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



## AlanF (Oct 20, 2021)

I ordered the Canon RF 100-400mm yesterday, it arrived this morning, and the lens now "Pre-order" status on the website. I had time for just a few tests and one or two shots only, so I'll give my initial impressions and follow up later with more. I do have the RF 100-500mm and an EF 100-400mm II (for a 5DSR), and they are my reference points.

The RF 100-400mm is just so light in comparison and in absolute terms. It weighs just 680g complete with hood, compared with 1700g for the 100-400mm II or 1610g for the 100-500mm. That kilo of weight, 2.2 lb, makes a huge difference. The little lens on the R5 is so comfortable to hold and so balanced when shooting, especially with the control ring towards the front, it is much easier for shooting and hiking with.

In terms of IQ with my standard charts at 20m, the bare lens is pretty close to the 100-400mm II at 400mm. With the RF 1.4x, it's not as sharp as the 100-400mm II at 560mm or the 100-500mm at 500mm. It's not nearly as good at 800mm as the EF lens with the 2xTCs or even remotely in the same league as the 100-500mm at 1000mm. It does focus noticeably closer than does the RF 100-500mm. The lens is probably best used without teleconverters.

It's not as good as my RF 100-500mm, but I can stroll around with it dangling from my hand rather than being a heavy item on a shoulder strap. It will be perfect for my wife who finds the white zoom lenses too heavy. And, it's also pretty inconspicuous when when walking around urban areas. So, it's a keeper for me, being good enough for much of my casual photography, and so easy to carry around or pack. It has the same nominal resolution on the R5 as the RX10 IV fully extended (f/4 220mm, 2.7 crop factor, 20 Mpx sensor) which I have liked
for casual convenience. But, the Canon is much sharper.

Here are my first two shots: a Great Tit flying off me feeder towards me, and a Stubble Rosegill mushroom.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 20, 2021)

Thanks Alan - your initial comments are pushing me closer to ordering this lens. It's unlikely I would use it with TCs, so the fact that it seems to be sharp at the long end (and very lightweight) are massive positives.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 21, 2021)

Thanks @AlanF.

Looks like Canon did a really good move with this lens for amateurs and people that prefer light gear.
Some of us gear geeks might moan over the f numbers but that's the compromise one has to take for the weight.

I'm looking forward to see more impressions.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2021)

There is less focus breathing and greater magnification at minimum focus distance with the RF 100-400 than the RF100-500mm, and EF 100-400mm II.

RF 100-400mm, mfd @400m setting = 1050mm, magnification = 0.41x, effective focal length 216mm
EF 100-400mm II, mfd @400m setting = 970mm, magnification = 0.31x, effective focal length 175mm
RF 100-500mm, mfd @500m setting = 1194mm, magnification = 0.33x, effective focal length 224mm

(The mfds are the measured ones - the Canon figures for mfd are sometimes for an intermediate focal length).


----------



## unfocused (Oct 21, 2021)

Great. Now you've done it. I wasn't even considering this lens until you pointed out how light it is. So many times, I leave my camera at home when going for a walk in the prairie park by our house. Yesterday I saw a Great Blue Heron nail a 13-lined ground squirrel and of course no camera. While sharing lenses doesn't usually work too well for us, I think that this is one that my wife and I can share, since we both have the 100-500 for serious trips. 

I checked the Best Buy website and it was in stock. So now it's supposed to arrive next week. Canon thanks you. My wallet doesn't.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Great. Now you've done it. I wasn't even considering this lens until you pointed out how light it is. So many times, I leave my camera at home when going for a walk in the prairie park by our house. Yesterday I saw a Great Blue Heron nail a 13-lined ground squirrel and of course no camera. While sharing lenses doesn't usually work too well for us, I think that this is one that my wife and I can share, since we both have the 100-500 for serious trips.
> 
> I checked the Best Buy website and it was in stock. So now it's supposed to arrive next week. Canon thanks you. My wallet doesn't.


You will now need two, I am afraid. The weight difference is really noticeable.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Oct 21, 2021)

I wonder how the lens (a keeper, I'm sure) compares with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM...it sounds to me, AlanF, that your intended usage for your newest lens is simlar to the way I use the 70-300 II.

I did check and the dimensions (length and weight) are roughly comparable.

I know this: I'm always very surprised at the high (as in good enough for me) quality of the images that result from the EF 70-300 II lens. I'll bet the RF 100-400 here is at least (tied for first) in this 'category'.

EDIT: same filter size as well (I think)


----------



## dcm (Oct 22, 2021)

A couple of American Widgeons. R6, RF 100-400. DxO PL4. 

