# RF 100-500mm vs EF 100-400mm II vs 400mm DO II on R5



## AlanF (Dec 12, 2020)

One of the questions asked about the RF 100-500mm is whether it’s worth upgrading to it from an EF 100-400mm II plus adapter. The consensus so far is that if you are starting from scratch, then it makes sense to buy into the RF system but if you already have the excellent EF lens then there is not that much to be gained by discarding the excellent 100-400mm II. Although the RF is back-ordered everywhere in the UK, some copies appeared on the European Canon site and I couldn’t resist one. The 100-500mm arrived Thursday afternoon and I managed to get some preliminary analysis when it hasn’t been raining from the point of view of someone who likes a lightweight lens for hiking and taking photos of birds, perched and in flight, close up and distant, and dragonflies and butterflies close up.

I have compared it on the R5 with the EF 100-400mm II f/5.6 and 400mm DO II f/4 with and without a 1.4xTCIII, in particular. In general, all three are spectacular for AF, both for latching on to fast flying birds and the eyes of closer ones. As for IS, I don’t see much of an R improvement in my hands when looking for pixel level sharpness and I needed to get down to 1/160s for 50% absolutely tack sharp at the pixel level at 20m.

The websites that report on lens sharpness usually do so at just one undefined distance. I want to know how sharp a lens is close up, mid distances and further away. So, I have done some tests using a UK £10 note at 3 and 6m, and black and white resolution charts at 12 and 20m. The RF 1.4xTC is arriving next week and I’ll report on the lens at 700mm then.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 12, 2020)

1. For birders and wildlife photography

Chart 12m
100-500mm has somewhat better resolution than 400mm DO II with more pixels on target but not quite as contrasty. It has better resolution than the 100-400mm II, and similar resolution to but better contrast than the 100-400mm II at 560mm with a 1.4xTCIII. The 100-500mm is outresolved by the 400mm DO II at 560mm with 1.4xTCIII or a Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF on a D850.

Chart 20m
100-500mm somewhat better resolution than the 400mm DO, outresolves 100-400mm, and similar resolution to the 100-400mm II at 560mm but slightly better contrast. The 100-500mm is outresolved by the 400mm DO II at 560mm and 500mm PF.

Conclusion
The RF 100-500mm basically gives you the range of the 100-400mm II at 100-560mm without the need to use an extender and with slightly better performance at 500mm and f/7.1 in terms of resolution than the EF at 560mm and f/8.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 12, 2020)

2. Close up for dragonflies and insects

I have been using the Nikon 500PF for this purpose as well as birds because it is spectacularly sharp at its minimum focal distance of 3m and short distances. I found the 100-400mm II softish close up. So how does the 100-500mm compare. The £10 note has a wide range of colouring, shading, embossing and sharp lines. I have just to illustrate the sharpness here used crops of Britannia from the bottom left, which has some useful concentric lines, and the head of our Queen, which is in grey but with some colouring on here face made up of alternating grey and white squares that merge as distance increases or as contrast is lost by the lens.

£10 note at 3m
100-500mm much better than 140-560mm and 100-400mm, not as good as the 500mm PF gold standard but getting there.

£10 note at 6m
100-500mm again much better than 140-560mm and 100-400mm, not as good as 500mm PF, but better than 400mm DO II and about same as 560mm DO II.

You can see all this from the crops in the next post, looking at Britannia’s rings and lines and the Queen’s face grey colouring. (I didn't correct the white balance here).

Conclusion
The RF 100-500mm is a real improvement over the 100-400mm II at close distances if you need high resolution and cropping. For me, this makes the RF lens worthwhile as I can use a single lens for a trip photographing insects and birds.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 12, 2020)

The site has compressed the attachments so I have chopped them in two, the top pair at 3m, the bottom at 6m. Each part of the collage is a 100% crop (1 pixel of crop = 1 pixel of original image without resizing) taken on an R5.


----------



## Joules (Dec 12, 2020)

AlanF said:


> if you already have the excellent EF lens then there is not that much to be gained by discarding the excellent 100-*5*00mm II. Although the RF is back-ordered everywhere in the UK, some copies appeared on the European Canon site and I couldn’t resist one. The 100-500mm *II* arrived Thursday afternoon and I managed to get some preliminary analysis


Think you got some numbers jumbled up there - unless you've ordered a lens from the future 

Excellent testing, thanks for sharing! Could you maybe confirm which camera these images were taken with on the Canon side of things? You mention the R in your OP but based on the resolution I would have guessed to look at R5 pictures? And also confirm that the size differences in your images arise from the fact that you have cropped to the same relative image section, but without applying any resizing?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 12, 2020)

Joules said:


> Think you got some numbers jumbled up there - unless you've ordered a lens from the future
> 
> Excellent testing, thanks for sharing! Could you maybe confirm which camera these images were taken with on the Canon side of things? You mention the R in your OP but based on the resolution I would have guessed to look at R5 pictures? And also confirm that the size differences in your images arise from the fact that you have cropped to the same relative image section, but without applying any resizing?


Thanks Joules for helping me make it clearer. I have corrected the typos and added "Each part of the collage is a 100% crop (1 pixel of crop = 1 pixel of original image without resizing) taken on an R5."


