# New RF100-400 F5.6-8 or used EF70-200 2.8 II with Adapter on R6



## Felix (Nov 10, 2021)

I don't know which to choose. I want to close the gap between the RF24-105 L and the RF600. The costs are almost the same in Germany...


----------



## jd7 (Nov 10, 2021)

Felix said:


> I don't know which to choose. I want to close the gap between the RF24-105 L and the RF600. The costs are almost the same in Germany...


The two lenses you are considering may overlap in some of their focal length range but they are quite different lenses. What sort of photographs do you want to take? Until we know the answer to that question, it is difficult to give you a recommendation about which of the two lenses is likely to be the better bet for you.


----------



## Felix (Nov 10, 2021)

That's the point... for portraits I have the RF85 and as a super telephoto the RF600. Sometimes I'm just missing something around 200mm - for example in the zoo. 
I don't have a special case for either lens. I had the EF70-200 F4 (non IS) on my 7D and now I just notice that something is missing.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 10, 2021)

The close up function and reach of the RF100-400 comes in handy at the zoo, but you're giving up a lot of light gathering compared to the EF70-200 f/2.8. Having said that, the IS+IBIS combo of native RF lenses is a lot better than adapted EF lenses.

Is weight a consideration?


----------



## Felix (Nov 10, 2021)

> Having said that, the IS+IBIS combo of native RF lenses is a lot better than adapted EF lenses.


Yes that is correct and unfortunately IBIS + IS does not work with the RF600 & 800. However, the image stabilization of the EF70-200 2.8 II is sufficient for me. 

The weight of the 2.8 is not a disadvantage and the size also makes the handling more pleasant.

I am faced with the decision about more light and less range or more range and clearly less light ...


----------



## Felix (Nov 10, 2021)

At this point I have to say that IBIS works well with a non-stabilized lens, but I don't notice any big differences with an already stabilized lens like the RF24-105 L or the RF35. But this would not be a reason to take the EF70-200 2.8 non IS, as the design is too old for me and the price difference is too small.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2021)

Is the gap you are trying to fill one where 105mm is not quite long enough, or one where you would bring the 600mm but choose not to because of size/weight or other considerations?

Keep in mind that if you’re missing 200mm on your 7D, that would mean 320mm on your R6.

As pointed out above, they are different lenses with different (though potentially somewhat overlapping) use cases. Personally, I use the 70-200/2.8 for indoor events (swapped EF MkII for RF), my 100-500 for outdoor/nature, and my EF 600/4 II for birds.

If you are considering adapting a used 70-200/2.8, have you considered adapting a used 70-300L? Those are generally cheaper than a 70-200/2.8 II and sit right between that and the RF 100-400 in terms of zoom range, aperture, and image quality. I really liked my 70-300L (although I sold it in favor of the RF 100-500).


----------



## snappy604 (Nov 10, 2021)

depending on how much image quality you need/want ... Sounds like you're not quite sure and it's occasional, maybe get an EF Sigma 150-600 contemporary with adapter... They do a fairly good job and work fine and a heck of a lot cheaper, esp used. And if you buy used, likely you can sell for a similar price if you decide you like working in those ranges and need it a bit better.

Are the Canon lenses better?... yes, but like most pro equipment, small increments raise a huge cost. I find I use my 150-600 Sigma on an EF - RF adapter with pretty decent results. I use it more than my (v1) 70-200L 2.8 IS, but it really does depend on the situation.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 10, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> depending on how much image quality you need/want ... Sounds like you're not quite sure and it's occasional, maybe get an EF Sigma 150-600 contemporary with adapter... They do a fairly good job and work fine and a heck of a lot cheaper, esp used. And if you buy used, likely you can sell for a similar price if you decide you like working in those ranges and need it a bit better.
> 
> Are the Canon lenses better?... yes, but like most pro equipment, small increments raise a huge cost. I find I use my 150-600 Sigma on an EF - RF adapter with pretty decent results. I use it more than my (v1) 70-200L 2.8 IS, but it really does depend on the situation.


No! Get an RF 100-400mm instead of a Sigma 150-600mm. Less than a 1/3rd of the weight, far better IS, cheaper and more convenient.


----------



## snappy604 (Nov 10, 2021)

AlanF said:


> No! Get an RF 100-400mm instead of a Sigma 150-600mm. Less than a 1/3rd of the weight, far better IS, cheaper and more convenient.


thought you were talking about the 100-400L... but not existent in RF then looked .. missed that somehow, a non-L 100-400 and price is comparable. Missing the 600 end but still decent price.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 10, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> thought you were talking about the 100-400L... but not existent in RF then looked .. missed that somehow, a non-L 100-400 and price is comparable. Missing the 600 end but still decent price.


Here are my impressions of the lens





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


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...




www.canonrumors.com





Everyone should have one!


----------



## Felix (Nov 10, 2021)

Thanks very much!
Everyone brings very good points to the decision.

I will definitely keep my RF600. It's about a year old and too new to replace it.

The Sigma EF150-600 is said to be very good. However, the lens was way too big and never an option for me.

I don't like the EF70-300L. Not because of the quality, but that it is just as expensive (in Germany) as a used EF70-200 2.8 IS II and more light is more important to me

I thank AlanF for his report on the RF100-400 and am currently leaning towards it. I have to look at it objectively during the days at my camera dealer and try it out. The option would be even cheaper than the EF70-200 2.8 IS II. Wouldn't be there F8 I wouldn't thinking about the whole theme...


----------



## jd7 (Nov 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Here are my impressions of the lens
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're making me want an RF 100-400mm and I don't even own an R system camera!


----------