I had an enjoyable first outing with this lens at a local park. This combination works well and makes a great companion to the RF 800. My 12 liter Kenba Solstice holds the body and both lenses with some room to spare. Hardly noticed I was carrying it by hand and wrist strap with the RF 800 in the pack. 

The weight/size alone makes it preferable for me over my EF 100-400L II for the 1DXII or EF 70-300L which I primarily use with the M6II. The image quality seems to stand up well. I like the shorter MFD which has sometimes been a problem with the EF 100-400L II. The lack of a tripod foot doesn't seem an issue - it sits fine on a body mounted to the tripod. And the light weight worked well tracking DIF (ducks in flight).


----------



## EricN (Oct 22, 2021)

dcm said:


> A couple of American Widgeons. R6, RF 100-400. DxO PL4.
> 
> I had an enjoyable first outing with this lens at a local park. This combination works well and makes a great companion to the RF 800. My 12 liter Kenba Solstice holds the body and both lenses with some room to spare. Hardly noticed I was carrying it by hand and wrist strap with the RF 800 in the pack.
> 
> ...


It's sharper than I guessed!


----------



## dcm (Oct 22, 2021)

EricN said:


> It's sharper than I guessed!


I checked and I did have several DxO features turned in my preset, including sharpening and deepPrime noise reduction. Here they are with nothing but the camera rendering.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 22, 2021)

dcm said:


> I checked and I did have several DxO features turned in my preset, including sharpening and deepPrime noise reduction. Here they are with nothing but the camera rendering.


I'm almost more impressed than I was before. It's good!


----------



## BBarn (Oct 22, 2021)

Just stepped outside for first shots with the new lens on an R5. Was surprised that Av with auto ISO chose ISO 100 and a 1/10 shutter. I thought, how can that be sharp at 1/10 & 400mm?. But I focused on a point near the trunk and am now most impressed with the IS/IBIS. JPG SOOC.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2021)

dcm said:


> I like the shorter MFD which has sometimes been a problem with the EF 100-400L II. The lack of a tripod foot doesn't seem an issue - it sits fine on a body mounted to the tripod. And the light weight worked well tracking DIF (ducks in flight).


The RF 100-400mm has a longer mfd at 400mm of 1.05m than the EF 100-400mm II, which is 0.97m (measured by me and TDP).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> I wonder how the lens (a keeper, I'm sure) compares with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM...it sounds to me, AlanF, that your intended usage for your newest lens is simlar to the way I use the 70-300 II.
> 
> I did check and the dimensions (length and weight) are roughly comparable.
> 
> ...


It takes the same lenshood as well, the ET-74B. It has an outrageous price of £76 in the UK. Fortunately, as the 70-300mm II has been around a few years, there are plenty of knock-off ones at £10-12. As a matter of principle, I am not spending £76 on a piece of black plastic that will likely need to be repalced after a few knocks.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2021)

I judge a lens on its ability to give me adequate images from huge crops of about a 1000x1000px. Here is a couple of such from today of a Little Grebe catching a tiddler, 20m away.


----------



## dcm (Oct 22, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The RF 100-400mm has a longer mfd at 400mm of 1.05m than the EF 100-400mm II, which is 0.97m (measured by me and TDP).


My mistake. For some reason I thought it was more like 3 meters. Should have checked the facts before I posted.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 23, 2021)

dcm said:


> My mistake. For some reason I thought it was more like 3 meters. Should have checked the facts before I posted.


Have you noticed the battery life of the R5 with the RF 100-400? My first impressions are that the battery life is lower than with the 100-500mm.


----------



## dcm (Oct 23, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Have you noticed the battery life of the R5 with the RF 100-400? My first impressions are that the battery life is lower than with the 100-500mm.


Not much to report on battery life yet - I was only shooting for about 20 minutes on an R6. The battery info. menu says 73% with a shutter count of 126 a few days later on an LP-E6NH. I haven't been out for an extended shoot yet. 

I can shoot all day ranging from 100-450 images on the R6 with a single charged battery, no matter what lens. I haven't yet resorted to turning off the rear LCD or other battery saving measures. I can't remember the last time I did a battery swap while shooting, but I still carry a spare just in case. 

Still waiting for some announcements before I decide on R5, R3, or R?. There is o hurry, I'm pretty busy except for the summer and the R6 has been fine for my needs so far.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 27, 2021)

Received mine today. Went for a brief walk in the park and I can't say enough about how light the combination of this lens and the R5 are. Exactly what I was hoping for -- something that I can take along when I'm getting my steps in without feeling weighed down. It's no 100-500, but at a fraction of the cost and weight it's a lens that I am likely to bring along "just in case."


