But honestly, claiming that total light gathered is meaningless for photography is about as asinine as saying a lens is fast because it’s being transported in a jet.



Is contend that total captured light is irrelevant because ISO amplification works on the pixel i.e. photosite level.

So the key factor is received flux at each photosite, which is independent from how many photosites exist.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2021)

degos said:


> Is contend that total captured light is irrelevant because ISO amplification works on the pixel i.e. photosite level.
> 
> So the key factor is received flux at each photosite, which is independent from how many photosites exist.


So you’re saying that the noise in an image at a given ISO is identical, independent of sensor size? ISO 1600 on a MF, FF, APS-C, 1/1.8” PowerShot and iPhone will have the same noise level in the resulting images?

I wonder why anyone would ever bother using a larger sensor?

Sure, total light gathered doesn’t matter.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 11, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> In the context of photography, the term equivalence has a specific definition. Yes, in the sense of a word in the English language, equivalence and equivalent are different parts of speech referring to the same basic definition. But photography has a technical aspect to it, and technical terms like equivalence have a meaning in that context.


In normal parlance, we use it just to mean equivalent angle of view, as in my example where the 50mm on the T31 was “equivalent” to 80mm on FF. That’s the way I normally use it. For us old guys who used to shoot 35mm film, that helps us get our bearings.

But in discussions here, meanings are all over the map. The online pages on the topic go on and on and on. Sure there is a scientific basis for all these things. Exposures are compared such that f/8 is not equivalent to f/8, but maybe f/13.63 or something.

And even equivalent angle of view becomes swampy when you talk about 3:2 FF and crop, 4:3 Fuji medium format, and 16:9 video.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 11, 2021)

stevelee said:


> In normal parlance, we use it just to mean equivalent angle of view, as in my example where the 50mm on the T31 was “equivalent” to 80mm on FF. That’s the way I normally use it. For us old guys who used to shoot 35mm film, that helps us get our bearings.
> 
> But in discussions here, meanings are all over the map. The online pages on the topic go on and on and on. Sure there is a scientific basis for all these things. Exposures are compared such that f/8 is not equivalent to f/8, but maybe f/13.63 or something.
> 
> And even equivalent angle of view becomes swampy when you talk about 3:2 FF and crop, 4:3 Fuji medium format, and 16:9 video.


I did a quick Google and found this article that describes nicely what is the general meaning of equivalence and why it applies to more than just field of view. It's worth a read.








What is equivalence and why should I care?


Equivalence, at its most simple, is a way of comparing different formats (sensor sizes) on a common basis. Sounds straightforward enough, but the concept is still somewhat controversial and not always clearly understood. We thought it was about time we explained - and demonstrated - what...




www.dpreview.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2021)

stevelee said:


> In normal parlance, we use it just to mean equivalent angle of view, as in my example where the 50mm on the T31 was “equivalent” to 80mm on FF. That’s the way I normally use it. For us old guys who used to shoot 35mm film, that helps us get our bearings.
> 
> But in discussions here, meanings are all over the map. The online pages on the topic go on and on and on. Sure there is a scientific basis for all these things. Exposures are compared such that f/8 is not equivalent to f/8, but maybe f/13.63 or something.
> 
> And even equivalent angle of view becomes swampy when you talk about 3:2 FF and crop, 4:3 Fuji medium format, and 16:9 video.


I get that. My point is that calling things equivalent is not the same as the defined concept of equivalence.

In normal parlance, ‘psychotic’ is used to mean ‘crazy’, but in medical terminology it has a specific meaning, and can be distinguished from other forms of mental illness in defined ways including semantic vs. syntactic language disturbances. The same is true in most fields. Terminology matters.

A good primer on photographic equivalence is here:


Equivalence


----------



## stevelee (Sep 11, 2021)

As I said, I’ve read all that stuff. I stand by my conclusions from it.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Sep 11, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I get that. My point is that calling things equivalent is not the same as the defined concept of equivalence.
> 
> In normal parlance, ‘psychotic’ is used to mean ‘crazy’, but in medical terminology it has a specific meaning, and can be distinguished from other forms of mental illness in defined ways including semantic vs. syntactic language disturbances. The same is true in most fields. Terminology matters.
> 
> ...


Neither JohnOnTheNet nor I mentioned photographic "equivalence", either in his original post or in my response to it. It is true that I used the word "equivalent" in my response, but I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to equivalence between statements.

While it is certainly possible that the original posting about the lens being "brighter" could have referred to the barrel's paint color, as neuroanatomist suggested, I have never heard "bright" used to describe either DOF or sensor noise.

In his original post, JohnOnTheNet did not say that f/8 on FF was "equivalent" to f/5.6 on crop. He said it was "brighter". In his followup post (#194) he clarified that he was talking about the amount of light on the sensor. It's right there in the second sentence.

It is disingenuous to use my original response to hijack this thread into an unrelated direction under the banner of "equivalence", and then cry foul and claim I am being "literal" when you get called out for your BS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Neither JohnOnTheNet nor I mentioned photographic "equivalence", either in his original post or in my response to it. It is true that I used the word "equivalent" in my response, but I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to equivalence between statements.
> 
> While it is certainly possible that the original posting about the lens being "brighter" could have referred to the barrel's paint color, as neuroanatomist suggested, I have never heard "bright" used to describe either DOF or sensor noise.
> 
> ...


He didn’t need to use the word equivalence. When he mentioned sensor sizes, it was implied. When he clarified in post #194, it became manifestly obvious that was his context:



JohnOnTheNet said:


> The point being that aperture is a ratio, not a size. Canon APSC is less than half the area of full frame, so one stop smaller aperture on full frame allows more than twice the light onto the sensor and consequently halves the effective ISO (noise.)


He specifically mentions that his use of ‘brighter’ meant more total light falling on the sensor, which results in less image noise.

The only BS here is your inability to admit that you misinterpreted his original point. He said nothing about exposure, you just assumed that’s what he meant. You were wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2021)

stevelee said:


> As I said, I’ve read all that stuff. I stand by my conclusions from it.


That’s your prerogative. Fortunately, standing by your conclusion is harmless. I wish that could be said for the anti-vaccine crowd standing by theirs (as those around them succumb and/or they treat themselves with horse dewormer).


----------



## stevelee (Sep 12, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s your prerogative. Fortunately, standing by your conclusion is harmless. I wish that could be said for the anti-vaccine crowd standing by theirs (as those around them succumb and/or they treat themselves with horse dewormer).


I realize all that other stuff. I just find it irrelevant for any practical purposes of mine. Total light on the sensor can be of interest in a technical discussion, but I’m not using it to set my exposure. No matter how you set everything, a 50mm lens is not going to become an 80mm lens. So, yes, my opinion is harmless to me and everybody else. It is not like I’m asking people to sacrifice their children or anything.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 12, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you’re saying that the noise in an image at a given ISO is identical, independent of sensor size? ISO 1600 on a MF, FF, APS-C, 1/1.8” PowerShot and iPhone will have the same noise level in the resulting images?
> 
> I wonder why anyone would ever bother using a larger sensor?
> 
> Sure, total light gathered doesn’t matter.


The Clarkvision website goes into a great deal of detail as to what the main factor is in producing "noise." He demonstrates that it is possible to have the same amount of noise in images from different size sensors. The most important determining factor is the size of the lens opening - not the f-stop, not the sensor size. I think this is where the confusion starts. F/8 is f/8 when it comes to the exposure of the photo with different size sensors, but the size of the lens opening is NOT the same. The lens set to f/8 on the camera with the larger sensor will have a larger lens opening than a crop sensor camera set to f/8. Or as Neuro has pointed out, it gathers more light. To equalize the amount of light with a smaller sensor, one would need to use a considerably smaller number f-stop (often an f-number smaller than the lens is capable of) and/or a considerably longer exposure time.

From Clarkvision's website (when he says "smaller camera" and "larger camera" he is describing the size of the sensor):

*"But constant f-ratio is NOT the same amount of light. This is a common misunderstanding of f-ratios. Constant f-ratio means constant light density in the focal plane (e.g. photons [per square micron). With constant f-ratio, as focal length increases, the lens aperture diameter increases and the lens collects MORE light from the subject* This means the smaller camera had a smaller lens that collected less total light than the larger camera, as the both used the same f-ratio.

In this series of comparisons, I'll describe the true reasons for the differences in noise. The true differences in apparent noise are due to the amount of light collected by each camera. The common internet cited reason for the larger sensor camera is that the sensor is responsible. No, it is the lens. The sensor is just a receptacle to hold the photoelectrons."


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 12, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I realize all that other stuff. I just find it irrelevant for any practical purposes of mine. Total light on the sensor can be of interest in a technical discussion, but I’m not using it to set my exposure. No matter how you set everything, a 50mm lens is not going to become an 80mm lens. So, yes, my opinion is harmless to me and everybody else. It is not like I’m asking people to sacrifice their children or anything.


Despite my post above, I find all the talk of equivalence and noise to be mostly irrelevant also. You cannot go onto a M4/3rds forum, for example, and say anything positive about a M4/3rds camera or lens with the equivalence police chastising you for your stupidity for not realizing how inferior your M4/3rds products are due to the increased noise. Since I am not a pixel peeper and do not shoot nightime scenes at concerts or other dimly lit locations, the amount of noise on my crop cameras is not an issue. I just know that I can set my FF Nikon to shoot maximum ISO of 12800 or even 25600, and my crop Olympus camera is set to maximum ISO to 3200 or 6400. And then I can forget all about equivalence!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I just find it irrelevant for any practical purposes of mine. Total light on the sensor can be of interest in a technical discussion, but I’m not using it to set my exposure.


You’re right, there’s not much practical relevance. If you’re holding a camera and taking a picture, why would you care what would happen if your camera had a different size sensor. Ok, so there’s crop mode on some cameras, but why would you want to make a full and crop mode picture look the same?

On the other hand, when someone makes a statement that is wrong, that statement should be refuted by factual information. The appropriate response to someone claiming that vaccines don’t work is evidence that they do, and the appropriate response to someone claiming that total light gathered is meaningless for photography is an explanation that involves equivalence.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Despite my post above, I find all the talk of equivalence and noise to be mostly irrelevant also. You cannot go onto a M4/3rds forum, for example, and say anything positive about a M4/3rds camera or lens with the equivalence police chastising you for your stupidity for not realizing how inferior your M4/3rds products are due to the increased noise. Since I am not a pixel peeper and do not shoot nightime scenes at concerts or other dimly lit locations, the amount of noise on my crop cameras is not an issue. I just know that I can set my FF Nikon to shoot maximum ISO of 12800 or even 25600, and my crop Olympus camera is set to maximum ISO to 3200 or 6400. And then I can forget all about equivalence!


Good approach. That’s the practical application, and similarly I use a lower ISO ‘cap’ for my APS-C cameras.