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 12, 2020)

Thank you very much, AlanF, for these great posts. As a Canon newbie, I got the R5 and RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1L and it has quickly become my favorite lens. The zoom range is great for mild telephoto to long telephoto (my favorite) which can give an enormous background blur with proper separation for flowers/cats etc. I *really* like the adjustable tension ring, and wish the RF 70-200 f2.8L had it.

One minor suggestion: Some of us newbies (like me) might not know the f# of the other lenses you mentioned, so it'd be good if you mention that at the beginning so we know what they are without having to look elsewhere to find them. - Thanks, again!


----------



## SteveC (Dec 12, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The site has compressed the attachments so I have chopped them in two, the top pair at 3m, the bottom at 6m. Each part of the collage is a 100% crop (1 pixel of crop = 1 pixel of original image without resizing) taken on an R5.
> 
> View attachment 194477
> View attachment 194478
> ...



That looks like polymer, and I was unaware that the UK (Bank of England to be much more precise) had adopted that.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

My wife told me to go ahead and get the 100-500. "Merry Christmas," she said, and smiled. 

Your thread, AlanF, makes me feel better about it!


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 13, 2020)

Thanks for review. I ended up selling Sigma EF 60-600 and bought RF100-500 and RF800 instead. Now I pick one or occasionally both when needed.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 13, 2020)

bhf3737 said:


> Thanks for review. I ended up selling Sigma EF 60-600 and bought RF100-500 and RF800 instead. Now I pick one or occasionally both when needed.


You have posted some great shots with the 60-600mm. It’s a too-heavy lens for me. The RF 800 is a great lens but you do need a shorter lens to go with it and so yours is a route that is very sensible. I'm in a slightly different position as I have a 400mm DO II that with a 2xTC at f/8 is very sharp. I’m very intrigued to see how the 100-500mm performs with the 1.4xTC at 700mm. My guess is from the Canon MTFs it will be good but I’ll know in a day or two. I have found the attached collage useful. Whatever anyone writes, the new Canon MTF charts do have some bearing in reality, but individual copies of lenses do vary and performance does depend on distance to the target.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 13, 2020)

Do we know how the 100-500 is protected from damage when the zoom barrel bottoms out against the tele-extender?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 13, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Do we know how the 100-500 is protected from damage when the zoom barrel bottoms out against the tele-extender?


There is a black ring that moves, semi-connected to the rear element housing, and comes into play to prevent the glass from hitting the front of the extender.


----------



## HenryL (Dec 13, 2020)

Alan, thank you so much for this information. In my short time on this forum, I've come to trust your straightforward analysis and well considered opinions. 

I purchased the 100-400II 15 months ago, at the time I had no intention of jumping to mirrorless. It now remains one of two remaining EF lenses in my kit, and your careful analysis makes it a simple decision for me to pick one up before the Osprey return and sell the 100-400II and also the 100L Macro that I have rarely ever used. Thanks again, heading over to the Buy/Sell forum.


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> You have posted some great shots with the 60-600mm. It’s a too-heavy lens for me. The RF 800 is a great lens but you do need a shorter lens to go with it and so yours is a route that is very sensible. I'm in a slightly different position as I have a 400mm DO II that with a 2xTC at f/8 is very sharp. I’m very intrigued to see how the 100-500mm performs with the 1.4xTC at 700mm. My guess is from the Canon MTFs it will be good but I’ll know in a day or two. I have found the attached collage useful. Whatever anyone writes, the new Canon MTF charts do have some bearing in reality, but individual copies of lenses do vary and performance does depend on distance to the target.



Sigma 60-600 was a great lens and I miss it a little but it was quite heavy. It was heavier than the RF100-500 and RF800 combined. 
Thanks for the charts. I actually used them as the base of my decision when you posted them earlier. For me, the 1.4x extender on RF100-500 could produce very good and acceptable results but I was not impressed with the RF 100-500 with 2x extender's IQ.
With the RF 1.4x extender: aperture is between f/8 to f/10 and effective focal length is 420mm to 700mm.
With the RF 2x extender: aperture is between f/11 to f/14 with effective focal length of 600mm to 1000mm.
For those who want one long lens the RF100-500 +1.4x extender would be an excellent choice. But I use the range of 100-400mm a lot and I was hesitant to put extender on the 100-500 lens, but then missed loner longer focal lengths. I guess RF800 fills that gap. With my kit, I have full access to 100-500mm range natively and occasionally 800mm when needed.


----------



## mikekeck (Dec 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> One of the questions asked about the RF 100-500mm is whether it’s worth upgrading to it from an EF 100-400mm II plus adapter. The consensus so far is that if you are starting from scratch, then it makes sense to buy into the RF system but if you already have the excellent EF lens then there is not that much to be gained by discarding the excellent 100-400mm II. Although the RF is back-ordered everywhere in the UK, some copies appeared on the European Canon site and I couldn’t resist one. The 100-500mm arrived Thursday afternoon and I managed to get some preliminary analysis when it hasn’t been raining from the point of view of someone who likes a lightweight lens for hiking and taking photos of birds, perched and in flight, close up and distant, and dragonflies and butterflies close up.
> 
> I have compared it on the R5 with the EF 100-400mm II f/5.6 and 400mm DO II f/4 with and without a 1.4xTCIII, in particular. In general, all three are spectacular for AF, both for latching on to fast flying birds and the eyes of closer ones. As for IS, I don’t see much of an R improvement in my hands when looking for pixel level sharpness and I needed to get down to 1/160s for 50% absolutely tack sharp at the pixel level at 20m.
> 
> The websites that report on lens sharpness usually do so at just one undefined distance. I want to know how sharp a lens is close up, mid distances and further away. So, I have done some tests using a UK £10 note at 3 and 6m, and black and white resolution charts at 12 and 20m. The RF 1.4xTC is arriving next week and I’ll report on the lens at 700mm then.





