# WW Compares 100-500mm to ef 100-400mm--So close?



## YuengLinger (Nov 12, 2020)

My biggest gear blunder might have been selling my 100-400. Ok, move on.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 12, 2020)

You can be proud that because of you, someone somewhere is enjoying using a really great lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 12, 2020)

I wonder why we are not seeing (or finding) more sample images from the 100 to 500.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 12, 2020)

Everything I have seen is that these lens combinations are very similar, likely not enough for me to upgrade my 100-400 II. 

So, if Canon wants more of my money (they already have so much), I am holding out for a 200-600 f/5.6-f/8. Although I will be tempted by all good offerings in the super-tele range.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 12, 2020)

docsmith said:


> Everything I have seen is that these lens combinations are very similar, likely not enough for me to upgrade my 100-400 II.



I'm probably sounding like a broken record, but one reason many might NOT want to upgrade their 100-400 II is that it can be used on EF-M cameras, and the RF 100-500 cannot.

I'm starting to get the sense from people that even aside from that, it's just not worth the trouble to pay to upgrade unless you absolutely need that 400-500 range, though if you have NO lens at all, it might be worth springing for the 100-500 to begin with.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 12, 2020)

I have seen a few people upgrade for "focusing speed" and the weight savings is interesting But, yes, I still own a DSLR and EOS-M, so for me personally, those are additional reasons to not make the switch.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 12, 2020)

Euro prices: (lowest I could find)
100-400 Euro 1853
100-500 Euro 3020


----------



## AlanF (Nov 12, 2020)

Thanks for the heads up. Gordon Laing and Ken Rockwell also reckon if you have the 100-400 II there's not much pressure to upgrade. I am finding the 100-400mm II + 1.4 and 2xTCs really good with very fast and accurate AF even at 800mm. I have written a couple of times that having sold my 100-400mm II EDIT sold my 400mm DO II. I have made a policy decision not to buy another. WEX has had a used one on sale with some supposed cosmetic damage at a rating of 8/10 at a very reasonable price and I resisted the temptation. Two days ago they dropped the price to hardly more than an RF 100-500mm, and it arrived this morning! A couple of scratches on the tripod foot and by the strap mount, and otherwise perfect and with a Lenscoat stuffed in the case. The first day of checking it out just on charts is really encouraging. It has the edge for resolution and contrast over the 100-400mm II all the way to 800mm. On my DSLRs, the old one at 800mm and f/8 had erratic focussing. On the R5, it's bang on every time. Will check it out with birds tomorrow. So far, it looks like i won't be using their 45-day return.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 12, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Thanks for the heads up. Gordon Laing and Ken Rockwell also reckon if you have the 100-400 II there's not much pressure to upgrade. I am finding the 100-400mm II + 1.4 and 2xTCs really good with very fast and accurate AF even at 800mm. I have written a couple of times that having sold my 100-400mm II I have made a policy decision not to buy another. WEX has had a used one on sale with some supposed cosmetic damage at a rating of 8/10 at a very reasonable price and I resisted the temptation. Two days ago they dropped the price to hardly more than an RF 100-500mm, and it arrived this morning! A couple of scratches on the tripod foot and by the strap mount, and otherwise perfect and with a Lenscoat stuffed in the case. The first day of checking it out just on charts is really encouraging. It has the edge for resolution and contrast over the 100-400mm II all the way to 800mm. On my DSLRs, the old one at 800mm and f/8 had erratic focussing. On the R5, it's bang on every time. Will check it out with birds tomorrow. So far, it looks like i won't be using their 45-day return.


Sorry, didn't quite understand. Which one did you buy and try on the R5?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 12, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Sorry, didn't quite understand. Which one did you buy and try on the R5?


The one I said I wasn’t going to buy, the 400mm DO II.


----------



## zim (Nov 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The one I said I wasn’t going to buy, the 400mm DO II.


You don't mention the 400 DO in your original post so now I'm confused, thought you weren't going to buy another 100-400 II ?


----------



## tron (Nov 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The one I said I wasn’t going to buy, the 400mm DO II.


So compared to Nikon 500mmPF and 500mmPF+TC14 III ???


----------



## SteveC (Nov 13, 2020)

I agree with the others...I found this entire paragraph completely incoherent.



AlanF said:


> Thanks for the heads up. Gordon Laing and Ken Rockwell also reckon if you have the 100-400 II there's not much pressure to upgrade. I am finding the 100-400mm II + 1.4 and 2xTCs really good with very fast and accurate AF even at 800mm. I have written a couple of times that having sold my 100-400mm II I have made a policy decision not to buy another. WEX has had a used one



Not to buy another WHAT? 400 DO (from a later reply)? You should have specified, there are dozens to hundreds of posts here by a couple of dozen regulars and a few infrequent posters, and people won't necessarily remember that you announced a policy decision and what it was.