FF cameras offer more exposure-related choices than APS-C, which in turn offer more exposure-related choices than m4/3. Those are facts. But that doesn’t mean m4/3 are inferior, they’re just offering different compromises. I’ve run across some who tout the superiority of FF over APS-C or m4/3, and have on occasion thrown their reasons back at them as to why they don’t shoot medium format instead of FF…then I get to watch them flounder as they try to explain how the compromises they chose are somehow better than the compromises chosen by those shooting with APS-C or m4/3.

The best camera is the one in your hands.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 12, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Good approach. That’s the practical application, and similarly I use a lower ISO ‘cap’ for my APS-C cameras.
> 
> FF cameras offer more exposure-related choices than APS-C, which in turn offer more exposure-related choices than m4/3. Those are facts. But that doesn’t mean m4/3 are inferior, they’re just offering different compromises. I’ve run across some who tout the superiority of FF over APS-C or m4/3, and have on occasion thrown their reasons back at them as to why they don’t shoot medium format instead of FF…then I get to watch them flounder as they try to explain how the compromises they chose are somehow better than the compromises chosen by those shooting with APS-C or m4/3.
> 
> The best camera is the one in your hands.


I don’t have much occasion to use my T3i any more, so I am shooting either FF or so-called 1” sensor. (And currently not traveling, I don’t use the 1”, either.) Whatever the theory, I know the practical ISO limits for my cameras from experience. There are cameras in each class that have better or worse responses at those settings, so it is not 100% a matter of theory. If I go outside those limits, I do it as a compromise with other settings. And I have already decided that for me, medium format is the step to take if I ever decide to spend over $4,000 on another camera body. So far I am not convinced that it would make enough difference for what I do or change what I shoot enough if I had better equipment.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 12, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I don’t have much occasion to use my T3i any more, so I am shooting either FF or so-called 1” sensor. (And currently not traveling, I don’t use the 1”, either.) Whatever the theory, I know the practical ISO limits for my cameras from experience. There are cameras in each class that have better or worse responses at those settings, so it is not 100% a matter of theory. If I go outside those limits, I do it as a compromise with other settings. And I have already decided that for me, medium format is the step to take if I ever decide to spend over $4,000 on another camera body. So far I am not convinced that it would make enough difference for what I do or change what I shoot enough if I had better equipment.


Very true, we learn from experience what we can do with our equipment, and I always take serious notice of people (whom I trust) who speak from first hand practical experience. And you can learn successfully without any knowledge of theory. We can also use theory to learn from. For example, a 400mm f/5.6, a 500mm f/7.1 and an 800mm f/11 have the same entrance pupil (effective diameter of the front element in practice of 71-72mm). If you take a photo of a duck from the same distance, all three lenses spread the same number of photons over the duck, and the all produce the same signal/noise in the image of the duck, despite the difference in f-numbers. So, you can increase the iso with the narrower lenses to compensate for the reduced apertures without making the images noisier when light is limiting. Those who have used these lenses know from experience that you can use higher iso with the f/11 lenses successfully as do those who don't have the lenses but know they are equivalent. Unfortunately, there are those who have neither used them nor know the theory and write them off as being unusable drinking straw lenses. It's the lack of first hand experience combined with the lack of theoretical knowledge that leads to many of the repeated myths that need to be answered.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 12, 2021)

In late 2019 I was on a cruise ship leaving Venice as it got dark. I stood on my stateroom’s balcony and shot pictures with my G5X II. Most shots were taken at ISO 3200, as I recall, maybe some at 6400. The results were amazing. Small camera, moving ship, mostly in the dark, high ISO, what could go wrong?

Of course the inky sky was noisy. But there was no detail in the sky, so noise reduction was not a problem: just apply enough so it wasn’t annoying, but not enough that it looked artificial. For the 13” x 19” prints I made, it probably didn’t matter, since the sky was in gamut territory with very little subtlety on that printer. The lighted parts of the scene, Doge’s Palace, St. Mark’s, tower, etc., looked tack sharp.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 12, 2021)

stevelee said:


> In late 2019 I was on a cruise ship leaving Venice as it got dark. I stood on my stateroom’s balcony and shot pictures with my G5X II. Most shots were taken at ISO 3200, as I recall, maybe some at 6400. The results were amazing. Small camera, moving ship, mostly in the dark, high ISO, what could go wrong?
> 
> Of course the inky sky was noisy. But there was no detail in the sky, so noise reduction was not a problem: just apply enough so it wasn’t annoying, but not enough that it looked artificial. For the 13” x 19” prints I made, it probably didn’t matter, since the sky was in gamut territory with very little subtlety on that printer. The lighted parts of the scene, Doge’s Palace, St. Mark’s, tower, etc., looked tack sharp.


I use a 1" sensor camera occasionally for general purpose and for travel when I can't take a DSLR or FF ILC. At the long end, it has a 220mm f/4 lens. That is equivalent to a 400mm f/7.3 lens so it should perform in terms in noise, dof etc as about a 0.25 stop wider than the 400 f/8.


----------



## AJ (Sep 13, 2021)

I guess I'm a bit late to the party. Anyhoo...
I wonder if we'll see this lens as a kit lens bundled with a camera, like the 75-300 of yesteryear. Say the RP plus 24-105/4-7.1 plus 100-400/5.6-8 combo deal. If so, wonder how much of extra you'll pay. Should be less than 649 USD?


----------



## tigers media (Sep 13, 2021)

xwxw said:


> I did a size comparison to the latest 70-300 EF. It's probably 1-2cm longer than the EF. I think we could expect similar optical performance.
> View attachment 200084


cheers for that quite handy that's the lens i want to replace with the 100-400 so very cool as i know it will fit no issues in my new bag


----------



## SnowMiku (Sep 13, 2021)

f/[email protected] seems a bit slow when the old EF 70-300 IS II is f/[email protected] But it is good to finally see a consumer 400mm, I wish they released a consumer zoom 400mm on EF.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 14, 2021)

AlanF said:


> As you are a physicist, you might be interested in that I calculated the MTF values of the different slow lenses based on the Airy diffraction and the sensor MTFs and posted here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/ (I didn't allow for lens aberrations or the Bayer filter).
> It's true that you see more advantage with lower resolution sensors of increasing focal length at expense of f-number. I found from actual measurements of putting the 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm and R5 that the resolution increased by ~40% on going from 500mm f/7.1 to 1000mm f/14.


Sorry for my delayed reply (I had to work on quantum simulation topics as a journalist). Very interesting, I missed your diffraction blur related threads. I love geek threads, if they are connected with optics and sensor tech. Thank you!


----------



## AlP (Sep 14, 2021)

Technical specifications: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mn2FkSWSIFXquO67IwzxBYFqYTw_5TsI/view


----------



## xwxw (Sep 14, 2021)

xwxw said:


> I did a size comparison to the latest 70-300 EF. It's probably 1-2cm longer than the EF. I think we could expect similar optical performance.



My guess was right. It's 19mm longer than the 70-300 II and about 10% lighter.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 14, 2021)

xwxw said:


> My guess was right. It's 19mm longer than the 70-300 II and about 10% lighter.


including the EF-RF adapter?


----------



## xwxw (Sep 14, 2021)

The adaptor is 20mm. So it is a wash if you factor in.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 15, 2021)

xwxw said:


> The adaptor is 20mm. So it is a wash if you factor in.


But the weight difference increases when you factor in the adapter.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 19, 2021)

An RF 100-400mm appeared on the website of my favourite on-line dealer. It is now registering as being dispatched to me. Watch this space.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2021)

AlanF said:


> An RF 100-400mm appeared on the website of my favourite on-line dealer. It is now registering as being dispatched to me. Watch this space.


Curious about when you'd use the 100-400 over the 100-500L.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 19, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Curious about when you'd use the 100-400 over the 100-500L.


It's primarily going to be for my wife who finds the 100-400mm II too heavy, and I'll get her an R body so we can travel with two R bodies and two telephoto lenses for mutual back up in case any one fails. In addition, I might take it out on hikes to carry less weight if the IQ is good enough. I'll test it when it arrives st the end of the week and report back as usual. The older I get, the more I need lenses to be light.


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 19, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I'll test it when it arrives st the end of the week and report back as usual.


I am looking forward to Your test as You are one of the most trustworthy user on this forum.
I don't use tele lenses a lot but this lens with it's low price is very intersting.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 26, 2021)

Performance of the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens looks quite disappointing when compared to the older EF mount Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens.

Price is fairly similar, Sigma lens quality much higher, and does not use molded plastic aspherical lens element like the Canon lens.

The website www.the-digital-picture.com has added the Rf 100-400mm lens to its lens image comparison tool, and the Sigma is clearly sharper wide open at f/6.3 than the RF Canon lens wide open at f/8, see comparison here.

It would be great to see someone do side by side image comparisons of real world subject matter such as birds, to see how these differences play out in the field.


----------



## SnowMiku (Oct 26, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Performance of the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens looks quite disappointing when compared to the older EF mount Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens.
> 
> Price is fairly similar, Sigma lens quality much higher, and does not use molded plastic aspherical lens element like the Canon lens.
> 
> ...


To be fair the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM weighs only 635g compared to the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C which is 1160g. I agree it would be interesting to see real world comparisons.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 26, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> To be fair the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM weighs only 635g compared to the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C which is 1160g. I agree it would be interesting to see real world comparisons.


That's a fair point, the weight with lens hood would be a bit heavier, for a like-for-like comparison, I think it's 680g with a lens hood, but 480g is still quite a decent weight saving. 

This is one Canon lens I really want to like, as it would be very easy to carry around!


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 26, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> [..]The website www.the-digital-picture.com has added the Rf 100-400mm lens to its lens image comparison tool, and the Sigma is clearly sharper wide open at f/6.3 than the RF Canon lens wide open at f/8, see comparison here. [..]


That's really soft, slightly out of focus or both!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 28, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> That's really soft, slightly out of focus or both!


The tests are done with lenses in sharp focus, so what you're seeing is softness.

I tried comparing it to the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens which gives an equivalent of 400mm f/9 and it looks a bit sharper then the APSC lens, see here 

Guessing it's the full frame RF version of that popular APSC lens, with a bit more brightness f/8 vs f/9, otherwise pretty similar, you're not really getting much more optically, but way overpriced at double the price!


----------



## Jethro (Oct 28, 2021)

Readers here might be interested in this thread, where a couple of Forum regulars are posting the results of their first experiences with the lens (ie over the last few days). Those 1st impressions seem very good, taking into account the size and price:

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM: First Impressions


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 28, 2021)

Have a look at the review from Birdshooter7 as well, his reviews always have great pictures to go with them, this one is no differerent.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 28, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Have a look at the review from Birdshooter7 as well, his reviews always have great pictures to go with them, this one is no differerent.


Thanks for the link, it's a great review!