AlanF said:


> The site has compressed the attachments so I have chopped them in two, the top pair at 3m, the bottom at 6m. Each part of the collage is a 100% crop (1 pixel of crop = 1 pixel of original image without resizing) taken on an R5.
> 
> View attachment 194477
> View attachment 194478
> ...


Thanks, Alan. I can't stop looking at that Nikon image. I'm a Canon user, but I have to ask: Why would you use the 100-500 for bird photography when you have that Nikon available?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 14, 2020)

mikekeck said:


> Thanks, Alan. I can't stop looking at that Nikon image. I'm a Canon user, but I have to ask: Why would you use the 100-500 for bird photography when you have that Nikon available?


My favourite kit for bird photography used to be a 5DIV or 5DSR plus 400mm DO II plus TCs. However, for recent safaris I took just the 100-400mm II for lightness and zoom versatility at the sacrifice of some IQ. Then, the 500PF came out but was back-ordered worse than the 100-500 is now but I got a used one cheap. I bought first a used D500 and then a D850 and was blown away by the AF of the Nikons, their fps and the IQ from the 500PF and the 45 Mpx sensor or its equivalent on the D500. I took photos of birds during lockdown in flight or with such detail, and similarly dragonflies and butterflies, that during lockdown I couldn’t do as well with Canon. So, I would have taken the Nikon for our post-COVID trips. Then comes along the R5, which is a game changer with its eyeAF. A really sharp zoom zoom with it would be very convenient for those safaris travelling light. So, I now have a delightful choice of what superlative kit to take. I’ll be comparing both extensively as the weather improves but I know I would be happy with either.


----------



## FramerMCB (Dec 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> My favourite kit for bird photography used to be a 5DIV or 5DSR plus 400mm DO II plus TCs. However, for recent safaris I took just the 100-400mm II for lightness and zoom versatility at the sacrifice of some IQ. Then, the 500PF came out but was back-ordered worse than the 100-500 is now but I got a used one cheap. I bought first a used D500 and then a D850 and was blown away by the AF of the Nikons, their fps and the IQ from the 500PF and the 45 Mpx sensor or its equivalent on the D500. I took photos of birds during lockdown in flight or with such detail, and similarly dragonflies and butterflies, that during lockdown I couldn’t do as well with Canon. So, I would have taken the Nikon for our post-COVID trips. Then comes along the R5, which is a game changer with its eyeAF. A really sharp zoom zoom with it would be very convenient for those safaris travelling light. So, I now have a delightful choice of what superlative kit to take. I’ll be comparing both extensively as the weather improves but I know I would be happy with either.


Thanks Alan for sharing this info - good to know. I have a brother that shoots with a D750 and the PF 200-500mm f/5.6 VR lens. He gets very nice results.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 14, 2020)

The RF 1.4x extender arrived at lunchtime between some meetings and I was able to test it using the damn chart at 12m and 20m, and comparing with the 400mm DO II at f/8, the 100-400mm II at f/11 with the 2xTC on the R5 , and the D850 with the 500mm PF at 700mm. In a nutshell, the DO II is a very narrow winner, closely followed by the 700mm PF, with the 100-500mm at 700 a very respectable 3rd. The 100-400mm II at 800mm and 12m is far behind. At 20m, you can see it's putting more pixels on target than the 700mm but the contrast is much lower. These results are not in line with the charts on the-digital-picture site. In particular, as I have pointed out before, Bryan's 400mm DO II must be a very bad copy - it is soft wide open and needs to be stopped down. Both copies I have looked at are very sharp wide open as is found on other test sites.
So, if my lens and extender are typical, the RF + 100-500mm is very usefully augmented by the RF 1.4 extender. If I require the sharpest lightweight telephoto set up with the R5, I'll take the 400mm DO II plus extenders (not too heavy rather than light). If I need to travel lighter and with a zoom, it will be the 100-500mm and 1.4 extender.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 14, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The RF 1.4x extender arrived at lunchtime between some meetings and I was able to test it using the damn chart at 12m and 20m, and comparing with the 400mm DO II at f/8, the 100-400mm II at f/11 with the 2xTC on the R5 , and the D850 with the 500mm PF at 700mm. In a nutshell, the DO II is a very narrow winner, closely followed by the 700mm PF, with the 100-500mm at 700 a very respectable 3rd. The 100-400mm II at 800mm and 12m is far behind. At 20m, you can see it's putting more pixels on target than the 700mm but the contrast is much lower. These results are not in line with the charts on the-digital-picture site. In particular, as I have pointed out before, Bryan's 400mm DO II must be a very bad copy - it is soft wide open and needs to be stopped down. Both copies I have looked at are very sharp wide open as is found on other test sites.
> So, if my lens and extender are typical, the RF + 100-500mm is very usefully augmented by the RF 1.4 extender. If I require the sharpest lightweight telephoto set up with the R5, I'll take the 400mm DO II plus extenders (not too heavy rather than light). If I need to travel lighter and with a zoom, it will be the 100-500mm and 1.4 extender.