Used one of WHAT? The context implies they had a used 100-400 II, but...



> on sale with some supposed cosmetic damage at a rating of 8/10 at a very reasonable price and I resisted the temptation. Two days ago they dropped the price to hardly more than an RF 100-500mm



So it was a used 100-400 II and they were trying to sell it for a huge price, and now it has DROPPED to being barely more than a new 100-500?



> and it arrived this morning! A couple of scratches on the tripod foot and by the strap mount, and otherwise perfect and with a Lenscoat stuffed in the case. The first day of checking it out just on charts is really encouraging. It has the edge for resolution and contrast over the 100-400mm II all the way to 800mm.



So maybe it isn't a 100-400, but what the heck is it? Sounds like you're zooming to 800 here? If you are then you're not talking about a DO prime?



> On my DSLRs, the old one



The old one of what? Are we back to the 100-400 II?



> at 800mm and f/8 had erratic focussing. On the R5, it's bang on every time. Will check it out with birds tomorrow. So far, it looks like i won't be using their 45-day return.



Anyhow, I can't figure what you're actually talking about here, and your referencing the 400 DO in one of your replies really makes me wonder what the heck you're trying to say


----------



## Nelu (Nov 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Thanks for the heads up. Gordon Laing and Ken Rockwell also reckon if you have the 100-400 II there's not much pressure to upgrade. I am finding the 100-400mm II + 1.4 and 2xTCs really good with very fast and accurate AF even at 800mm. I have written a couple of times that having sold my 100-400mm II I have made a policy decision not to buy another. WEX has had a used one on sale with some supposed cosmetic damage at a rating of 8/10 at a very reasonable price and I resisted the temptation. Two days ago they dropped the price to hardly more than an RF 100-500mm, and it arrived this morning! A couple of scratches on the tripod foot and by the strap mount, and otherwise perfect and with a Lenscoat stuffed in the case. The first day of checking it out just on charts is really encouraging. It has the edge for resolution and contrast over the 100-400mm II all the way to 800mm. On my DSLRs, the old one at 800mm and f/8 had erratic focussing. On the R5, it's bang on every time. Will check it out with birds tomorrow. So far, it looks like i won't be using their 45-day return.


Huh?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 13, 2020)

Apologies - quite simple, I made a slip and wrote sold my 100-400mm II instead of my 400mm DO II. I have gone back and shown where. Rather an important mistake as it did make it nonsense.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 13, 2020)

tron said:


> So compared to Nikon 500mmPF and 500mmPF+TC14 III ???


400mm DO II + 1.4xTC on R5 very similar to 500 PF on D500, and the 2xTC on the 400 very similar to the 1.4 on the 500 For resolution and contrast. R5 AF more consistent. Big difference at 800 vs 700 in speed of AF where Canon wins hands down. For BIF, the D500 + bare lens still holds up very well. And for slow big birds the + 1.4xTC still adequate. The Canon animal eyeAF is amazing, and Nikon has to do something to catch up.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 13, 2020)

My 100-400mm L does not get enough use now, so it won't be upgraded unless it has to be replaced. I am starting to find that holding and walking around with the big lenses is more difficult every year. I bought a refurb RF 24-240 to potentially use for casual walk around. It normally resides on my R5 here on my desk. The main issue is the slow aperture for indoor shots. Those are fine for posting on Facebook but the high ISO shows loss of detail if you look critically at them.


----------



## AlexNillson89 (Jan 19, 2021)

I think as long as I still have an EF body I will keep the 100-400 II. If I ever go completely RF then I think I would update the lens also. So far after a few weeks with the R5 I'm wondering if I should sell the 1DX2 now and then pick up another R5 or save the money for the R1. I'm really impressed with the auto focus system of the R5 but love the feel and build of the 1D


----------



## hovland (Jan 23, 2021)

I think I will keep my 100-400 II for now. It works nice on my R5 and I like to have a Canon teleconverter attached and still be able to retract the lens fully.
As a curiosity, the R5 autofocus also works ok with a Kenko 3x ef teleconverter. giving autofocus 1200mm at f17. The picture quality takes a big hit, but hey I have the option. The canon EF teleconverters are also stackable on the Kenko, the R5 actually managed to autofocus with a canon 2x and the Kenko 3x stacked. The autofocus was very slow but it managed to autofocus handheld at full zoom. And the image quality was rubbish. If my math is correct that gives autofocus on 2400mm at f33,6. This test, was just out of curiosity, I won't be using it.


----------