----------



## Dragon (Oct 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> The tests are done with lenses in sharp focus, so what you're seeing is softness.
> 
> I tried comparing it to the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens which gives an equivalent of 400mm f/9 and it looks a bit sharper then the APSC lens, see here
> 
> Guessing it's the full frame RF version of that popular APSC lens, with a bit more brightness f/8 vs f/9, otherwise pretty similar, you're not really getting much more optically, but way overpriced at double the price!


Hard to see that it is really any sharper than the the 55-250 when you take sampling density into account. Equivalent FF lenses will always be more expensive simply because they have bigger glass elements. One of the benefits I have found with nearly all the RF lenses is that focus is very fast and noticeably more accurately than the earlier lenses. That is important, because an OOF shot with a sharp lens is no better (and possibly worse) that an in focus shot with a slightly soft lens.


----------



## dcm (Oct 28, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> Have a look at the review from Birdshooter7 as well, his reviews always have great pictures to go with them, this one is no differerent.


A good read. A serious bird photographer that shoots both R5 and R6, with the EF 500 f/4, EF 1.4x, and R6 as his primary setup. He sounds pleased with the RF 800 and RF 100-400. Each has body/lens has their use.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Performance of the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens looks quite disappointing when compared to the older EF mount Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens.
> 
> Price is fairly similar, Sigma lens quality much higher, and does not use molded plastic aspherical lens element like the Canon lens.
> 
> ...





LogicExtremist said:


> The tests are done with lenses in sharp focus, so what you're seeing is softness.
> 
> I tried comparing it to the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens which gives an equivalent of 400mm f/9 and it looks a bit sharper then the APSC lens, see here
> 
> Guessing it's the full frame RF version of that popular APSC lens, with a bit more brightness f/8 vs f/9, otherwise pretty similar, you're not really getting much more optically, but way overpriced at double the price!


TDP is one of the very best sites on the web. But, its comparison charts are all over the place. Here is one of my favourite examples: it has the 100-400mm II sharper than the 400mm DO II on the 5DSR, which goes against every site that measures these quantitatively and Canon's own MTFs, and my direct experience with 3 copies of the zoom and 2 of the prime https://www.the-digital-picture.com...LensComp=962&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Put the same lenses on the 7DII, and the prime miraculously becomes sharper than the zoom https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
So, its charts are internally inconsistent.
Just do not draw conclusions from these sites that look at one copy of the lens. The only site that is close to totally reliable is lensrentals which analyses several copies of lenses on an optical bench. My own findings are that the copy I have just got of RF 100-400mm is very close to the EF 100-400mm II, which is why I am keeping it and not returning under the sellers 30 day return policy.
(Opticallimits and lenstip are on the whole pretty reliable).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Note that the 55-250 actually maxes out at about 220mm so it is way short of the stated 250.


That seems unlikely. Sure, manufacturers round the numbers in their favor, so maybe the optical formula is something like 244mm f/5.9 at the long end. But not 220mm. However, keep in mind that focal length is specified with the lens focused at infinity. If a lens exhibits focus breathing (most do), the focal length will be shorter with a subject closer than infinity, and the reduction in focal length is proportional to decreasing subject distance. Cheaper lens designs tend to have more focus breathing. But for example, the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is 100mm at infinity, but only ~67mm when focused at 1:1.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That seems unlikely. Sure, manufacturers round the numbers in their favor, so maybe the optical formula is something like 244mm f/5.9 at the long end. But not 220mm. However, keep in mind that focal length is specified with the lens focused at infinity. If a lens exhibits focus breathing (most do), the focal length will be shorter with a subject closer than infinity, and the reduction in focal length is proportional to decreasing subject distance. Cheaper lens designs tend to have more focus breathing. But for example, the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is 100mm at infinity, but only ~67mm when focused at 1:1.


On retesting, you are correct. I just compared it on a 90D to the EF 100-400 on the R5 and the framing matches closely. Not sure what happened in the previous test I did, but it was clearly in error.


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> TDP is one of the very best sites on the web. But, its comparison charts are all over the place. Here is one of my favourite examples: it has the 100-400mm II sharper than the 400mm DO II on the 5DSR, which goes against every site that measures these quantitatively and Canon's own MTFs, and my direct experience with 3 copies of the zoom and 2 of the prime https://www.the-digital-picture.com...LensComp=962&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> Put the same lenses on the 7DII, and the prime miraculously becomes sharper than the zoom https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> So, its charts are internally inconsistent.
> Just do not draw conclusions from these sites that look at one copy of the lens. The only site that is close to totally reliable is lensrentals which analyses several copies of lenses on an optical bench. My own findings are that the copy I have just got of RF 100-400mm is very close to the EF 100-400mm II, which is why I am keeping it and not returning under the sellers 30 day return policy.
> (Opticallimits and lenstip are on the whole pretty reliable).


I looked a the charts on TDP as well, and I really would be surprised if the lens is as bad as it shows there. I trust your experience far more!

And this is a great example of why people need to try things for themselves. Earlier in the thread, based on these charts, it is suggested that the Sigma is a much better choice. And perhaps it is. But I've had 2 copies of the Sigma lens and they were both very soft at 400mm. Just to be sure that my impressions weere correct, I bought a used EF 70-300 II (non-L). That lens was considerably sharper at 300mm cropped to the same size as the Sigma at 400mm. But again, that's just one persons experience. There's a lot of variation with lenses.


----------



## tigers media (Nov 12, 2021)

just got mine , and used it on a couple days of shooting and the weight and balance is great. Haven't got to edit any files yet but compared to my old ef 70300mm a great step up. and so much better not having to swap adaptors. Using on the RP which focus is pretty average was trying to track some birds and no good but I'm thinking was more the rp limitations then the lens the lens was great in the depth it gave me thru compression effect way better then the old EF variant so a great budget lens and the weight is fantastic in my travel kit . will be getting R6 soon so will have more on the focus side of things soon ill atatch a couple raw files for examples when i get home but so far very happy .


----------



## SnowMiku (Nov 12, 2021)

tigers media said:


> just got mine , and used it on a couple days of shooting and the weight and balance is great. Haven't got to edit any files yet but compared to my old ef 70300mm a great step up. and so much better not having to swap adaptors. Using on the RP which focus is pretty average was trying to track some birds and no good but I'm thinking was more the rp limitations then the lens the lens was great in the depth it gave me thru compression effect way better then the old EF variant so a great budget lens and the weight is fantastic in my travel kit . will be getting R6 soon so will have more on the focus side of things soon ill atatch a couple raw files for examples when i get home but so far very happy .


Which version of the 70-300 do you have? Is it the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 12, 2021)

tigers media said:


> just got mine , and used it on a couple days of shooting and the weight and balance is great. Haven't got to edit any files yet but compared to my old ef 70300mm a great step up. and so much better not having to swap adaptors. Using on the RP which focus is pretty average was trying to track some birds and no good but I'm thinking was more the rp limitations then the lens the lens was great in the depth it gave me thru compression effect way better then the old EF variant so a great budget lens and the weight is fantastic in my travel kit . will be getting R6 soon so will have more on the focus side of things soon ill atatch a couple raw files for examples when i get home but so far very happy .


The AF is great on the R5. The reviews of the RF100-500mm agree that its AF on the R and RP is below par but great on the R5 and R6, so looks the same with the RF 100-440mm.


----------



## tigers media (Nov 12, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> Which version of the 70-300 do you have? Is it the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II?


yes mate thats the one ! ill be moving hat on soon a great lens but am happy with the new RF obviously a lot more cost but looking forward to doing some big pano's with it


----------



## tigers media (Nov 12, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The AF is great on the R5. The reviews of the RF100-500mm agree that its AF on the R and RP is below par but great on the R5 and R6, so looks the same with the RF 100-440mm.


Yeah really excited about finally being able to get my R6 im sure its going to raise the bar a lot for me !


----------



## tigers media (Nov 12, 2021)

Heres some sample raw shots i did last week on break doing a shoot , again camera RP with the RF 100-400mm lens . hope this helps happy to answer any questions if you like ! Sorry i had to reduce the quality and size right down to be able to upload them. hopefully might be some value their.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 12, 2021)

tigers media said:


> Heres some sample raw shots i did last week on break doing a shoot , again camera RP with the RF 100-400mm lens . hope this helps happy to answer any questions if you like ! Sorry i had to reduce the quality and size right down to be able to upload them. hopefully might be some value their.


Is there anywhere else you can upload them and link from there? At that size of 35-45 KB, these images are nowhere near instagram quality, they're compressed so much it's hard to tell anything from them unfortunately! 

Would love to see how they really look!


----------



## tigers media (Nov 12, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Is there anywhere else you can upload them and link from there? At that size of 35-45 KB, these images are nowhere near instagram quality, they're compressed so much it's hard to tell anything from them unfortunately!
> 
> Would love to see how they really look!


yeah i should be able to post them up on a we transfer link maybe that might work ?
try this https://wetransfer.com/downloads/307f72a37a90602409fc24b42bbbf36320211112144007/939c1420bd46511938755fe0c7c05ce320211112144042/2fc4a3


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 12, 2021)

tigers media said:


> yeah i should be able to post them up on a we transfer link maybe that might work ?
> try this https://wetransfer.com/downloads/30...bd46511938755fe0c7c05ce320211112144042/2fc4a3


Thanks for that, much appreciated! 

I downloaded the images, and I noticed they're not RAW but JPEG images. Did you mean earliuer that these are the RAW images that you took and then processed to create the jpegs? Just so I know what I'm looking at, that's all. 

I ran the jpegs of the lighthouse and seagull through DxO 5 and managed to get some more detail from the images. The end results looked pretty good, even zoomed in to 100%.

I'm curious, were these photos taken handheld? 

Also, for some reason there wasn't any ISO information on the images, so it's hard to guess what the lighting was like. I had trouble recovering the shadows any further in the foreground beneath the lighthouse.


----------



## tigers media (Nov 13, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Thanks for that, much appreciated!
> 
> I downloaded the images, and I noticed they're not RAW but JPEG images. Did you mean earliuer that these are the RAW images that you took and then processed to create the jpegs? Just so I know what I'm looking at, that's all.
> 
> ...


----------



## tigers media (Nov 13, 2021)

Hi mate , yeah sorry when i tried to post them the first time i changed to jpeg to get smaller files but obviously couldn't upload jpegs to large even at 110kb hence the link but i forgot to go and grab the raws again my bad. no editing done on these I'm still a month or two away form making the video for my channel . stay tuned. Seagull was handheld stab on the rp turned on i think the others are tripod tho like waves and lighthouse as i did focus stack for the foreground in lighthouse for when i edit it , lighthouse was close to sunset so maybe 400-800 I'm guessing and waves also would be the rock in ocean would be 100 iso and handheld for that .
hope this helps. 
if you want the raw files i can send you another link tonight when i get home form work just let me know happy to help


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 13, 2021)

tigers media said:


> Hi mate , yeah sorry when i tried to post them the first time i changed to jpeg to get smaller files but obviously couldn't upload jpegs to large even at 110kb hence the link but i forgot to go and grab the raws again my bad. no editing done on these I'm still a month or two away form making the video for my channel . stay tuned. Seagull was handheld stab on the rp turned on i think the others are tripod tho like waves and lighthouse as i did focus stack for the foreground in lighthouse for when i edit it , lighthouse was close to sunset so maybe 400-800 I'm guessing and waves also would be the rock in ocean would be 100 iso and handheld for that .
> hope this helps.
> if you want the raw files i can send you another link tonight when i get home form work just let me know happy to help


No problem, would be great to see the RAW images, please post them up when you have time. Thanks for the explanation, that's helpful. Looking forward to the video, let us all know when it's up!