Thanks for the post, AlanF. Is there any way you can do a 1.4x crop of the RF 100-500 so that you can compare it with the same lens & RF 1.4x TC? That would be a wonderful thing to see (even better if on the R5) as that might help many of us who wonder if they should get a TC or crop their 100-500 for extra reach.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2020)

Iv'e done the crops, and they are interesting. First, close up at 5.8m from a £10 note. I have cropped the left hand side with Britannia and upscaled the 500 1.4x with Gigapixel (500mm x 1.4) and compared with the 100-500+ 1.4xTC (700mm). The analog upscaling with the extender does eke out a little more detail, but loses acutance (edge sharpness), and I am not sure I would recommend it.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2020)

At longer distances, it's a different story, using that damn chart. At 19m with the R5 again. Top, 100-500mm bare; next upscaled 1.4x with Topaz Gigapixel; then 1.4xTC on the 100-500mm TC at 700mm; bottom, the 700mm upscaled 1.4x. The extender allows the 2.8 circles to be resolved and finer spaced lines to be resolved. The extender could be worth it an a number of circumstances. You'll need to download to compare properly.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> At longer distances, it's a different story, using that damn chart. At 19m with the R5 again. Top, 100-500mm bare; next upscaled 1.4x with Gigigapixel; then 1.4xTC on the 100-500mm TC at 700mm; bottom, the 700mm upscaled 1.4x. The extender allows the 2.8 circles to be resolved and finer spaced lines to be resolved. The extender could be worth it an a number of circumstances. You'll need to download to compare properly.
> 
> View attachment 194558
> View attachment 194559
> ...


Thanks, AlanF. I was only able to download the bottom image, and not the top 3. I don't know why.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks, AlanF. I was only able to download the bottom image, and not the top 3. I don't know why.


Right click on the image on a Windows machine or Control click on a Mac and you should be able to download. If it doesn't work I'll PM you.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Right click on the image on a Windows machine or Control click on a Mac and you should be able to download. If it doesn't work I'll PM you.


Thanks - I got all 4 downloaded. It's pretty clear that the R5 & 100-500 at that distance doesn't have the pixels to resolve the smallest lines, and moire starts taking effect. Upsizing can't fix what's already gone moire. Adding the 1.4 TC gives it enough enlargement so moire doesn't happen much, and then the upsizing does a good job on it since it didn't moire out to start with.

So it looks like a very clear winner for using the RF 1.4X with the 100-500L lens over just cropping & upsizing. I guess I should consider a RF 1.4X TC now.

By the way, do you have a favorite Arca-Swiss adapter plate (with anti-rotation pin) for the 100-500K lens foot? I've been avoiding using the lens ring & foot, but with a 1.4X TC in line I think I'd be a lot safer using it. (It sure would have been nice if Canon had Arca-Swiss grooves in their lens foot like my Olympus 300mm f4 lens had)


----------



## AlanF (Dec 15, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks - I got all 4 downloaded. It's pretty clear that the R5 & 100-500 at that distance doesn't have the pixels to resolve the smallest lines, and moire starts taking effect. Upsizing can't fix what's already gone moire. Adding the 1.4 TC gives it enough enlargement so moire doesn't happen much, and then the upsizing does a good job on it since it didn't moire out to start with.
> 
> So it looks like a very clear winner for using the RF 1.4X with the 100-500L lens over just cropping & upsizing. I guess I should consider a RF 1.4X TC now.
> 
> By the way, do you have a favorite Arca-Swiss adapter plate (with anti-rotation pin) for the 100-500K lens foot? I've been avoiding using the lens ring & foot, but with a 1.4X TC in line I think I'd be a lot safer using it. (It sure would have been nice if Canon had Arca-Swiss grooves in their lens foot like my Olympus 300mm f4 lens had)


Sorry, I rarely use a tripod and carry my cameras on a BlackRapid strap with hooks into the camera base and tripod foot sockets.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 15, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> By the way, do you have a favorite Arca-Swiss adapter plate (with anti-rotation pin) for the 100-500K lens foot? I've been avoiding using the lens ring & foot, but with a 1.4X TC in line I think I'd be a lot safer using it. (It sure would have been nice if Canon had Arca-Swiss grooves in their lens foot like my Olympus 300mm f4 lens had)


Kirk has one, but maybe not with a pin: https://www.kirkphoto.com/rf-100-500mm-f-4-5-7-1-l-is-usm.html

I wonder if that front raised part, the stopping block, would interfere with using the lens photo as a handle.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 16, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Kirk has one, but maybe not with a pin: https://www.kirkphoto.com/rf-100-500mm-f-4-5-7-1-l-is-usm.html


Thanks, YuengLinger. The only one I know with a proper anti-rotate pin is the RRS B26, for $49. I'm really surprised that more of this type haven't been made.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 16, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks, YuengLinger. The only one I know with a proper anti-rotate pin is the RRS B26, for $49. I'm really surprised that more of this type haven't been made.