----------



## AlanF (Oct 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Received mine today. Went for a brief walk in the park and I can't say enough about how light the combination of this lens and the R5 are. Exactly what I was hoping for -- something that I can take along when I'm getting my steps in without feeling weighed down. It's no 100-500, but at a fraction of the cost and weight it's a lens that I am likely to bring along "just in case."


I've changed my requirements steadily over the years, looking for lighter and better lenses for serious nature photography, with the 400mm DO II plus extender as my upper weight limit for walking and hand holding. I've been constantly looking for lighter alternatives. The 100-400mm II on the 5DSR has proved to be more than good enough for general use, and for the year before last the Nikon 500 PF on the D500 and D850 my preference as they are really where Canon should have taken the DO technology and 7DII and 5DIV. In the last year, the 100-500 on the R5 has been my first choice. Looking for lighter lenses still on the 5DSR, I tried the Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3s but they were not up to what I wanted. The RF 100-400 is just so much better than the Sigma and Tamrons, with excellent AF and IS that they didn't have. So, I have transitioned from having the 400mm DO II + extenders on the 5DIV or 5DSR as my heavier top alternative and 100-400mm II as my lightweight good enough alternative, to the 100-500mm being my heavier top class gear with the RF 100-400mm being the lightweight good enough that I take on my daily walks.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 28, 2021)

dcm said:


> A couple of American Widgeons. R6, RF 100-400. DxO PL4.
> 
> I had an enjoyable first outing with this lens at a local park. This combination works well and makes a great companion to the RF 800. My 12 liter Kenba Solstice holds the body and both lenses with some room to spare. Hardly noticed I was carrying it by hand and wrist strap with the RF 800 in the pack.
> 
> ...


Which gives the better image quality, the Rf 800 f/11 or the RF 100-400mm? Thanks


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I've changed my requirements steadily over the years, looking for lighter and better lenses for serious nature photography, with the 400mm DO II plus extender as my upper weight limit for walking and hand holding. I've been constantly looking for lighter alternatives. The 100-400mm II on the 5DSR has proved to be more than good enough for general use, and for the year before last the Nikon 500 PF on the D500 and D850 my preference as they are really where Canon should have taken the DO technology and 7DII and 5DIV. In the last year, the 100-500 on the R5 has been my first choice. Looking for lighter lenses still on the 5DSR, I tried the Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3s but they were not up to what I wanted. The RF 100-400 is just so much better than the Sigma and Tamrons, with excellent AF and IS that they didn't have. So, I have transitioned from having the 400mm DO II + extenders on the 5DIV or 5DSR as my heavier top alternative and 100-400mm II as my lightweight good enough alternative, to the 100-500mm being my heavier top class gear with the RF 100-400mm being the lightweight good enough that I take on my daily walks.


You mentioned that the Rf 100-400mm has better AF and IS than the Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3s, was that the reason they didn't suit your needs? Was the image quality better or worse. I'm trying to decide between the Canon RF 100-400mm and the Ef mount Sigma 100-400mm, any recommendations or advice would me much appreciated, thanks!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> You mentioned that the Rf 100-400mm has better AF and IS than the Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3s, was that the reason they didn't suit your needs? Was the image quality better or worse. I'm trying to decide between the Canon RF 100-400mm and the Ef mount Sigma 100-400mm, any recommendations or advice would me much appreciated, thanks!


See: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/100-400mm-canon-vs-tamron-vs-sigma.34124/#post-699943

Sigma might have updated the firmware to improve the IS, but the original was pretty bad.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 28, 2021)

AlanF said:


> See: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/100-400mm-canon-vs-tamron-vs-sigma.34124/#post-699943
> 
> Sigma might have updated the firmware to improve the IS, but the original was pretty bad.


Thanks Alan!


----------



## dcm (Oct 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Which gives the better image quality, the Rf 800 f/11 or the RF 100-400mm? Thanks


I have not used the RF 100-400 enough to form that kind of opinion. My initial impression is that both are good enough for my purposes. I’ve had the 800 long enough and shot in a wide variety of situations to confirm my initial impression. They both pair well with my R6 and fit in a small backpack for a lightweight carry. I won’t speculate on results with an R5 - see @AlanF.