----------



## tigers media (Nov 13, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> No problem, would be great to see the RAW images, please post them up when you have time. Thanks for the explanation, that's helpful. Looking forward to the video, let us all know when it's up!


https://we.tl/t-zFhkefpSP6  heres the raws copy


----------



## SnowMiku (Nov 14, 2021)

It would be interesting to see how the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM compares to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM if anyone has both? I wonder if the L version cropped to 400mm would be as sharp?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 14, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> It would be interesting to see how the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM compares to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM if anyone has both? I wonder if the L version cropped to 400mm would be as sharp?


The RF 100-400mm Is very close to the sharpness of the EF 100-400mm II. No way would the 300mm cropped be as sharp.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 14, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> It would be interesting to see how the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM compares to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM if anyone has both? I wonder if the L version cropped to 400mm would be as sharp?


If you look at 400 vs 420 (with extender), then I would say the crop will be close. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2 . The 70-300L is very sharp at 300, but awesome between 150 and 250. The new lens is more in the vein of the 70-300 IS II albeit the latter is a full stop faster at 300.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> If you look at 400 vs 420 (with extender), then I would say the crop will be close. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2 . The 70-300L is very sharp at 300, but awesome between 150 and 250. The new lens is more in the vein of the 70-300 IS II albeit the latter is a full stop faster at 300.


It can be very misleading trying to compare lenses on the TDP site. One example I have pointed out here many times is that he has the EF 100-400mm II sharper than the EF 400mm II on the 5DSR, which is nonsense. Miraculously, dial in the 7DII on the site, and the 400mm prime is sharper than the zoom. The only sites that are reliable are Lensrentals when it tests because it does many copies of each, or those that actually measure under controlled conditions, like opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc, but they only measure one copy and there can be considerable copy variation.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 14, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It can be very misleading trying to compare lenses on the TDP site. One example I have pointed out here many times is that he has the EF 100-400mm II sharper than the EF 400mm II on the 5DSR, which is nonsense. Miraculously, dial in the 7DII on the site, and the 400mm prime is sharper than the zoom. The only sites that are reliable are Lensrentals when it tests because it does many copies of each, or those that actually measure under controlled conditions, like opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc, but they only measure one copy and there can be considerable copy variation.


If you think the 100-400 looks sharper than the 400 in this comparison https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 , then possibly you should see an optometrist. Certainly the 400 is a bit sharper at f/4 than f/2.8 but it is always sharper than the 100-400 at 400. The downside of that comparison is that both lenses are good enough that the chart doesn't offer much differential information. The 7D2 test effective rescales the chart, so you can better see the differences even though the 5DSr and 7D2 have similar pixel pitch. The tests on TDP are clearly one copy tests, but if a copy appears bad, they often test a second copy for verification. Clearly not as rigorous as Roger's 10 lens runs, but still the best comparison over time of a wide group of lenses. Roger only tests high runners and sometimes lenses he fancies. TDP uses DPP to process canon raws and the biggest variable I have seen is the way DPP behaves with different bodies since it seems to try to emulate what the camera does internally and that varies substantially with different AA filters on different sensors. DPP often does not agree with ACR or DXO PhotoLab on sharpness. The difference is not huge, but certainly something to be aware of. This is one of the most noticeable examples https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1078&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3. The 80D and the M5 have essentially the same sensor, but the AAF is different and DPP does some weird stuff with the M5. The M5 is much sharper when processed through ACR. There is also the matter of sharpness vs focus distance. Roger's tests are effectively at infinity focus and TDP's tests are at the distance the chart fills the frame, so closer for wide lenses than for Tele lenses, but always much closer than infinity. I find the best approach is to read as many reviews as possible, because different reviewers tend to pick up on different pluses and minuses of lens behavior, such as field curvature, which can be a problem or used to advantage depending on your perspective. BTW, my comments on the 70-300L were not exclusive to TDP. I have the lens and it is one in a very short list that holds up to the sensor in the 90D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> If you think the 100-400 looks sharper than the 400 in this comparison https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 , then possibly you should see an optometrist. Certainly the 400 is a bit sharper at f/4 than f/2.8 but it is always sharper than the 100-400 at 400.


From prior posts, @AlanF is talking about the 100-400 II vs the 400/4 *DO* II.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> If you think the 100-400 looks sharper than the 400 in this comparison https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 , then possibly you should see an optometrist. Certainly the 400 is a bit sharper at f/4 than f/2.8 but it is always sharper than the 100-400 at 400. The downside of that comparison is that both lenses are good enough that the chart doesn't offer much differential information. The 7D2 test effective rescales the chart, so you can better see the differences even though the 5DSr and 7D2 have similar pixel pitch. The tests on TDP are clearly one copy tests, but if a copy appears bad, they often test a second copy for verification. Clearly not as rigorous as Roger's 10 lens runs, but still the best comparison over time of a wide group of lenses. Roger only tests high runners and sometimes lenses he fancies. TDP uses DPP to process canon raws and the biggest variable I have seen is the way DPP behaves with different bodies since it seems to try to emulate what the camera does internally and that varies substantially with different AA filters on different sensors. DPP often does not agree with ACR or DXO PhotoLab on sharpness. The difference is not huge, but certainly something to be aware of. This is one of the most noticeable examples https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1078&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3. The 80D and the M5 have essentially the same sensor, but the AAF is different and DPP does some weird stuff with the M5. The M5 is much sharper when processed through ACR. There is also the matter of sharpness vs focus distance. Roger's tests are effectively at infinity focus and TDP's tests are at the distance the chart fills the frame, so closer for wide lenses than for Tele lenses, but always much closer than infinity. I find the best approach is to read as many reviews as possible, because different reviewers tend to pick up on different pluses and minuses of lens behavior, such as field curvature, which can be a problem or used to advantage depending on your perspective. BTW, my comments on the 70-300L were not exclusive to TDP. I have the lens and it is one in a very short list that holds up to the sensor in the 90D.


There is no need for you to be rude, especially as you got it wrong. You are the one who needs to see see the optometrist. I wrote EF 100-400mm II, and you need to get some glasses through which you can see and resolve II, as neuro has just noted.


AlanF said:


> It can be very misleading trying to compare lenses on the TDP site. One example I have pointed out here many times is that he has the EF 100-400mm II sharper than the EF 400mm II on the 5DSR, which is nonsense. Miraculously, dial in the 7DII on the site, and the 400mm prime is sharper than the zoom. The only sites that are reliable are Lensrentals when it tests because it does many copies of each, or those that actually measure under controlled conditions, like opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc, but they only measure one copy and there can be considerable copy variation.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> From prior posts, @AlanF is talking about the 100-400 II vs the 400/4 *DO* II.


Pretty minor difference for a big fuss. Looks like the 400/4 DO II may have been ever so slightly OOF in the 5DSR shots as it cleans up nicely at f/5.6. When looking at TDP samples, I always look at all the cameras used as often the tests are done at different times with a different sample and certainly with a different attempt at optimizing manual focus. When the glass is as good as any of the lenses in this discussion, you are only going to notice any significant difference in the real world if you have a TC attached to the lens and that result is there to see as well and even then, the 100-400 holds up remarkably well. The 400/4 DO II clearly likes to be stopped down one click, which kind of negates the premium price. The 100-400 L II is a remarkable lens but it didn't have enough resolution with TCs added for some of my hummingbird shots, so I got an 800L and, yes, at 800 it is much sharper. It is even darn good at 1120, but just a bit soft at 1600, and that is to some degree the price of f/11 (i.e. diffraction). All else being equal, a large objective lens is beneficial, but rarely are things equal in lens land, so seeing is believing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> …so seeing is believing.


Personally I am skeptical after seeing n=1 (that is @AlanF‘s main point), although some people are convinced by limited data or even no data.

If you’ve followed Roger Cicala’s blog (Lensrentals), he has clearly shown that copy variation is present even with high-end lenses. Bryan/TDP tests one copy. With one of the EF-M lenses, my results were significantly better than those on his ISO 12233-type chart – based on that, he tested a second copy of the lens that turned out to be much better.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> ee





neuroanatomist said:


> Personally I am skeptical after seeing n=1 (that is @AlanF‘s main point), although some people are convinced by limited data or even no data.
> 
> If you’ve followed Roger Cicala’s blog (Lensrentals), he has clearly shown that copy variation is present even with high-end lenses. Bryan/TDP tests one copy. With one of the EF-M lenses, my results were significantly better than those on his ISO 12233-type chart – based on that, he tested a second copy of the lens that turned out to be much better.


Yes, I pointed out in my initial response that TDP is showing one copy tests and if Bryan sees something fishy, he will try to test another copy. By "seeing is believing" I was not referring to looking at charts, but rather looking at the results you are able to achieve. All of the lenses in this discussion are excellent and even a mediocre copy will produce awesome images in the right hands.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Yes, I pointed out in my initial response that TDP is showing one copy tests and if Bryan sees something fishy, he will try to test another copy. By "seeing is believing" I was not referring to looking at charts, but rather looking at the results you are able to achieve. All of the lenses in this discussion are excellent and even a mediocre copy will produce awesome images in the right hands.


These telephoto lenses are used by birders for distant birds and birds in flight, which usually require cropping the images. A mediocre lens gives lousy images under heavy cropping. I once had a poor copy of the original EF 100-400mm, which never gave me a sufficiently sharp cropped image, but was passable when the subject filled the frame. That all changed when I got first a decent prime, then the 100-400mm II, and now the RF 100-500 and RF 100-400mm. And my hands didn't suddenly become right after offloading the original EF 100-400mm. A lens that is really sharp in the centre makes all the difference to what you can do.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> The 400/4 DO II clearly likes to be stopped down one click, which kind of negates the premium price. The 100-400 L II is a remarkable lens but it didn't have enough resolution with TCs added for some of my hummingbird shots, so I got an 800L and, yes, at 800 it is much sharper. It is even darn good at 1120, but just a bit soft at 1600, and that is to some degree the price of f/11 (i.e. diffraction). All else being equal, a large objective lens is beneficial, but rarely are things equal in lens land, so seeing is believing.


Why didn't you get the EF 600mm II instead? TDP shows it to be sharper at 840mm with the 1.4xTC at f/5.6 than the native EF 800mm, and it's cheaper and lighter.








Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Why didn't you get the EF 600mm II instead? TDP shows it to be sharper at 840mm with the 1.4xTC at f/5.6 than the native EF 800mm, and it's cheaper and lighter.


I’ve been very pleased with that combo.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 15, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Why didn't you get the EF 600mm II instead? TDP shows it to be sharper at 840mm with the 1.4xTC at f/5.6 than the native EF 800mm, and it's cheaper and lighter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A half stop fixes the minor difference at 800/840 and at 1120/1200 the two are a push and then the 800 will go to 1600 which is remarkably sharp at f/14-f/16. In the end, I found a good price on a mint 800 and that sealed the deal. Hummingbirds need all the magnification you can get wen they live in a tree about 60 ft from where you can plant the camera . Here is a 100% crop at 1600mm f/13 from a 90D. Bear in mind that is an 85 MP FF equivalent sensor. The bird is about 35 feet from the camera.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> A half stop fixes the minor difference at 800/840 and at 1120/1200 the two are a push and then the 800 will go to 1600 which is remarkably sharp at f/14-f/16. In the end, I found a good deal on a mint 800 and that sealed the deal. Hummingbirds need all the magnification you can get wen they live in a tree about 60 ft from where you can plant the camera . Here is a 100% crop at 1600mm f/13 from a 90D. Bear in mind that is an 85 MP FF equivalent sensor. The bird is about 35 feet from the camera.
> 
> 
> View attachment 201209


Not bad at all. Better still, you could trade in the 800/5.6 for a 1200/5.6.


----------



## PCM-madison (Nov 16, 2021)

I ordered the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM to use with my RP for travel/hiking/backpacking. I was a little worried about initial reports of poor autofocus for this combination, and I have not yet had time for extensive testing. However, with a challenging subject, our black cat Roy under indoor lighting at night, autofocus worked great at 100mm and 200mm (the interior space does not allow for testing 400mm). I will report back when I used it under more varied conditions. Roy - 100mm, F5.6, 1/50, iso 12800 (image is cropped and compressed to allow upload to this site)


----------



## Jethro (Nov 16, 2021)

My God - light falls into him, and never comes out - a furry black hole!


----------



## PCM-madison (Nov 27, 2021)

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I recently purchased the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM to use with my RP for travel/hiking/backpacking. When size and weight are less of a concern, my go-to wildlife set up is a 5Ds R + EF 400mm F4 DO ii. Today I decided to shoot them side-by-side at 400mm to see what I am getting and/or giving up when using the RP + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM. It was an overcast day so light was definitely limiting. Smaller size and lower weight are obviously a big plus for the RP combo as are the added flexibility of 100-399mm being available. Shooting fixed subjects, I also found the RP + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM to be a full stop more hand-holdable for me with sharp results at 1/60 sec and soft but acceptable results at 1/30 sec vs. needing 1/125 sec for sharp results with the 5Ds R + EF 400mm F4 DO ii. When cropping for distant subjects, the 5Ds R + EF 400mm F4 DO ii has the edge in detail from both higher resolution and ability to use lower iso. The background blur difference was also noticeable for F4 vs F8, but some real world situations call for F8. In the example showing Canada geese, focus is on the front goose and the second goose is out of focus at F4 not F8 so if my goal were to actually photograph the pair of geese, I would have used F8 with either lens. The 5Ds R + EF 400mm F4 DO ii also had faster autofocus than the RP + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM. That being said, the RP + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM autofocus was plenty good enough for shooting wildlife including birds in flight. Photos are pairs of similar crops of distant subjects from today.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 27, 2021)

I've just made an interesting discovery, looking at the test results from the following review, this is essentially a RF 400mm f/11 lens when used at the long end, the shorter focal lengths and apertures are just a bonus.

In Canon's budget long telephoto range, we really have a zoom that operates optimally at 400m f/11 and primes that are fixed at 600mm f/11 and 800 f/11.

See extract from review below:









Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM review


A compact and affordable super-telephoto zoom for Canon EOS R-series cameras




www.digitalcameraworld.com





_*"Sharpness:*

The sharpness scores in the two graphs below are produced by shooting a monochrome test chart covered in multiple sharp boundaries between black and white. This image is then assessed by specialist software, with the extent of blur on the contrast boundaries at the centre, mid and edges of the image converted into a spatial frequency value to determine how many line widths per picture height the lens is capable of resolving. A higher spatial frequency corresponds to a greater number of finer lines over a given distance that the lens can resolve - this number is the sharpness score._













_Center sharpness is very good at all focal lengths and apertures, apart from a small blip wide open at 400mm. Corner sharpness is much less convincing, however, with the lens being noticeably softer regardless of focal length or aperture."_


Using the TDP test tool, we can conform this when comparing the image at f/8 vs f/11

Use the larger, magnified view of the centre sharpness in the lower half of the test tool. The difference is discernible, but not drastically, probably because the test is done using the R5, which is well into diffraction territory at f/8, and more affected by diffraction at f/11, which iI suspect is offsetting a lot of the sharpness gains from stopping down the aperture.









Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> I've just made an interesting discovery, looking at the test results from the following review, this is essentially a RF 400mm f/11 lens when used at the long end, the shorter focal lengths and apertures are just a bonus.
> 
> In Canon's budget long telephoto range, we really have a zoom that operates optimally at 400m f/11 and primes that are fixed at 600mm f/11 and 800 f/11.
> 
> ...


1. Don't waste your time making fine comparisons on the TDP site's image tool because some are no more than rough guides. There are glaring examples of where they are really misleading. Others are spot on, but you don't which.
2. What distances were the MTF measurements made at? Even if the measurements are done well, and there is not copy variation of the lenses, the MTF values can vary greatly with distance. Some lenses are optimised for infinity, some for medium distances, and others close up. I am willing to bet that the digital camera world's were not done at distances for which a 400mm lens is typically used at. 

I test my wild-life lenses at close up distances of 1-3m, for where I use them for dragonflies and butterflies etc, which is shorter than typical for Imatest used as your example, and 20m, for birding etc, which is far further than used for Imatesting of MTFs. For example, the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-500mm, are excellent at very close up, and significantly better than the EF 100-400mm II. At 20m, they all perform very well. The EF 100-400mm II + 2xTC is OK at longer distances but much weaker close up whereas the 100-500mm II with RF 2x is outstanding close up and at 20m. The Nikon lenses like the 500PF and 200-500mm are optimised for shorter distances.

I'll check out the RF 100-400mm at f/8 and f/11 at 20m on the R5 and R6 to see how they compare and report back later.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 1. Don't waste your time making fine comparisons on the TDP site's image tool because some are no more than rough guides. There are glaring examples of where they are really misleading. Others are spot on, but you don't which.
> 2. What distances were the MTF measurements made at? Even if the measurements are done well, and there is not copy variation of the lenses, the MTF values can vary greatly with distance. Some lenses are optimised for infinity, some for medium distances, and others close up. I am willing to bet that the digital camera world's were not done at distances for which a 400mm lens is typically used at.
> 
> I test my wild-life lenses at close up distances of 1-3m, for where I use them for dragonflies and butterflies etc, which is shorter than typical for Imatest used as your example, and 20m, for birding etc, which is far further than used for Imatesting of MTFs. For example, the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-500mm, are excellent at very close up, and significantly better than the EF 100-400mm II. At 20m, they all perform very well. The EF 100-400mm II + 2xTC is OK at longer distances but much weaker close up whereas the 100-500mm II with RF 2x is outstanding close up and at 20m. The Nikon lenses like the 500PF and 200-500mm are optimised for shorter distances.
> ...



Thanks for sharing your observations that the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-500mm are excellent very close up, and much better than the EF 100-400mm II. That's really useful for those of us that also take close up shots of insects and flowers with long lenses when out photographing wildlife.

It would be great to see how the RF 100-400mm performs at real birding distances using apertures of f/8 and f/11. I'm curious to see if the R6 really is less affected by diffraction too. Looking forward to your results, thanks again Alan!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Thanks for sharing your observations that the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-500mm are excellent very close up, and much better than the EF 100-400mm II. That's really useful for those of us that also take close up shots of insects and flowers with long lenses when out photographing wildlife.
> 
> It would be great to see how the RF 100-400mm performs at real birding distances using apertures of f/8 and f/11. I'm curious to see if the R6 really is less affected by diffraction too. Looking forward to your results, thanks again Alan!


R5 vs R6 at 20m with RF 100-400mm at f/8 vs f/11, unsharpened files
Edge sharpness measured using Focal
R5 f/8 1970; f/11 1886
R6 f/8 2076; f/11 2043
Chart resolution (arbitrary units)
R5 f/8 2.2; f/11 2.0
R6 f/8 1.8; f/11 1.8

So, with the high resolution sensor of the R5 where f/11 moves further into diffraction limitation (DLA = f/7.1), f/11 is slightly worse for both acutance and resolution. 
For the low resolution R6 (DLA =f/10.6); f/8 ~ f/11. So, for my copy of the lens, it is best wide open.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 27, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> I've just made an interesting discovery, looking at the test results from the following review, this is essentially a RF 400mm f/11 lens when used at the long end, the shorter focal lengths and apertures are just a bonus.
> 
> In Canon's budget long telephoto range, we really have a zoom that operates optimally at 400m f/11 and primes that are fixed at 600mm f/11 and 800 f/11.
> 
> ...


Here's a suggestion. Stop making "discoveries" (that aren't) and go take some pictures and stop analyzing test charts. I've had the lens for a few weeks now and have been shooting wide open at f/8 at the long end with excellent results.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Here's a suggestion. Stop making "discoveries" (that aren't) and go take some pictures and stop analyzing test charts. I've had the lens for a few weeks now and have been shooting wide open at f/8 at the long end with excellent results.


The RF 100-400 is the bargain of the year and, as I have written, everyone should have one! I have always used all of my telephotos wide open, especially now as none is now wider than f/7.1. The one exception was the original Tamron 150-600mm, which was noticeably soft at f/6.3 but sharpened up nicely at f/8. The TDP charts bug me because whereas the rest of the site is a mine of well-researched information, people take those charts as serious tools, but they are too variable. They misdirected some of my purchases until I learned by experience to ignore them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Here's a suggestion. Stop making "discoveries" (that aren't)


Often the real ‘discovery’ is that the copy of the lens used by the testing site performs differently than the one you bought.

Copy variation occurs, even with expensive lenses. Some people buy several copies and keep the best. Personally, I buy one copy, test it properly and exchange it if needed. I’ve only had to do that once (with a Rokinon 14/2.8).

There are several blog posts on lens testing, none of which require fancy equipment. As has been discussed, sometimes than fancy equipment is misleading, because chart-based testers (DxOMark, TDP, and Imatest users like OpticalLimits) are using a close focus distance, and testing on an optical bench (LensRentals) has the lens focused at infinity.