I never saw that one. Is the anti-rotation pin a standard distance from the bolt? Is that how you know it will fit?

On my 100-400, I used the B82. It has a ridge that helps prevent twisting. And I am using the same on my 70-200.

Do you know if the 100-500 has the same shape and size as the 70-200?


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 16, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I never saw that one. Is the anti-rotation pin a standard distance from the bolt? Is that how you know it will fit?
> 
> On my 100-400, I used the B82. It has a ridge that helps prevent twisting. And I am using the same on my 70-200.
> 
> Do you know if the 100-500 has the same shape and size as the 70-200?


The RF 70-200L & and DO 800mm f11 have the same pin distance.
The RF 100-500L made it 1 mm longer to the pin for some unknown reason! - DOH! 
I wouldn't have believed this if you hadn't asked, and I measured them with a micrometer.
Friggin' Canon - what were you thinking?! 
I had assumed the RRS B26 would fit all 3, but now I know it can't and would have to ask for exact measurements before buying anything.

(and my previous Olympus 300mm f4 pro lens has the Arca-Swiss grooves on the tripod foot bottom and is just laughing at me now!)


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 26, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> The RF 70-200L & and DO 800mm f11 have the same pin distance.
> The RF 100-500L made it 1 mm longer to the pin for some unknown reason! - DOH!
> I wouldn't have believed this if you hadn't asked, and I measured them with a micrometer.
> Friggin' Canon - what were you thinking?!
> ...


Just to let you know, I am using the RRS B-82 plate on the rf 100-500mm. It feels very secure on the foot. I'm glad, because that plate was just sitting in a drawer since I sold my 100-400mm last year.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 26, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Just to let you know, I am using the RRS B-82 plate on the rf 100-500mm. It feels very secure on the foot. I'm glad, because that plate was just sitting in a drawer since I sold my 100-400mm last year.


Thanks for letting me know, YuengLinger!


----------



## BadBird (Feb 6, 2021)

I did get the Kirk LP-71 for my RF 100-500, and the raised portion is curved around the toe of the foot so rotation is impossible. It works fine for me as a carrying handle and shooting grip when mounted (I have large hands), with the added benefit of a QD socket for a mil-spec sling. I did not get the Lens Support Bracket that mounts on the raised portion - seemed like overkill on such a light lens, and would foul the sleeve on my LensCoat. Thanks for the link.


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 6, 2021)

BadBird said:


> I did get the Kirk LP-71 for my RF 100-500, and the raised portion is curved around the toe of the foot so rotation is impossible. It works fine for me as a carrying handle and shooting grip when mounted (I have large hands), with the added benefit of a QD socket for a mil-spec sling. I did not get the Lens Support Bracket that mounts on the raised portion - seemed like overkill on such a light lens, and would foul the sleeve on my LensCoat. Thanks for the link.


THANK YOU for the post, BadBird! I've been wanting to get a AS adapter for my 100-500, and now I can!
Question: What is the "lens support bracket" you're talking about?


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 6, 2021)

BadBird said:


> I did get the Kirk LP-71 for my RF 100-500, and the raised portion is curved around the toe of the foot so rotation is impossible. It works fine for me as a carrying handle and shooting grip when mounted (I have large hands), with the added benefit of a QD socket for a mil-spec sling. I did not get the Lens Support Bracket that mounts on the raised portion - seemed like overkill on such a light lens, and would foul the sleeve on my LensCoat. Thanks for the link.


Do you know of a similar (cut to fit, or stop rotation somehow) AS adapter for the RF 800mm f11? I need to get one for it, too.


----------



## BadBird (Feb 6, 2021)

Follow the link YuengLinger posted on 15 Dec and there is an "ad" for the Lens Support Bracket on the bottom of the page for the LP-71.

I don't have a great solution for the RF 800 yet; it really needs a mount with a rotation stop pin that will also provide a little bit of height. The mounting surface is hidden under the LensCoat section that protects the switches, and I want to keep all of the components of that on since the 800 isn't weather sealed. I just punched a hole in the neoprene over the screw hole and put a generic plate on it using loctite on the screw. It provides very low, but adequate support on a ball mount on my LensSack Pro. It works better on a Wimberley WH-200 where you can adjust height.


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 7, 2021)

BadBird said:


> Follow the link YuengLinger posted on 15 Dec and there is an "ad" for the Lens Support Bracket on the bottom of the page for the LP-71.
> 
> I don't have a great solution for the RF 800 yet; it really needs a mount with a rotation stop pin that will also provide a little bit of height. The mounting surface is hidden under the LensCoat section that protects the switches, and I want to keep all of the components of that on since the 800 isn't weather sealed. I just punched a hole in the neoprene over the screw hole and put a generic plate on it using loctite on the screw. It provides very low, but adequate support on a ball mount on my LensSack Pro. It works better on a Wimberley WH-200 where you can adjust height.


I found out that there is a Kirk KLP-210 & 310 A.S. plate that will fit the RF 800 f11. I ordered the longer 310 one at B&H. I just wanted to let you all know about if if you have a RF 800 f11.