That’s a bit of an apples to oranges comparison anyway. These lenses serve different focal lengths/purposes for me. I am generally not a pixel peeper so test charts will not matter much to me. Comparing a cropped 400mm photo to an 800mm photo doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t plan to get the RF 2X extender so a head to head comparison is not important either. I won’t bother comparing the RF 100-400 with the EF 100-400 L II, many others will do that and confirm what we already expect. Maybe someone will compare an EF 800 with the RF 800 someday. They can all take great photos.

I bought the R6 and these lenses for size/weight considerations. The 1DXII and L glass are getting a bit heavy to lug around all of the time as I get older. Most of my everyday shooting had switched to the smaller/lighter M series, but it lacks telephoto options. The R6, RF100-400, and RF800/RF1.4x addresses this need much better than adapting EF lenses to an M body and gives me more capabilities than I had before. And it costs a lot less the the EF 600 L that I considered a few years ago, but never pulled the trigger due to size/weight.

I still use my EF glass on the R6. I shot with the EF 11-24 earlier this week. The 1DXII is my backup body for now while I wait to see what new R bodies are on the horizon.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 28, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Which gives the better image quality, the Rf 800 f/11 or the RF 100-400mm? Thanks


Both give high quality images but of different fields of view. An RF 100-400 cropped to 800mm fov or with the RF 2x will not be nearly as good as the RF 800mm f/11.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 29, 2021)

dcm said:


> I have not used the RF 100-400 enough to form that kind of opinion. My initial impression is that both are good enough for my purposes. I’ve had the 800 long enough and shot in a wide variety of situations to confirm my initial impression. They both pair well with my R6 and fit in a small backpack for a lightweight carry. I won’t speculate on results with an R5 - see @AlanF.
> 
> That’s a bit of an apples to oranges comparison anyway. These lenses serve different focal lengths/purposes for me. I am generally not a pixel peeper so test charts will not matter much to me. Comparing a cropped 400mm photo to an 800mm photo doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t plan to get the RF 2X extender so a head to head comparison is not important either. I won’t bother comparing the RF 100-400 with the EF 100-400 L II, many others will do that and confirm what we already expect. Maybe someone will compare an EF 800 with the RF 800 someday. They can all take great photos.
> 
> ...


Agreed, they're totally difefrent focal lengths, and as Alan has pointed out, the FOV will be different, so a on-for-one comparison isn't valid. I probably didn't explain myself, I was thinking more from a practical perspective in terms of final output, framing a subject and taking the photo. More interested in how people would rate the final output, a photo of a bird for example. I'm aware that if I bought the RF 100-400 rather than the RF 800 I would have to get twice as close to the bird to fill the frame, but it would be easier to get closer shots due to the much shorter minimum focus distance. Perhaps what I'm asking is that if I were to only choose one as a general purpose wildlife lens, which would be the better buy? Would be great to hear your opinion once you've had more time with the lens, thanks!


----------



## dcm (Oct 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Agreed, they're totally difefrent focal lengths, and as Alan has pointed out, the FOV will be different, so a on-for-one comparison isn't valid. I probably didn't explain myself, I was thinking more from a practical perspective in terms of final output, framing a subject and taking the photo. More interested in how people would rate the final output, a photo of a bird for example. I'm aware that if I bought the RF 100-400 rather than the RF 800 I would have to get twice as close to the bird to fill the frame, but it would be easier to get closer shots due to the much shorter minimum focus distance. Perhaps what I'm asking is that if I were to only choose one as a general purpose wildlife lens, which would be the better buy? Would be great to hear your opinion once you've had more time with the lens, thanks!



I shoot a wide range of wildlife from birds to moose at home, natural areas, and national parks. Sometimes I can get close, sometimes not. I tried the first Tamron 150-600 but was never pleased with the lens. After that I got the EF 100-400 L II and use it with the 1DXII or R6. But I really wanted to go longer. I considered great whites with extenders, but could not convince myself to pull the trigger as I get older and look to lighten the load. 

The RF 800 is what I'd been looking for. The R6/RF800/RF1.4x has been great addition. It allows me to get photos that were not possible before. It took a while to get comfortable using it at f/11 and f/16, but after a short learning curve I found I could achieve great photos with it. 

I wasn't considering the RF 100-500 and didn't think the RF 100-400 would interest me since I already had the EF version. But the price/size/weight made me take another look and it seemed like too good of deal to pass up. I expect a learning curve with RF 100-400 before I get it dialed in. I expect I will be as happy with it as I am with the 800. 