Here is the advice from Uncle Rog:









Roger Cicala: why I don't use an MTF bench to test my own lenses


Lens geek and founder of Lensrentals Roger Cicala explains why even with a world-class testing lab at his disposal he doesn't use it to assess his own personal lenses.




m.dpreview.com


----------



## Dragon (Nov 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> R5 vs R6 at 20m with RF 100-400mm at f/8 vs f/11, unsharpened files
> Edge sharpness measured using Focal
> R5 f/8 1970; f/11 1886
> R6 f/8 2076; f/11 2043
> ...


Even the TDP shots (that I know you don't trust) show that the lens is softer in the vertical direction at f/11. From the TDP chart, my guess would be that f/9 is about the optimal aperture. The Canon MTF charts show that the lens has pretty strong astigmatism at 400mm, so that may explain why a little stopping down helps. Also, the Canon MTF charts show that the RF100-500 is the best of the three under discussion with the EF 100-400 II next and the RF 100-400 at the bottom, but certainly not bad. My copy of the EF 100-400 II is very good, particularly at distance and it holds up quite well with a 1.4x TC, but a little soft with a 2x TC (of course the comparison is an EF 800L f/5.6 and the test bodies are 5DSr and R5 , so "soft" is a relative word).


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Even the TDP shots (that I know you don't trust) show that the lens is softer in the vertical direction at f/11. From the TDP chart, my guess would be that f/9 is about the optimal aperture. The Canon MTF charts show that the lens has pretty strong astigmatism at 400mm, so that may explain why a little stopping down helps. Also, the Canon MTF charts show that the RF100-500 is the best of the three under discussion with the EF 100-400 II next and the RF 100-400 at the bottom, but certainly not bad. My copy of the EF 100-400 II is very good, particularly at distance and it holds up quite well with a 1.4x TC, but a little soft with a 2x TC (of course the comparison is an EF 800L f/5.6 and the test bodies are 5DSr and R5 , so "soft" is a relative word).


The new Canon (theoretical) MTF charts that allow for diffraction seem pretty good to me. Just how much of the diffraction correction you will see in practice depends on the resolution of the sensor. I also suspect that they are calculated for infinity.
I have tested directly the RF 100-500mm, RF 100-400mm and EF 100mm-400mm against each other. The IQ at 400mm is 100-400mm II, the best; 100-500mm (@400mm, f/6.3) nearly as good; and RF 100-400mm last. The difference with the RF 100-400mm varies with the pixel density because f/8 is greater than the DLA of the R5 but less than that for the R6 so it is affected more by diffraction on the R5.
Whether or not you will see astigmatism depends on how far away you are from the centre of the frame. The RF 100-400mm is soft at the corners and you see it clearly as I have written somewhere in the thread I started on the lens. At the 20m distance for my shots above, the chart occupies just the centre of the frame (like a small bird would at that distance). Reiken Focal measures astigmatism, and there was minimal astigmatism in the size of image I used for the RF 100-400mm, in fact less than an EF 100-400mm II, much to my surprise (I have had 3 good copies). Both copies of the 400mm DO II I have had showed even more astigmatism.
My lens of choice is the RF 100-500mm. At 500mm it outresolves the EF 100-400mm II and has just about as good resolution as the EF 100-400mm II with a 1.4xTC at 560mm. It's hardly inferior to the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF at longer distances. The EF 100-400mm II is indeed at its best at far distances, where as I agree also it is OK with the 2xTC. The 100-500mm really pulls ahead with TCs, and is very good indeed at 1000mm.
For a very lightweight 400mm you hardly know you are carrying, the RF 100-400mm is in a league of its own.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2021)

To show you how good the RF 100-500mm + RF 2x is, here are my charts comparing it with the RF 800 f/11 and the 400mm DO II + 2xTC at 20m. These charts are only 14cmx9cm at 20m away and just 600 dpi laser prints on paper, not proper high resolution ones so they are pretty rough but they are good enough to tell you whats going on.


----------



## dcm (Nov 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> To show you how good the RF 100-500mm + RF 2x is, here are my charts comparing it with the RF 800 f/11 and the 400mm DO II + 2xTC at 20m. These charts are only 14cmx9cm at 20m away and just 600 dpi laser prints on paper, not proper high resolution ones so they are pretty rough but they are good enough to tell you whats going on.
> 
> View attachment 201405
> View attachment 201406
> View attachment 201407



Thanks for this comparison. I had considered the EF 400mm DO II + extenders a while back but decided to wait. Then the RF 800 appeared and it seemed like something I should check out first. I've quite happy with the choice and these images suggest it was a good decision. Did you consider comparing the RF 100-500 at 1000mm to the RF 800 at 1120mm?

I'm also quite happy with the RF 100-400 for the weight difference from the EF 100-400 on extended carries.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2021)

dcm said:


> Thanks for this comparison. I had considered the EF 400mm DO II + extenders a while back but decided to wait. Then the RF 800 appeared and it seemed like something I should check out first. I've quite happy with the choice and these images suggest it was a good decision. Did you consider comparing the RF 100-500 at 1000mm to the RF 800 at 1120mm?
> 
> I'm also quite happy with the RF 100-400 for the weight difference from the EF 100-400 on extended carries.






I sold the 400mm DO II after these tests.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> To show you how good the RF 100-500mm + RF 2x is, here are my charts comparing it with the RF 800 f/11 and the 400mm DO II + 2xTC at 20m. These charts are only 14cmx9cm at 20m away and just 600 dpi laser prints on paper, not proper high resolution ones so they are pretty rough but they are good enough to tell you whats going on.


Were the charts shot with an R5 or R6? If with an R5, I am very impressed with the RF800 f/11. It would be interesting to see how an EF 800 f/5.6 would look in that comparison. Other reports I have seen suggest that the RF800 is best at distance, but I have not seen any info as to what distance is required to get the best performance. Given the price, I would expect the RF 100-500 to be quite good, but it appears to be better than many expected given that the aperture was narrower than the unicorn they dreamed of. Certainly, the size/weight is favorable. I have just not been too tempted given that the EF100-400 II that I already have works so well and the EF800 is quite good for the really long stuff. I have been tempted by the RF800, though, thanks to its low cost and light weight.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Were the charts shot with an R5 or R6? If with an R5, I am very impressed with the RF800 f/11. It would be interesting to see how an EF 800 f/5.6 would look in that comparison. Other reports I have seen suggest that the RF800 is best at distance, but I have not seen any info as to what distance is required to get the best performance. Given the price, I would expect the RF 100-500 to be quite good, but it appears to be better than many expected given that the aperture was narrower than the unicorn they dreamed of. Certainly, the size/weight is favorable. I have just not been too tempted given that the EF100-400 II that I already have works so well and the EF800 is quite good for the really long stuff. I have been tempted by the RF800, though, thanks to its low cost and light weight.


Sorry, I should have said R5. The EF 100-400 II is still a superb lens. I got the RF 800 f/11 for a bit of fun - WEX had one used 10+ at clearly a mistakenly low price and I snapped it up. However, now I have bought my wife an R6, we can travel, if covid ever permits, with her having the RF 100-400mm for hiking, and the 800mm when shooting from a vehicle, and I the 100-500mm + TCs. When you get down to f/11, the R5 has only about 20% more resolution than the R6,and the 800 on the R6 outresolves the 100-500mm on the R5 and gives very nice images.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The RF 100-400 is the bargain of the year and, as I have written, everyone should have one! I


I've taken the plunge - Black Friday (15% off) discounts and continuing good reviews have proved too much for me! 3 - 7 days ...


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Nov 28, 2021)

Too bad there aren't any 15% off deals in the USA (that I can find anyway).


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 28, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Here's a suggestion. Stop making "discoveries" (that aren't) and go take some pictures and stop analyzing test charts. I've had the lens for a few weeks now and have been shooting wide open at f/8 at the long end with excellent results.


Well, whatever happened to the spirit of inquiry? 

We did discover that distance affects test results!

Comparing Alan's test results vs lab tests published by photography sites performed at different distances, we get completely different outcomes! Bet you didn't know that the optimum sharpness of the RF 100-400mm varies, and that certain apertures may work more favourably at longer or shorter distances. Or that you're better off not stopping down this lens on the R5 because the diffraction limiting distortion is visible.

Here's a suggestion. I have the time, but not the money to buy lenses for testing. How about you send me a RF 100-400mm? Then I can take lots of real world photos and test charts, and share my results here like Alan does. Perhaps, also send me an RF 800mm f/11 too for a more thorough comparison...


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> View attachment 201408
> 
> 
> I sold the 400mm DO II after these tests.


Really impressed with the RF 800mm f/11 and how well it compared in the test against the RF 100-500mm and DO 400. Thanks! 

Now the big question, if I could only buy one, which would be a better choice for a long tele, the RF 100-400mm or the RF 800 f/11???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> We did discover that distance affects test results!
> 
> Bet you didn't know that the optimum sharpness of the RF 100-400mm varies, and that certain apertures may work more favourably at longer or shorter distances. Or that you're better off not stopping down this lens on the R5 because the diffraction limiting are visible.


Some of ‘we’ have known that for years. What you write about the RF 100-400 is generally applicable to all lens designs, and some of ‘we’ have known that for years, as well.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some of ‘we’ have known that for years. What you write about the RF 100-400 is generally applicable to all lens designs, and some of ‘we’ have known that for years, as well.


Perhaps some context is necessary. Some of us are fairly new to the world of ultra-long telephoto lenses, and many photographers entertain the idea of dipping their toes into budget wildlife photography, or sometimes, more specifically, birding. Knowing what the different lenses available can and can't do really helps set realistic expectations for budget buyers curious to try long tele lenses, but not wanting to spend too much. 

From what I can surmise, what's quite new is the idea of shooting at really high apertures where DSLR autofocus systems didn't really work, using high ISO values that would nave been disregarded, and concepts such as DO lenses in budget primes. 

Seeing budget lenses such a the RF 100-400, and RF 800mm f/11 used with teleconverters to get crazy reach at apertures of f/16-f/22 surely must be new ground technologically? It looks like technology has pushed previous boundaries, but that raises many questions. How well do different setups and camera/lens combinations work, and what are the constraints in terms of light, shutter speeds, camera bodies, shooting distances, etc to get reasonable image quality. 

Some lab tests show that the RF 800mm, f/11 is much sharper than its 600mm counterpart, but that not only raises the question of sample size and product variation as you've suggested, but how that compares with real-world test results, or tests carried out at MFD and longer distances more commonly encountered in this genre of photography.

Lots of questions to be answered for newbies looking for the optimum budget entry-level birding solution, or whatever other wildlife they might want to shoot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Seeing budget lenses such a the RF 100-400, and RF 800mm f/11 used with teleconverters to get crazy reach at apertures of f/16-f/22 surely must be new ground technologically?