----------



## scaffrey (Mar 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> One of the questions asked about the RF 100-500mm is whether it’s worth upgrading to it from an EF 100-400mm II plus adapter. The consensus so far is that if you are starting from scratch, then it makes sense to buy into the RF system but if you already have the excellent EF lens then there is not that much to be gained by discarding the excellent 100-400mm II. Although the RF is back-ordered everywhere in the UK, some copies appeared on the European Canon site and I couldn’t resist one. The 100-500mm arrived Thursday afternoon and I managed to get some preliminary analysis when it hasn’t been raining from the point of view of someone who likes a lightweight lens for hiking and taking photos of birds, perched and in flight, close up and distant, and dragonflies and butterflies close up.
> 
> I have compared it on the R5 with the EF 100-400mm II f/5.6 and 400mm DO II f/4 with and without a 1.4xTCIII, in particular. In general, all three are spectacular for AF, both for latching on to fast flying birds and the eyes of closer ones. As for IS, I don’t see much of an R improvement in my hands when looking for pixel level sharpness and I needed to get down to 1/160s for 50% absolutely tack sharp at the pixel level at 20m.
> 
> The websites that report on lens sharpness usually do so at just one undefined distance. I want to know how sharp a lens is close up, mid distances and further away. So, I have done some tests using a UK £10 note at 3 and 6m, and black and white resolution charts at 12 and 20m. The RF 1.4xTC is arriving next week and I’ll report on the lens at 700mm then.


Hi Alan or others,

Thanks for the great posts.

I am not primarily a wildlife photographer, I mostly do travel and weddings. However, I am starting to get more into wildlife and bird photography.

I am debating between the following:
- Canon RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1 or
- Canon EF 400 F4 DO II (with a 1.4x)

I have a Canon R5 and several lenses including a 70-200 2.8.

If you assume that neither size nor price is an issue (I can get a reasonably priced used 400 DO II), what would you recommend? Would you take the flexibility of the zoom or the faster aperture of the prime?

With my background in travel and weddings, I appreciate the ability of a fast lens to separate the subject from the background and to stop motion, but I have also read that with a longer lens you need to stop down when shooting birds to get most of their bodies in focus.

Any recommendations? 

Thanks,
Sean


----------



## AlanF (Mar 6, 2021)

scaffrey said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> Thanks for the great posts.
> 
> ...


Sean
It's horses for courses. Remember that I am an opportunistic photographer who doesn't use a tripod and I carry a camera while walking around as well as less frequently sitting in a hide.

First the advantages of the prime. At 400mm and f/4 it resolves as well as the zoom at 500mm with 1.66 stop advantage. With the 1.4xTC at 560mm f/5.6, it is very sharp. With the 2xTC at f/8, it is distinctly better than the zoom at 700mm with the 1.4xTC. Nevertheless, the zoom is impressively sharp at 500mm. It's rare I use a telephoto at less than wide open.
The advantage of the zoom is that it is a zoom, and zooming out is on some occasions essential, and it focusses down to about a metre as opposed to the 3.3m of the prime. I do photo butterflies and dragonflies and need to get close, but 3.3m away at 560mm is usually good enough
Another factor is weight. The 400mm DO II + Hood + 1.4xTC weighs 2.5 kg, that is 0.9 kg or 2 lb more than the zoom. I notice the difference and find the prime more difficult to hold steady and more of a strain hiking with it on a BlackRapid strap over my shoulder. However, even at my advanced age I can manage it but try and rest it on something convenient if possible.

I am happy to go out for a days shooting with either. For our last three serious birding trips before covid, Galapagos/Ecuador, trip all around Florida in a rental car (we live in the UK) and a superb group bird tour in a minivan around Israel in the migration season, both my wife and I took 100-400mm IIs on our DSLRs and left the 400mm DO II at home, with no regrets. If I had to have just one lens, it would be the 100-500mm because of greater versatility and far easier weight for travel. But, if I was going somewhere like in rain forests that are gloomy or where birds are mainly far away, I'd take the prime. In the Galapagos, the zoom was essential because the birds are so close. In Ecuador, the prime would have been better, but the 100-400mm II did a good enough job. On safari in Tanzania, I had taken the prime with TCs and it was great, shooting from the Jeep. On a later birding trip to Portugal, I did take a lightweight monopod.


----------



## scaffrey (Mar 8, 2021)

Thanks Alan,

I picked up the 400 DO II and a 1.4x III. I am having an issue with focus consistency. When the bare lens or the lens with the 1.4x hits focus it is sharp, unfortunately, the hit rate is very low (especially with the 1.4x). Even with large stationary targets like a parked car's licence plate. Greater than 50% are slightly out of focus, even with good lite conditions.

I use servo focus with back button focus with eye-tracking or single spot.

Could this be an issue with the IS? Any ideas?

My R5 has amazing focus consistency with the rest of my lenses including the F 1.2 lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 9, 2021)

scaffrey said:


> Thanks Alan,
> 
> I picked up the 400 DO II and a 1.4x III. I am having an issue with focus consistency. When the bare lens or the lens with the 1.4x hits focus it is sharp, unfortunately, the hit rate is very low (especially with the 1.4x). Even with large stationary targets like a parked car's licence plate. Greater than 50% are slightly out of focus, even with good lite conditions.
> 
> ...