I've only been out once and just don't have the mileage yet as you noted - shooting or post processing. But the answer would the same. Get both for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It's only a matter of when. You just have to decide which one to get first.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 29, 2021)

dcm said:


> I shoot a wide range of wildlife from birds to moose at home, natural areas, and national parks. Sometimes I can get close, sometimes not. I tried the first Tamron 150-600 but was never pleased with the lens. After that I got the EF 100-400 L II and use it with the 1DXII or R6. But I really wanted to go longer. I considered great whites with extenders, but could not convince myself to pull the trigger as I get older and look to lighten the load.
> 
> The RF 800 is what I'd been looking for. The R6/RF800/RF1.4x has been great addition. It allows me to get photos that were not possible before. It took a while to get comfortable using it at f/11 and f/16, but after a short learning curve I found I could achieve great photos with it.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I'm wanting mine for the same purpose as you use yours, so this really helps! looks like the two make a very good lightweight combination!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Thanks, I'm wanting mine for the same purpose as you use yours, so this really helps! looks like the two make a very good lightweight combination!


I have all three: the RF 100-500mm, RF 100-400mm and RF 800 f/11. The combination of RF 100-400mm and RF 800 does make the more affordable way of spanning 100-800mm with excellent quality, albeit at a bit of a gap between 400-800mm, and does give the really nice choice of taking out one lightweight lens or the other. If I go out and want the wider gamut of focal lengths, I'll take the 100-500mm on the R5 and the RF 2x in my pocket or in a small bag around my waist. There's not much difference in weight between taking the RF 100-400mm + RF 800 f/11 vs 1000-500mm + RF 2x, but the RF 100-500mm outresolves the 100-400mm, and at 1000mm the 800mm, and the combination is more shower proof and much easier to carry when hiking. But, that zoom and the 2xTC are very expensive.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 29, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I have all three: the RF 100-500mm, RF 100-400mm and RF 800 f/11. The combination of RF 100-400mm and RF 800 does make the more affordable way of spanning 100-800mm with excellent quality, albeit at a bit of a gap between 400-800mm, and does give the really nice choice of taking out one lightweight lens or the other. If I go out and want the wider gamut of focal lengths, I'll take the 100-500mm on the R5 and the RF 2x in my pocket or in a small bag around my waist. There's not much difference in weight between taking the RF 100-400mm + RF 800 f/11 vs 1000-500mm + RF 2x, but the RF 100-500mm outresolves the 100-400mm, and at 1000mm the 800mm, and the combination is more shower proof and much easier to carry when hiking. But, that zoom and the 2xTC are very expensive.


Cool, you have both the budget and the premium combinations for the task! The 100-500mm with a teleconverter is a very versatile, albeit expensive combo for wildlife. If I had the money I'd get one!  

What amazes me is how far affordable long tele lenses have come since the original EF 100-400 series I lens, which is not considered that sharp these days!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 29, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Cool, you have both the budget and the premium combinations for the task! The 100-500mm with a teleconverter is a very versatile, albeit expensive combo for wildlife. If I had the money I'd get one!
> 
> What amazes me is how far affordable long tele lenses have come since the original EF 100-400 series I lens, which is not considered that sharp these days!


The original EF 100-400mm had serious copy variation. The one I had was appalling, but I once tried another that was far better. Canon lenses now have good consistency from one copy to the next, but still do vary and you really do need to test the copy you buy before buying.


----------



## reefroamer (Nov 7, 2021)

I put the RF 100-400 on my wife's RP and weighed the combo on my scale at 2.66lbs. My R6+adapter+EF 100-400 II weighed in at 5.62lbs, more than twice the RP combo and nearly 3lbs more. That’s quite a difference. The RP combo is an especially portable solution for many situations. I’m a bit envious.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 7, 2021)

reefroamer said:


> I put the RF 100-400 on my wife's RP and weighed the combo on my scale at 2.66lbs. My R6+adapter+EF 100-400 II weighed in at 5.62lbs, more than twice the RP combo and nearly 3lbs more. That’s quite a difference. The RP combo is an especially portable solution for many situations. I’m a bit envious.


The more I use the RF 100-400mm, the more I like it. It's very sharp and just right for me for casual hikes. When I need a longer lens that takes extenders well, it's the RF 100-500mm, which although a kilo heavier is still easily manageable.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 8, 2021)

reefroamer said:


> I put the RF 100-400 on my wife's RP and weighed the combo on my scale at 2.66lbs. My R6+adapter+EF 100-400 II weighed in at 5.62lbs, more than twice the RP combo and nearly 3lbs more. That’s quite a difference. The RP combo is an especially portable solution for many situations. I’m a bit envious.


Can you please take a smaple photo or two with each setup and post them up?