Surely?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Surely?
> 
> View attachment 201413
> 
> View attachment 201414



Very surely! 
Wow, a kid's telescope with a lens mount, who would have thought! Please tell me they don't make children's telescope too!! 
We're talking about budget entry level long tele lenses for_ newbie wildlife photographers_, not _masochists_!!!


----------



## dcm (Nov 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Really impressed with the RF 800mm f/11 and how well it compared in the test against the RF 100-500mm and DO 400. Thanks!
> 
> Now the big question, if I could only buy one, which would be a better choice for a long tele, the RF 100-400mm or the RF 800 f/11???



I think I answered this for someone before. It's really more a matter of which one do you get first based on what you shoot most, or wish to shoot. Eventually you are likely to get both like I did. For the cost of the RF 100-500, you can get the RF 100-400, the RF 800, the RF 1.4x and still have enough to buy another lens/extender. Another perspective is to get the R6, the RF100-400, and RF800 for the cost of an R5.

Part of this depends on where your are coming from. I had the EF f/4 zoom trio along with the extenders for the EF 70-200L. Eventually I wanted more focal length but decided to ease my way in the the Tamron 150-600 (first version). It was good to 400, but soft at 600 and didn't take the extenders. And I had to improve my technique.

Over time I moved from a 6D to 1DXII and the f/2.8 zoom trio. So I splurged for the EF 100-400 II which did take extenders, although I struggled with the 2x on it for quite a while. This was largely technique - shooting at 800mm is a lot different than 400mm, and I'm not just talking about 2 stops. I was comfortable at 400mm and 560mm, but never happy at 800. 

When the RF 800 was introduced, I picked it up along with an R6 and RF 1.4x. It took very little time to get comfortable at 800mm with this combo and a little bit longer for 1120mm with the extender. I'm quite happy with this setup for shooting long focal lengths with a low cost kit. I've posted several images with this combo on the forum, but I'm not in the same league as some of the others here.

I picked up the RF 100-400 at introduction so I would not have to haul around the EF version. I notice very little difference so far. It was a splurge, but I'm quite happy that I did since I can carry both lenses in a pack when I'm in the nearby national park. When things are smaller or far away, I've got 800 & 1120 which I can handhold or throw on a monopod. At a nearby natural area, I know I'll need 1120mm from the blinds. Sometimes I'm just too close and can't backpedal far enough. When things are larger or nearer, I've got the 100-400.


----------



## dcm (Nov 28, 2021)

Dragon said:


> ... Other reports I have seen suggest that the RF800 is best at distance, but I have not seen any info as to what distance is required to get the best performance. ...



It seems to do pretty well at MFD. Here's a shot of a rabbit with the RF 800 / RF 1.4x near MFD - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/miscellaneous-wildlife.35160/page-12#post-918396. Eye AF nailed it. The biggest issues is the DOF is about 1 inch, so unless you are shooting flat test charts, much of it tends to be out of focus / soft, but not in an annoying way.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 28, 2021)

dcm said:


> It seems to do pretty well at MFD. Here's a shot of a rabbit with the RF 800 / RF 1.4x near MFD - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/miscellaneous-wildlife.35160/page-12#post-918396. Eye AF nailed it. The biggest issues is the DOF is about 1 inch, so unless you are shooting flat test charts, much of it tends to be out of focus / soft, but not in an annoying way.


Great rabbit photo, I'm impressed with the image quality, looks like the RF 800 f/11 is quite sharp near its MFD of 6m, even with a 1.4x extender!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Very surely!
> Wow, a kid's telescope with a lens mount, who would have thought! Please tell me they don't make children's telescope too!!
> We're talking about budget entry level long tele lenses for_ newbie wildlife photographers_, not _masochists_!!!


Sarcasm aside, my point was that it’s clearly not new ground _technologically_, which is what you stated – it’s just new ground for Canon. Fertile ground, I think.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Well, whatever happened to the spirit of inquiry?
> 
> We did discover that distance affects test results!
> 
> ...


Lovely suggestions...but no, I will not send you any lenses! Buy them from Amazon and you get a 30 day return window.

I know it sounds like I am picking on you, and I don't really mean to. And I understand that these forums are dominated by gear-heads. But it easy for someone who is not a gear-head - not a pixel peeper - to be very annoyed by the constant posting of comments and threads that seem to do nothing but create worry and doubt for people who who may be interested in a certain camera or lens.

If ultimate sharpness is your goal, good luck to you. If you are thinking about what distance or aperture you are using just before you take a shot for maximum sharpness, good luck to you. You will probably never get a good shot off. Nor, unless you are pixel peeping, notice the difference between the shot you took at f/8 and f/11 or even f/13. If you hesitate stopping down because you are so worried about the diffraction you probably won't notice, then you will probably screw up that photo of some flowers where you might need a DOF of f/16. 

I see numerous comments about the difference between the RF 800 f/11 and other telephotos. Which is sharper might be the question that gives you the best answer as to what lens you might want - but not likely. Far more important, in my opinion, is the smaller focusing area, the fact that it may be very difficult to actually locate your target due to the narrow field of view compared to a zoom lens where you can locate in a wider view and then zoom in. Those things - it seems to me - are far more important in actually getting a real world shot.

I guess my ultimate point is, are you more interested in test charts, sharpness and pixel peeping or more interested in composition, DOF, lighting, and getting the shot in focus?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Lovely suggestions...but no, I will not send you any lenses! Buy them from Amazon and you get a 30 day return window.
> 
> I know it sounds like I am picking on you, and I don't really mean to. And I understand that these forums are dominated by gear-heads. But it easy for someone who is not a gear-head - not a pixel peeper - to be very annoyed by the constant posting of comments and threads that seem to do nothing but create worry and doubt for people who who may be interested in a certain camera or lens.
> 
> ...


You are absolutely right about the choice is overall utility rather than absolute sharpness. An 800mm lens of minimum focussing distance 6m is a highly specialised lens, be it a monumentally expensive f/5.6 or a relatively el cheapo f/11. The 800mm f/11 is useless for less than 6m away and you won't be able to fit larger wild life into the frame if close. The field of view is really narrow, and the area you can AF in even less because it's restricted to a box in about half the centre of the evf. So, it's really limited for birds in flight. And, it should be pretty obvious that if you have one, you will also need something like a 100-400 zoom as well. My weapon of choice for a days birding or a long safari is a 100-400mm or 100-500mm with extenders when required. I also prefer a shorter focal length anyway for BIF as narrow fields of view make tracking so difficult. For our last major birding trips, my wife and I took just our zooms and left the primes at home. (Although a 600mm f/4 is the lens of choice for really keen birders who have the strength, facilities and opportunities to exploit one fully, as well as a zoom with them for the other occasions.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I guess my ultimate point is, are you more interested in test charts, sharpness and pixel peeping or more interested in composition, DOF, lighting, and getting the shot in focus?


Formal lens tests have their place – those sorts of results can help inform lens purchase decisions in some cases, as long as one understands their limitations and ideally evaluates most of the available results. Of course, such tests are just one factor. The EF 50/1.2L was soft wide open, but I never wanted a 50mm prime so the fact that the RF 50/1.2L is wicked sharp isn’t going to induce me to buy one. 

Lens tests can also inform on exposure choices. If stopping down gives a big improvement, and a slower shutter speed is usable, why not get the additional sharpness…but if a lens is just as sharp at f/4, why bother? 

My main use for lens tests is personal. I have a standard battery I put new lenses through to decide if they’re acceptable (only one has failed, a Rokinon 14/2.8 that I exchanged and the second copy was fine). Those will also be useful if I ever drop a lens, to re-test and see if it needs to go to Canon. I haven’t dropped one yet, but I did once drop my 5DII, ~1 m onto pavement – it was fine optically (lens tests unaffected) and cosmetically, but all my AFMA values shifted by 10 units.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Formal lens tests have their place – those sorts of results can help inform lens purchase decisions in some cases, as long as one understands their limitations and ideally evaluates most of the available results. Of course, such tests are just one factor. The EF 50/1.2L was soft wide open, but I never wanted a 50mm prime so the fact that the RF 50/1.2L is wicked sharp isn’t going to induce me to buy one.
> 
> Lens tests can also inform on exposure choices. If stopping down gives a big improvement, and a slower shutter speed is usable, why not get the additional sharpness…but if a lens is just as sharp at f/4, why bother?
> 
> My main use for lens tests is personal. I have a standard battery I put new lenses through to decide if they’re acceptable (only one has failed, a Rokinon 14/2.8 that I exchanged and the second copy was fine). Those will also be useful if I ever drop a lens, to re-test and see if it needs to go to Canon. I haven’t dropped one yet, but I did once drop my 5DII, ~1 m onto pavement – it was fine optically (lens tests unaffected) and cosmetically, but all my AFMA values shifted by 10 units.


Very true. I know the detailed capabilities of all my lenses so I can get the best out of them. It was the same in the lab, squeezing the best out of all the equipment. And, as you say, if you know your subject, it directs your purchasing in a seriously positive way. And at the end, get the pleasure of the results.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You are absolutely right about the choice is overall utility rather than absolute sharpness. An 800mm lens of minimum focussing distance 6m is a highly specialised lens, be it a monumentally expensive f/5.6 or a relatively el cheapo f/11. The 800mm f/11 is useless for less than 6m away and you won't be able to fit larger wild life into the frame if close. The field of view is really narrow, and the area you can AF in even less because it's restricted to a box in about half the centre of the evf. So, it's really limited for birds in flight. And, it should be pretty obvious that if you have one, you will also need something like a 100-400 zoom as well. My weapon of choice for a days birding or a long safari is a 100-400mm or 100-500mm with extenders when required. I also prefer a shorter focal length anyway for BIF as narrow fields of view make tracking so difficult. For our last major birding trips, my wife and I took just our zooms and left the primes at home. (Although a 600mm f/4 is the lens of choice for really keen birders who have the strength, facilities and opportunities to exploit one fully, as well as a zoom with them for the other occasions.)


I find that a red dot sight is a very helpful aid when trying to find subjects with a long lens. The Olympus is the least expensive and works well https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116753-REG/olympus_ee_1_dot_sight_for.html , but I believe Nikon also makes one now. The brand is not a compatibility issue in that they just snap into the hot shoe. I find that with the EF 100-400 at full reach on an R5 I can set the AF to look for birds and just use the red dot to locate and shoot without even using the EFV. Statistically I get more hits that way than by hunting in the EVF and having the bird go away before I find it. It is important to adjust the red dot accurately and also be aware of parallax error when shooting too close, but I have been successful shooting hummingbirds at close range. They often only pause in the air for an instant and you have to be quick.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I find that a red dot sight is a very helpful aid when trying to find subjects with a long lens. The Olympus is the least expensive and works well https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116753-REG/olympus_ee_1_dot_sight_for.html , but I believe Nikon also makes one now.