Please post an example or two with the shutter speed so we can see whether it is a camera shake problem.


----------



## scaffrey (Mar 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Please post an example or two with the shutter speed so we can see whether it is a camera shake problem.


Thanks Alan,

In this folder, I have a few raw files. Image _F2A6691 was indicative of a whole string of 30 shots that were out of focus. The other two pairs of images show the variations between in focus and out of focus I get, with ~50% or more being slightly out of focus. One example is with the 1.4x the other is without. In both cases the shutter speed is fairly high.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2l6pym6so9rfxi7/AACBCk8_6ttw9lljcPDBWm3va?dl=0 

Thanks again,

Sean


----------



## AlanF (Mar 9, 2021)

scaffrey said:


> Thanks Alan,
> 
> In this folder, I have a few raw files. Image _F2A6691 was indicative of a whole string of 30 shots that were out of focus. The other two pairs of images show the variations between in focus and out of focus I get, with ~50% or more being slightly out of focus. One example is with the 1.4x the other is without. In both cases the shutter speed is fairly high.
> 
> ...


Sean
I've looked at them. Only 1/4 is acceptable. _F2A6691 certainly is not. Something is wrong. 1/1000s should not be affected by the IS - I would have used 1/2000s f/5.6 rather than 1/1000s f/8 as there is little point in stopping down. Is the lens new or used? In either case, I would send it back as there are no distracting features in the background that would upset the focus.
Alan


----------



## scaffrey (Mar 9, 2021)

I was using f8 because I was waiting for the owl to take off and didn't want to have the owl move out of focus as it launched.

I agree that under this scenario, clean background, good light, there shouldn't have been an issue. Some images were focused well but way too many did not. I am going to upgrade the lens firmware and do some additional testing. 

Thanks.


----------



## scaffrey (Mar 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Sean
> I've looked at them. Only 1/4 is acceptable. _F2A6691 certainly is not. Something is wrong. 1/1000s should not be affected by the IS - I would have used 1/2000s f/5.6 rather than 1/1000s f/8 as there is little point in stopping down. Is the lens new or used? In either case, I would send it back as there are no distracting features in the background that would upset the focus.
> Alan


Hi Again Alan,

I took some photos on a tripod with and without the 1.4x and after changing an AF setting to "Lens drive with AF impossible off".

The results were better, the focus was never off. there was variation with >70 with the TC hitting and nearly all with bare lense.

This folder shows the variation in focus and sharpness, does it seem reasonable?









temp2


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## AlanF (Mar 9, 2021)

scaffrey said:


> Hi Again Alan,
> 
> I took some photos on a tripod with and without the 1.4x and after changing an AF setting to "Lens drive with AF impossible off".
> 
> ...


They look good enough. I checked out for reproducibility of AF on the R5 my 400mm DO II, bare and with 1.4x and 2xTC and my 100-500mm bare and with 14xTC, hand held at very fast shutter speeds using a high resolution chart at 20m. The DO series and bare zoom were about 80% spot on, the 100-500mm at 700mm about 50%.


----------



## scaffrey (Mar 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> They look good enough. I checked out for reproducibility of AF on the R5 my 400mm DO II, bare and with 1.4x and 2xTC and my 100-500mm bare and with 14xTC, hand held at very fast shutter speeds using a high resolution chart at 20m. The DO series and bare zoom were about 80% spot on, the 100-500mm at 700mm about 50%.


Thanks again,

How was the DO II with the 1.4x? I did some more test shots and the bare 400 DO was great >90% (using eye detect on faces). 

How much of a hit on sharpness do you see with your 1.4x? When I use a test chart the difference is very small, but in real-world tests the performance of the lens with the 1.4 isn't variable sometimes it looks great others it looks a bit soft, it could be missing focus slightly more often than is desirable.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2021)

scaffrey said:


> Thanks again,
> 
> How was the DO II with the 1.4x? I did some more test shots and the bare 400 DO was great >90% (using eye detect on faces).
> 
> How much of a hit on sharpness do you see with your 1.4x? When I use a test chart the difference is very small, but in real-world tests the performance of the lens with the 1.4 isn't variable sometimes it looks great others it looks a bit soft, it could be missing focus slightly more often than is desirable.


I don’t use the 1.4x much on the R5 as the 2x works so well, and that has a very high AF consistency. The 1.4x has very good IQ and maybe a consistency of 90%+.


----------



## Fischer (Apr 20, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I don’t use the 1.4x much on the R5 as the 2x works so well, and that has a very high AF consistency. The 1.4x has very good IQ and maybe a consistency of 90%+.