I'm sure many people would be curious what kind of images are possible with a camera-lens combo that is half the weight and price! Thanks


----------



## AlanF (Nov 8, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Can you please take a smaple photo or two with each setup and post them up?
> 
> I'm sure many people would be curious what kind of images are possible with a camera-lens combo that is half the weight and price! Thanks


Go to the Bird Portraits thread and you’ll see some of mine. Start at end and work back.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Nov 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Go to the Bird Portraits thread and you’ll see some of mine. Start at end and work back.


Thanks, here the link if others are interested - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/

I just wish more people added the EXIF data or specified what lenses they used, like you do in your posts there, as that's most helpful. 

It's a great thread for appreciating the photographic skills of the people posting there and the amazing bird life, but it's kind of frustrating when you're trying to figure out what quality to expect from certain gear in some instances. I love seeing images shot on $12,000 lenses but I know that no gear that I can afford will ever look like that. What's inspiring is seeing photos like the Eurasian Robin you took with the RF 100-400mm, that tells me that the lens is capable of that quality on the R5, and the limiting factor for new bird photographers is developing the skill to make shots like that.


----------



## mpphoto (Nov 9, 2021)

Alan (or anyone who has the RF 100-400mm), how does the AF compare with the EF 100-400mm II for tracking moving objects? The TDP review and test charts had me wary of the image quality from this lens, but after reading Alan's comments and seeing Christopher Frost's review, I'm starting to come around. The size and weight are attractive, and the f/8 at 400mm doesn't bother me.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 9, 2021)

mpphoto said:


> Alan (or anyone who has the RF 100-400mm), how does the AF compare with the EF 100-400mm II for tracking moving objects? The TDP review and test charts had me wary of the image quality from this lens, but after reading Alan's comments and seeing Christopher Frost's review, I'm starting to come around. The size and weight are attractive, and the f/8 at 400mm doesn't bother me.


I haven't really put it through its paces directly comparing it with, say, the 100-500 for extreme BIF. I did some seagulls in flight early afternoon today and it was very good.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 9, 2021)

Now I have had the lens for 3 weeks, I think every one should have one! I've worked my way through an EF 100-400mm, EF 100-400mm II, Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3 (and tried out the Sigma version), Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, RF 100-500mm and now the RF 100-400mm. The best is the 100-500mm. The most fun is the RF 100-400mm, and it beats into the ground the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mms for AF, and it's pretty close to the 100-400mm II in the centre for IQ. It's a steal.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Now I have had the lens for 3 weeks, I think every one should have one! I've worked my way through an EF 100-400mm, EF 100-400mm II, Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3 (and tried out the Sigma version), Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, RF 100-500mm and now the RF 100-400mm. The best is the 100-500mm. The most fun is the RF 100-400mm, and it beats into the ground the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mms for AF, and it's pretty close to the 100-400mm II in the centre for IQ. It's a steal.


Thanks Alan for all your comments and posts on this lens. I received mine yesterday and though haven't had much chance to use it yet, my initial impression is that this is indeed a great lens to have. Lenses like the EF 100-400 II and the RF 100-500 are a bit beyond my budget, so a while ago I bought the Sigma contemporary 100-400mm. I tried two copies of that lens actually and sold them both as they seemed quite soft at 400mm. This new Canon lens is sharper, considerably lighter and cheaper. Maybe I just had bad copies of the Sigma, but even if the IQ was equal, the weight difference makes the Canon the far better choice in my opinion.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 10, 2021)

Nice review today:





Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Review | Photography Blog


The RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM is a very affordable super-telephoto zoom lens for Canon's full-frame mirrorless cameras, offering a versatile 4x focal range in a compact, lightweight design. Read our in-depth Canon RF 100-400mm lens review to discover if this is the best telephoto lens for most...




www.photographyblog.com




There's a glut of EF 100-400mm II on the used market here: MPB have 87 and WEX 22. The EF has a slight edge over the RF in IQ, which is imperceptible in real use, and takes extenders better. But, I think the RF 100-400mm will severely hurt the sales of the EF for RF users.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Nice review today:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder how many people buy used EF lenses to mount on a mirrorless body, versus buying them to mount on an older DSLR that they already have or have bought used? I recently sold three EF lenses locally on Craigslist (70-200/2.8 II, 70-300L, and 40/2.8), all of them to DSLR shooters, one of whom had just purchased a used 7DII and another who had just purchased a used 6D.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder how many people buy used EF lenses to mount on a mirrorless body, versus buying them to mount on an older DSLR that they already have or have bought used? I recently sold three EF lenses locally on Craigslist (70-200/2.8 II, 70-300L, and 40/2.8), all of them to DSLR shooters, one of whom had just purchased a used 7DII and another who had just purchased a used 6D.


