Thats what I call comparing lenses, and a proper review!Thank you! I do like images from 100-500 a bit more (mostly cuz DOF). From a photo enthusiast perspective, 100-400 is a clear winner here.
Hi Phil... great shots from you and Heather! I'll be shooting college lacrosse this year and I just picked up the 100-500 based on the work I've seen from you and Heather. I was on the fence to pick up the 100-400 as I've been relying on my 70-200 up until now. But I can't get as close as I could with high school or travel lacrosse...I haven't found my way in yet🙂 Although much more expensive I would assume you would find the IQ and extra stop to get a better ISO much more noticeable with the 100-500 over the 100-400.
I think if you already have the 100-500 the 100-400 is probably not necessary. There are a few areas where the 100-400 is better than the 100-500 in my opinion. It's lighter and smaller so if you have to carry your gear a long way, it's better for that. It has a slightly better maximum magnification so it is a little better for mild or semi-macro work. The 100-500 is no slouch in any of those areas. The 100-500 is sharper overall and focuses faster. It's also faster in terms of maximum aperture, that is a weak area for the 100-500 but the 100-400 is even weaker. So, I think you'll be fine just using your 100-500. As a RU-vidr, I like to demonstrate what can be done with the 100-400 but let me assure you, the 100-500 is a much better lens.
I was probably on manual aperture and manual shutter speed with automatic ISO. It’s been a long time since I’ve made this video but that is what I usually shoot.
I have Canon EOS R with RF 14-35 F4L. This is a truly amazing lens! I also bought R10 for $779 new for my RF 24-105 F4L. I did not consider the R7 because of it's abysmal hybrid quick dial with a joystick. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo do not put a D-pad around their analog sticks on their game controllers and that is for a good reason. I bought R10, so that I can carry 2 cameras without switching lenses. I just ordered RF 100-400 for the R10. I did use RF 100-500 (rental) at an airshow and it is an amazing lens. However, If I can't take it with me on the plane (I travel a lot worldwide), then I don't buy the lens. Another thing I hated about RF 100-500 is that it does not have a simple "lock" switch. I had to tighten the friction ring, so that it would not extend on it's own. I hope I will like the RF 100-400 when I receive it this week.
I like the controls that you don’t like on the R7. I love the tension ring on the 100-500 and I don’t understand why you can’t take the 100-500 on a plane. I think you’ll like the 100-400 when you get it. I enjoy mine quite a bit and I’m sure the R10 is a great camera. Thanks for watching!
@@PhilThach I bring my EOS R and now R10 when I fly with 3 lenses. I bring my scuba diving gear and underwater housing with strobes and Go PRO. I don't know if you ever flew to South Pacific ( New Caledonia) but they are really strict about their weight requirements. This is true for New Zealand too. 7 KG max in your carry on. Please tell me that RF 100-500 won't be an issue with it's massive size and weight. Forget the scuba gear. Just try to take it to Florida with 2 other lenses and another camera body with a laptop, ipad, etc. I have been to 22 countries, not so easy
Agreed, especially with the 100-400. I just wanted to try/demonstrate the 100-400 as a budget soccer photography option. I have used the RF 70-200 2.8 for soccer on both the R6 and R7. Look in my sports playlist and you’ll find videos showing that combo. I think my favorite soccer combo is the R6 with the 100-500, separation is not as good as the 70-200 but not bad and I value the extra range. We are shooting for the university social media and they often cut out our subjects so it’s fine for our purposes. I just borrowed an R3 and shot a match with the 100-500. It was nice!
Great shots from you both. The image quality from both lenses look quite similar, would have to zoom in a fair bit to see much difference. The little baby on the field haha, Awesome😂
Love the video but you can't leave us hanging like that, Phil! What's the verdict? Is 100-400 noticeably worse than 100-500 as far as speed of auto-focus, picture quality and keeper ratio go? Pictures look very similar on my TV. Also: how many FPS do you get using RF 100-400 on R6? What about RF 10-500? The way I understand 12FPS (mechanical) can only be achieved with certain lenses.
The 100-500 is better but the 100-400 is surprisingly good for the money. I believe I can get the full 12 FPS mechanical out of the R6 with the 100-400. I didn't measure it but it never felt slow at any point.
Does one have to get a 100-400 lens at least to shoot soccer games? I tried R7 with RF 18-150 today, the pictures are sharp, but no separation between the players and the background, nothing at all, the pictures look really bad and messy. But I'm just a beginner, maybe a veteran photographer may be able to work with it? Thank you so much for making all these very helpful videos.
Great video comparison in real life conditions. Curious if you have tried the R7 with the 100-400 indoors at a vball game or similar? I know it prob isn't ideal and will lean on the ISO enough, but I'm curious what you can get from that combo as I don't think I will be springing for the 100-500 any time soon and I love my R7 right now, and looking to maybe get that 100-400 as outdoors it seems great, but I'd like to see if pass-able indoors under what I call "better than living room" light.
Thank you! I haven't tried the rf 100-400 for indoor sports on the R6 or R7. I think it is too long in focal length and too slow in maximum aperture for indoor sports. I think the 18-150 would be a better choice in terms of focal length but it's still probably not fast enough aperture-wise. I have a video coming out on October 26th where I talk about my lens suggestion for the R7 in virtually every photography genre. That video is titled "Canon R7 First Lens to Buy! RF Lens Buyers Guide!". I think it will help a lot of people choose which way to go with their lens-buying dollars for whatever kind of photography they want to do.
Seems to me that the cheaper lens produced the sharper images but that could also be due to the faster shutter speeds. Were you both using the same Focus Case setup & focus tracking option?
I really struggle to see a significant quality difference in the shots from both lens. I own both so I've been doing my own testing as well. It's too bad the 100-400 doesn't have weather sealing! What monopod is Heather using with the 100 - 500? If you have a video on it I would be happy to see a link to it! :)
Thank you. We use servo. Case 2. Full screen human eye detect on the main back focus button and either single point or a vertical box on the second back button "*".
Is the 100-400mm lens a good lens for the R7 if you’re not looking to break the bank? And is the high aperture an issue with sports photography? I’m mainly just looking to get some nice sharp images as I’m only a beginner photographer. Thanks!
Hi Phil and Heather. I hear more reports of the R7’s IBIS not playing well with Canon lens with IS.Turn off the IBIS on the camera and everything is fine. This is only when shooting video. Any truth in your usage ? I think the R6 photos look better…Thanks 😊🎃 Kinda puts in question the mantra of putting most of one’s do-ray-me into lenses, lenses ! Canon seems to be changing that dictum a little…
I haven't don't much video with the R7. I did do a vlogging test with it and had no issues. The differences in the photos in this video could come down to shooting location. I shoot from the end of the field so my background is often further away. I also sit on the ground to shoot while Heather sits in a chair so my angle is lower.
In electronic shutter mode you can go pretty low handheld. It varies really depending on the subject and light available. However, I have many videos on the channel using the R6 and they all have the settings used for each picture if you want to see many examples.
With sports photography you need a fast shutter speed, so, in order to keep the exposure correct with a fast shutter speed, higher ISOs are often required.