Amazing effort. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## HS2020 (Dec 29, 2021)

Hi AlanF,
Thank you so much for doing these comparisons as I just picked up a R5 and already have the EF100-400 II with EF1.4 III TC. I chose the Canon ecosystem a long time ago so I am upgrading from a 7D. I will enjoy this setup until I see a need to upgrade to the RF100-500.
I wanted to ask your opinion on the image quality of the D850 versus the R5. Since you have owned both these cameras, your experience with them is invaluable. I *think* I remember somewhere I saw that the D850 still has better raw images than the R5. I realise that the same lens can not be used on both cameras but still (for curiosity) would like your opinion on the image quality from these cameras. Cheers!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2021)

HS2020 said:


> Hi AlanF,
> Thank you so much for doing these comparisons as I just picked up a R5 and already have the EF100-400 II with EF1.4 III TC. I chose the Canon ecosystem a long time ago so I am upgrading from a 7D. I will enjoy this setup until I see a need to upgrade to the RF100-500.
> I wanted to ask your opinion on the image quality of the D850 versus the R5. Since you have owned both these cameras, your experience with them is invaluable. I *think* I remember somewhere I saw that the D850 still has better raw images than the R5. I realise that the same lens can not be used on both cameras but still (for curiosity) would like your opinion on the image quality from these cameras. Cheers!


They are surprisingly close. Put it this way, you would be pushed to see the difference in practice. You can also push both through 3 or 4 stops when processing from RAW iso800 and they are as good as getting the iso right in the first place. Canon claimed that the R5 would outresolve the 5DSR before it was launched and I didn't believe it, but I think it's true. What really shocked me is that the R5 + RF 100-500mm @ 500mm is very close in IQ to the D850 + 500mm f/5.6 PF, with only a very slight edge to the prime on one of the very best sensors made and without an AA-filter. Anyone shooting with an RF 5/100-500mm (or100-400mm) or a D850/500PF for nature photgraphy should be very happy.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2022)

HS2020 said:


> Hi AlanF,
> Thank you so much for doing these comparisons as I just picked up a R5 and already have the EF100-400 II with EF1.4 III TC. I chose the Canon ecosystem a long time ago so I am upgrading from a 7D. I will enjoy this setup until I see a need to upgrade to the RF100-500.
> I wanted to ask your opinion on the image quality of the D850 versus the R5. Since you have owned both these cameras, your experience with them is invaluable. I *think* I remember somewhere I saw that the D850 still has better raw images than the R5. I realise that the same lens can not be used on both cameras but still (for curiosity) would like your opinion on the image quality from these cameras. Cheers!


I just came across some comparisons I did with the R5 + 100-500mm vs the D850 + 500mm f/5.6 PF last April/May. First some crops reasonably close at 500mm, then some very far away at 700mm with the 1.4x TCs, all at 100% crops (1px = 1px of original). They illustrate what I wrote. There's not much between them, if anything.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I just came across some comparisons I did with the R5 + 100-500mm vs the D850 + 500mm f/5.6 PF last April/May. First some crops reasonably close at 500mm, then some very far away at 700mm with the 1.4x TCs, all at 100% crops (1px = 1px of original). They illustrate what I wrote. There's not much between them, if anything.
> 
> View attachment 201906
> View attachment 201907
> ...


Edge to Nikon but not at 700 IMHO but you're right, not much difference. 

Jack


----------



## HS2020 (Jan 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I just came across some comparisons I did with the R5 + 100-500mm vs the D850 + 500mm f/5.6 PF last April/May. First some crops reasonably close at 500mm, then some very far away at 700mm with the 1.4x TCs, all at 100% crops (1px = 1px of original). They illustrate what I wrote. There's not much between them, if anything.
> 
> ...


Once again, thank you AlanF for providing these sample photos. Much appreciated by me. For my eyesight, they both look pretty good.


----------



## Nemorino (Jan 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The RF 100-400 is a steal.


I answer here because I do not want to derail the bird thread!  

Do You think the RF 100-400 would be also a good DIF lens? I don't do a lot of birds (just in the winter) and a fast AF and good IQ at shorter distance would be very important.

I like Your DIF pictures in the R5/RF100-500 thread and startet dreaming to get the RF 100-500. But at the moment the biggest problem is to buy one in Germany. It's anywhere out of stock.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2022)

Nemorino said:


> I answer here because I do not want to derail the bird thread!
> 
> Do You think the RF 100-400 would be also a good DIF lens? I don't do a lot of birds (just in the winter) and a fast AF and good IQ at shorter distance would be very important.
> 
> I like Your DIF pictures in the R5/RF100-500 thread and startet dreaming to get the RF 100-500. But at the moment the biggest problem is to buy one in Germany. It's anywhere out of stock.


We have a really great Dragonfly thread! https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/
I haven't had the chance to test the RF 100-400mm yet as it came out after the end of the dragonfly season, but I think the odds are it will be very good for DIF and insects in general. First, it is very light and manoeuvrable, and you need to be quick with DIF. Second, it is very sharp close up, which is great for photographing insects where you have to be close. Also, 400mm is good for DIF as a wider field of view makes it easier to track them. The AF is very fast is as well. I'll be posting in the dragonfly thread when it gets warm again!

I have had a bad back for the past few days, and it has made me appreciate the RF 100-400mm even more as I try to get around! If I am going out on primarily a birding trip, I'll take the 100-500mm as it takes the extenders so well on the R5. But, if it is primarily dragonflies and butterflies, I might take the 100-400mm if it is as good as I think it will be.


----------



## Nemorino (Jan 8, 2022)

Thank You! This helped me a lot.
I just placed my order and I will get the lens on tuesday!  




AlanF said:


> I have had a bad back for the past few days


I hope You recover soon!


----------