Until a couple of weeks ago, I suspect that because of the unavailability of the RF 100-500mm and the high price if you could get it, some RF5 owners were buying used 100-400nm IIs. Now, with the 100-500mm gardually coming on to the market at the top end and the RF 100-400 at the cheap end, the buyer base will drift to the DSLR users. Probably a good time to buy a used 7DII and EF lenses. Also WEX have suddenly on sale several EF 400mm f/2.8 IIs and a few 500mm f/4, and there has hardly been a big white on sale there for a while.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder how many people buy used EF lenses to mount on a mirrorless body, versus buying them to mount on an older DSLR that they already have or have bought used? I recently sold three EF lenses locally on Craigslist (70-200/2.8 II, 70-300L, and 40/2.8), all of them to DSLR shooters, one of whom had just purchased a used 7DII and another who had just purchased a used 6D.


After a brief flirtation with Nikon - I came back to Canon for the Canon colors - and bought the EF 16-35 f/4, the EF 24-70 f/4 and the EF 80-200 f/2.8 for my R6. Considering the price of used, I would think there are more folks like me who are buying EF for mirrorless. My only RF lens so far is the new RF 100-400.


----------



## dlee13 (Nov 11, 2021)

Sold my Tamron last week and have ordered this lens. Stock is really hard to get where I live so it’s a long wait…


----------



## dlee13 (Nov 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Now I have had the lens for 3 weeks, I think every one should have one! I've worked my way through an EF 100-400mm, EF 100-400mm II, Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3 (and tried out the Sigma version), Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, RF 100-500mm and now the RF 100-400mm. The best is the 100-500mm. The most fun is the RF 100-400mm, and it beats into the ground the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mms for AF, and it's pretty close to the 100-400mm II in the centre for IQ. It's a steal.


How did you find the IQ compared to the Tamron, especially at 400mm?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 11, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> How did you find the IQ compared to the Tamron, especially at 400mm?


Dustin Abbott had written glowingly about it. But, I didn't find the copy of the Tamron 100-400mm I had sharp enough, and I sold it at a loss after a couple of months. The AF was hopeless and couldn't track a bird in flight using the 5DIV. The RF 100-400mm I find to be very sharp and excellent AF with the R5.


----------



## dlee13 (Nov 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Dustin Abbott had written glowingly about it. But, I didn't find the copy of the Tamron 100-400mm I had sharp enough, and I sold it at a loss after a couple of months. The AF was hopeless and couldn't track a bird in flight using the 5DIV. The RF 100-400mm I find to be very sharp and excellent AF with the R5.


Yeah I’ve seen some people using it on Flickr and I’d consider their copies to be way stronger than mine at 400mm. From what I’m seeing from on forums and Flickr the RF 100-400mm it blows my Tamron away at 400mm. Thanks for your insights!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 11, 2021)

I tested it today for close up shots, 1.5-6m. It is very, very sharp in the centre but soft in the corners, better than the EF 100-400mm.


----------



## dlee13 (Nov 12, 2021)

Very promising to hear and although would be nice if it was sharper in the corners, it’s a price I’ll happily pay for the price and weight.


----------



## dlee13 (Nov 19, 2021)

I just got my lens today and I was honestly blown away with how fast the AF is. The other thing I noticed was how silent it is too, if only Canon used this USM motor on their RF 35mm and 85mm lenses…


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2021)

R5 vs R6 at 20m with RF 100-400mm at f/8 vs f/11, unsharpened files

I posted this in another thread but for completeness here I'll post here. I tested the RF 100-400mm at f/8 vs f/11 and distance of 20mm,

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.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It takes the same lenshood as well, the ET-74B. It has an outrageous price of £76 in the UK. Fortunately, as the 70-300mm II has been around a few years, there are plenty of knock-off ones at £10-12. As a matter of principle, I am not spending £76 on a piece of black plastic that will likely need to be repalced after a few knocks.


I just bought the JJC LH-74B and it doesn't reverse fit on the RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 so its going back to Amazon and our buy the Canon one.


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Nov 27, 2021)

I have the JJC LH-74B and it fits reversed on the 100-400mm, but that maybe because I have a B+W XS-PRO UV-Haze MRC nano filter on the lens.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2021)

jeffa4444 said:


> I just bought the JJC LH-74B and it doesn't reverse fit on the RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 so its going back to Amazon and our buy the Canon one.