Nice! Didn’t exist when I bought my 600/4 II, at the time I bought a Tru Glo rifle red/greed dot spotter with a Weaver mount and a $15 hotshoe adapter for it. I used it for a few weeks but after that I found that using the lens hood thumb knob positioned at the top was sufficient for me to easily find subjects using the viewfinder of my 1D X.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nice! Didn’t exist when I bought my 600/4 II, at the time I bought a Tru Glo rifle red/greed dot spotter with a Weaver mount and a $15 hotshoe adapter for it. I used it for a few weeks but after that I found that using the lens hood thumb knob positioned at the top was sufficient for me to easily find subjects using the viewfinder of my 1D X.


I thought I was the only one out there doing that ‘trick’ with the hood knob. Never ceases to amaze me when I see reviewers in videos missing that simple thing.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sarcasm aside, my point was that it’s clearly not new ground _technologically_, which is what you stated – it’s just new ground for Canon. Fertile ground, I think.


Yes, it’s new fertile ground for Canon because they now have camera bodies that can support such lens technology, and they've built those lens designs to a level of quality that allows them to produce reasonable images!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 29, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Lovely suggestions...but no, I will not send you any lenses! Buy them from Amazon and you get a 30 day return window.
> 
> I know it sounds like I am picking on you, and I don't really mean to. And I understand that these forums are dominated by gear-heads. But it easy for someone who is not a gear-head - not a pixel peeper - to be very annoyed by the constant posting of comments and threads that seem to do nothing but create worry and doubt for people who who may be interested in a certain camera or lens.
> 
> ...


No lenses in the mail? 

Seriously, you couldn't have got me more wrong, but that would be hard to judge where I'm coming from, with my questions focusing on the technical. I'm definitely not a pixel peeper, and have never shot a test chart in my life! 

I just like digging deeper past the marketing hype to get all the facts, so I know what I'm buying. Photographing birds is something I've rarely tried, but keen to do more of. I've used my 70-200 f/2.8 L III on an 80D, image quality is great for a 320mm equivalent, but it lacks reach and get really heavy handheld. I've also got a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM which provides an equivalent of 88-400mm f/6.4-9 to use on APSC, it's very light and quite sharp. If I bought the RF 100-400mm for my RF camera body, would I gain much over the 55-250mm? How much better is the image quality, if at all? Is this Canon's attempt to rebuild the same lens equivalent in full-frame RF mount? If the RF 100-400mm needs to be stopped down a bit for best image quality, it puts it into the same equivalent aperture as a slightly stopped down 55-250. The RF 800f/11 does offer a lot more reach over the 400mm or its APSC equivalent at the expense of losing closer focusing distance, which might be better for birds in the long term.

These are my thoughts! Would love to see a side-by-side comparison of the RF 100-400mm vs the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM. If there's a discernible difference, it's a simple choice as the RF 100-40mm is a versatile focal range.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> No lenses in the mail?
> 
> Seriously, you couldn't have got me more wrong, but that would be hard to judge where I'm coming from, with my questions focusing on the technical. I'm definitely not a pixel peeper, and have never shot a test chart in my life!
> 
> ...


If you go by this comparison https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1 , it looks like pretty much of a push. An R6 would give you exactly the same size image at 400 as the 7D2 at 250 and the character of the two lenses looks pretty similar. The one stop difference puts the light gathering in the same ballpark. OTOH, some here are saying the 100-400 is better than the sample used by TDP, and don't forget that if you have enough light, there is an extra stop (and change) of dynamic range in the FF camera. The 55-250 stm is a good enough lens that it will show some increased detail with a 90D or an M6 II.


----------



## dcm (Nov 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> No lenses in the mail?
> 
> Seriously, you couldn't have got me more wrong, but that would be hard to judge where I'm coming from, with my questions focusing on the technical. I'm definitely not a pixel peeper, and have never shot a test chart in my life!
> 
> ...


A better comparison might be the EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS II USM. They even mention it in the description on the RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 IS USM.


----------



## PCM-madison (Nov 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> No lenses in the mail?
> 
> Seriously, you couldn't have got me more wrong, but that would be hard to judge where I'm coming from, with my questions focusing on the technical. I'm definitely not a pixel peeper, and have never shot a test chart in my life!
> 
> ...


A couple of points: First, if you use the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM on an R-series camera, you are forced to use crop mode which greatly limits the available resolution. Second, I have compared the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM used on an SL1 to the RF 100-400mm used on an RP and the image quality is definitely better for the RF 100-400mm used on an RP.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2021)

I've posted a series of bird shots with the RF 100-400mm on the R6, including with the RF 1.4x. I don't just do charts https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1237#post-918499


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Nov 29, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I find that a red dot sight is a very helpful aid when trying to find subjects with a long lens. The Olympus is the least expensive and works well https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116753-REG/olympus_ee_1_dot_sight_for.html , but I believe Nikon also makes one now. The brand is not a compatibility issue in that they just snap into the hot shoe. I find that with the EF 100-400 at full reach on an R5 I can set the AF to look for birds and just use the red dot to locate and shoot without even using the EFV. Statistically I get more hits that way than by hunting in the EVF and having the bird go away before I find it. It is important to adjust the red dot accurately and also be aware of parallax error when shooting too close, but I have been successful shooting hummingbirds at close range. They often only pause in the air for an instant and you have to be quick.
> 
> 
> View attachment 201425


Nice shot. Out of interest though, does the red dot not disturb wildlife? I ask out of genuine interest, as a long-time user of the hood-knob technique too (like PBD), but am always interested in learning what works for others.

Cheers


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2021)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Nice shot. Out of interest though, does the red dot not disturb wildlife? I ask out of genuine interest, as a long-time user of the hood-knob technique too (like PBD), but am always interested in learning what works for others.


It’s not a laser, the red dot only shows in the camera-mounted device (which you look through instead of the viewfinder).


----------



## Dragon (Nov 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I've posted a series of bird shots with the RF 100-400mm on the R6, including with the RF 1.4x. I don't just do charts https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1237#post-918499


It looks very nice on the R6. Is it as snappy sharp on an R5?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2021)

Dragon said:


> It looks very nice on the R6. Is it as snappy sharp on an R5?


The 1.4xTC takes it to f/11, just on the edge of the diffraction limit for the R6 (f/10) but beyond that for the R5 (f/7.1). The bare 100-400 is great on the R5, but not so hot with the TC attached, though it does give some extra resolution.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The 1.4xTC takes it to f/11, just on the edge of the diffraction limit for the R6 (f/10) but beyond that for the R5 (f/7.1). The bare 100-400 is great on the R5, but not so hot with the TC attached, though it does give some extra resolution.



Thanks. Happy with my EF100-400 II for now, but small and light has its attraction in some situations.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Thanks. Happy with my EF100-400 II for now, but small and light has its attraction in some situations.


I found the EF 100-400mm II to be excellent with and without the 1.4xTC on the R5 and 5DSR. My wife can no longer manage the weight of that lens although it is light enough.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 29, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I found that using the lens hood thumb knob positioned at the top was sufficient for me to easily find subjects using the viewfinder of my 1D X.


At the risk of sounding really dumb - could you expand on what you mean by this?


----------



## Dragon (Nov 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I found the EF 100-400mm II to be excellent with and without the 1.4xTC on the R5 and 5DSR. My wife can no longer manage the weight of that lens although it is light enough.


Have you seen any difference in performance between the EF and RF TCs? I still don't have any RF lenses that support a TC, so haven't had any reason to spring for an RF TC. If I get the RF 800 f/11, then I might need the 1.4.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 29, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Have you seen any difference in performance between the EF and RF TCs? I still don't have any RF lenses that support a TC, so haven't had any reason to spring for an RF TC. If I get the RF 800 f/11, then I might need the 1.4. Can't see that the 2x adds much looking at the charts.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2021)

The RF 2x is wickedly good on the 100-500mm, much better than the EF 2xTCIII on any EF lens I ever used. The extenders on narrow lenses are more effective with the low resolution sensors, but even so the 100-500mm at 1000mm f/14 on the R5 is impressive.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 29, 2021)

PCM-madison said:


> A couple of points: First, if you use the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM on an R-series camera, you are forced to use crop mode which greatly limits the available resolution. Second, I have compared the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM used on an SL1 to the RF 100-400mm used on an RP and the image quality is definitely better for the RF 100-400mm used on an RP.


Thanks, good to know the Rf 100-400mm on FF gives better image quality that the 55-250mm on APSC, that's a really helpful answer!


----------



## Dragon (Nov 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The RF 2x is wickedly good on the 100-500mm, much better than the EF 2xTCIII on any EF lens I ever used. The extenders on narrow lenses are more effective with the low resolution sensors, but even so the 100-500mm at 1000mm f/14 on the R5 is impressive.


Thanks.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Nov 30, 2021)

Jethro said:


> At the risk of sounding really dumb - could you expand on what you mean by this?



They are using the nub like iron sights.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

Jethro said:


> At the risk of sounding really dumb - could you expand on what you mean by this?


As @Bdbtoys suggests. Position the hood attachment knob at the 'top' of the lens, and look over the top of the camera to 'sight' down the hotshoe and over the knob, and you can locate the subject then confirm in the VF and shoot.


----------



## gruhl28 (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I haven’t dropped one yet, but I did once drop my 5DII, ~1 m onto pavement – it was fine optically (lens tests unaffected) and cosmetically, but all my AFMA values shifted by 10 units.


LOL, did dropping it really shift your AFMA values by 10? How odd.

EDIT: I think I misinterpreted what you wrote. I thought you meant that all the values you had entered were updated by 10, which would be odd, but thinking more about it you probably meant that you had to change the values because a sensor shifted slightly - that would make much more sense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

gruhl28 said:


> LOL, did dropping it really shift your AFMA values by 10? How odd.
> 
> EDIT: I think I misinterpreted what you wrote. I thought you meant that all the values you had entered were updated by 10, which would be odd, but thinking more about it you probably meant that you had to change the values because a sensor shifted slightly - that would make much more sense.


Yes, I had to change the values because the drop caused a change in the alignment between the image sensor and the AF sensor (the lens tests showed the image sensor was not affected, so either the AF sensor or more likely the submirror assembly shifted by a few µm).


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s not a laser, the red dot only shows in the camera-mounted device (which you look through instead of the viewfinder).


Aah, okay, I understand. Thanks for responding!


----------



## Dragon (Nov 30, 2021)

Jethro said:


> At the risk of sounding really dumb - could you expand on what you mean by this?


This comment and even the answers you got assume that you are familiar with the construction of the Canon Big White lenses. The hood attaches with a clamp that is tightened by a knob that can be placed most anywhere around the lens. See the other answers and you can put the picture together.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 30, 2021)

Dragon said:


> This comment and even the answers you got assume that you are familiar with the construction of the Canon Big White lenses. The hood attaches with a clamp that is tightened by a knob that can be placed most anywhere around the lens. See the other answers and you can put the picture together.


Thanks, yes I got the drift. But it gives me an idea I can try to apply to other lenses - to 'sight' the object externally first.


----------