On mine it reverses when no filter is attached. ColorBlindBat just now reported that the hood fits over a B+W filter. I've stopped using filters on my telephotos when I have hoods. But, I've just checked and fits and reverses over a Marumi DHG. Do you have a filter over yours? Maybe you have a bad one.


----------



## dlee13 (Nov 27, 2021)

We’ve had rain almost non stop daily since I got the lens but earlier in the week I managed to give it a try and I love it. 

Please keep in mind I almost never shoot birds but this was the best I could get at a local park haha


----------



## reefroamer (Dec 12, 2021)

reefroamer said:


> I put the RF 100-400 on my wife's RP and weighed the combo on my scale at 2.66lbs. My R6+adapter+EF 100-400 II weighed in at 5.62lbs, more than twice the RP combo and nearly 3lbs more. That’s quite a difference. The RP combo is an especially portable solution for many situations. I’m a bit envious.


After a few weeks, I cracked and purchased another RF 100-400 for my own use on my R6. My plan now is to sell the EF 100-400 II/1.4x combo and use the proceeds for either the RF 100-500 or RF 800 RF. The RF 100-400 is just so light/portable and good enough in most situations that keeping the EF 100-400 doesn’t make the sense it once did. The RF 100-500 is still attractive, though, especially with the 1.4/2x teleconverters. My wife is a still huge fan of her very light RP+RF 100-400 combo.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 12, 2021)

reefroamer said:


> After a few weeks, I cracked and purchased another RF 100-400 for my own use on my R6. My plan now is to sell the EF 100-400 II/1.4x combo and use the proceeds for either the RF 100-500 or RF 800 RF. The RF 100-400 is just so light/portable and good enough in most situations that keeping the EF 100-400 doesn’t make the sense it once did. The RF 100-500 is still attractive, though, especially with the 1.4/2x teleconverters. My wife is a still huge fan of her very light RP+RF 100-400 combo.


These narrower lenses pair particularly well with the R6 as they are wider than its diffraction-limited aperture. My wife had stopped taking a camera with her on our hikes but now she takes the R6+RF100-400mm.


----------



## Rockskipper (Jan 11, 2022)

I just bought an R6 with the 100-500. I'm returning the 100-500 today (ready to go) and have ordered an RF100-400. Why go down in quality? I like what I see posted for 100-400 results, but basically, it all comes down to weight. I can barely carry around the RF100-500, and it doesn't make me want to take my camera anywhere. I also have an EF 100-400L II that I've kept only out of optimism that I'll get stronger, but I think I'm going to sell it or just keep it for exceptional times when I have my tripod (national parks type stuff). I broke my back a few years ago and just can't carry anything heavy. BUt the little bit I did use the RF100-500 I found it to be exceptional.


----------



## dcm (Jan 12, 2022)

Took my 5yo granddaughter to a nearby butterfly pavillion to see how the RF 100-400 performs when shooting closeups on an overcast day. We had the place to ourselves so she narrated the tour. Here's a few butterflies and flowers. Not quite a macro lens, but not bad. Even at f/8, the DOF is too narrow in many cases so it isn't as much of a handicap as you might think. Need to go back on a sunny day for comparison to shoot f/11 and f/16 closeups. R6, RF 100-400, DxO PL5.

400mm, f/8, 1/250s, ISO 2000



400mm, f/8, 1/100s, ISO 320



400mm, f/8, 1/100s, ISO 1000



270mm, f/8, 1/100s, ISO 800



400mm, f/8, 1/100s, ISO 500



400mm, f/8, 1/100s, ISO 400


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 4, 2022)

I'm sold, thanks everyone!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 28, 2022)

Anyone sitting on the fence about the RF 100-400mm take a look at the reviews on YouTube by Duade Paton an Australian Bird Photographer (it’s about 40min long and in-depth real world review) and Andrew Aveley a South African wild life photographer shooting with the lens in Kruger National Park www.andrewwaveley.com who has an article about it.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 1, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> Anyone sitting on the fence about the RF 100-400mm take a look at the reviews on YouTube by Duade Paton an Australian Bird Photographer (it’s about 40min long and in-depth real world review) and Andrew Aveley a South African wild life photographer shooting with the lens in Kruger National Park www.andrewwaveley.com who has an article about it.


Thanks, the proper link for the second site you recommend is https://www.andrewaveley.co.za/canon-rf-100-400-lens-review/


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 4, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Thanks, the proper link for the second site you recommend is https://www.andrewaveley.co.za/canon-rf-100-400-lens-review/


Sorry about that.


----------



## PCM-madison (Apr 28, 2022)

The more I use this lens, the more I like it. Blue-grey gnatcatcher, Madison, WI.


----------

