I have this lens and it's crazy sharp. Fast to focus too. Works great for day time sports. Of course it does not have the f2.8 Bokeh, but for what it costs, it's a steal.
@@BrentHall found your channel....just asking what's the Max distance this zoom lens can do ....for video of birds and targets....looking for something out to 500mt if possible thnx
Thanks, Brent. I’ve had mine since September, and for landscapes, it’s perfect. Rather than leaving the EF 100-400 in the car sometimes, the RF is compact and light enough to keep with me all the time. Happy New Year, mate. 👍🦘🇦🇺
Oh nice! Yeah, it's such great value, especially for the size and weight of it, for sure. I'm seriously contemplating getting one, just for those times when I don't want to lug anything else around on long, tough hikes where I might see some wildlife or want long lens landscape stuff. The size and weight alone are enough to justify for it me.
Brent, great review. Laid back, simple and not too hardcore into the technical aspects. It's nice you took time to look at each photo individually and give a review.
I bought one of these for street photography, and I've been getting excellent night shots. I haven't taken it out into the wilderness yet, but I really like this lens. It's also affordable enough that I don't worry tons about it when it's in my backpack or if I'm traveling.
I once owned the EF 400 F/5.6L. For me at least, 400mm is bare minimum for most wildlife photography except maybe megafauna like bison or moose. For birds and small animals, you just have to get closer and use the longest lens you can afford. I'm very happy with my 100-500 with 1.4x extender for most cases, but I think I'll get the 800 F/11 too. I'm grateful I can afford both. All that said, the RF 100-400 looks amazing, especially for the price.
I had that old 400 f5.6 for a long time too. It was sharp, but the shorter focal length and lack of IS made it a challenge more often than not, for sure!
@@aceflibble I prefer to handhold for bird photography. I once owned the unstabilized EF 400mm 5.6L and shot it on a 60D, a 7D Mark II, and 5D Mark IV. I subsequently owned the stabilized Tamron 150-600 G2, shooting that on those DSLRs and, most recently, the R6 and R5. I now own the stabilized Canon RF 100-500 that, of course, goes only on the R5 and R6. From my personal experience, I must strongly disagree with your assessment. For handholding long lenses, IS without IBIS and IBIS without IS are both better than nothing. IBIS plus adapted IS is better yet, and native IS with IBIS is best of all, at least with Canon kit. I'm not talking about company ratings but my actual, practical experience. In fact, not all lens stabilization is equal. The Tamron is OK for stills but when you pan, or shoot video, the image jerks from position to position. For video it's unusable; other wildlife shooters have noted the same. The RF 100-500 OTOH pans pretty smoothly and I've gotten both good wildlife videos and stills while handholding it. Is the EVF image stock-still at 500mm (or longer with an extender)? No. Is it way more stable than the unstabilized 400mm was? Unquestionably.
If you don't have a lot of money, get this 100-400mm along with a RP or an R. However, if you can save up, I'd get the RF 600 or RF800. But none of these really match up to a R6/R5 along with that 100-500 (with the RF 600 and/or RF 800 as a second lens). The latter combo is pricey, no doubt, but you'd have a very competitive system that is very versatile and will last you for years. Sometimes it i just better to hold on to your money and go with a really good system than to get into the serial upgrade game and work your way up. Again, if you think you really don't have much interest in wildlife long term, get the lower end option.
Nice eagle pictures! We have them in Southern Arizona but it's very rare to find one unless it's a speck in the sky, most of them are at the higher elevations so hopefully one day I can get a shot of one. I did get a fantastic shot of a vulture flying over the house yesterday though, it was a really crappy overcast day but the clouds broke right when he was circling around and got a nice blue background. He was really low and I was using my MFT panasonic G9 with the 100-400mm which is equivalent to a 200-800mm instead of my Sony a7riii with the 200-600mm. He was low enough to fill the frame so I only had to crop in a very tiny amount and the detail was fantastic!
Thanks Martin! Yeah, we only get the eagles here in the winter time, and only very few this far away from the Rio Grande. This pair come to this lake every winter though, so I know them and their habits quite well. Otherwise I'd have to drive 3 hours to Bosque del Apache for the next nearest reliable eagles near me.
cheers mate, i just found this older video and you describe EXACTLY whats happening. people buy new body (R7 for me last week) and to find out if this new toy is something i wanna dump a ton of cash into i thought i go with the 100-400 first and see how it feels. so far i can confirm every point. its not long enough for birds. but i am cheating already and order a bag of bird seeds, big umbrella and camouflage cover+clothes so range should be ok. that sneaky king fisher stands no chance! 😋 lens itself is fantastic for its price point and i cant find any major problem. you mentioned the weather sealing is a nono for you but i am not combat rolling through mud like you 🤣 and i agree that 2.0x is too much also because it will go up to f18. my main question: how about the 1.4x? do you think sharpness will reduce dramatically ? i just need a little bit more range and i think i am fine for now.
Yeah, putting a TC on that lens is doable, but you'll definitely feel it in the IQ. You'll want to stop down by a full stop or so, which will really hurt with the light and iso. I don't remember because I filmed this video a while ago, but I thought I used the 1.4 with it a little bit? Idk, either way, yeah it would work but you need to take in to consideration that subject distance will really hurt it even worse with the TC on because that will magnify any atmospheric distortions, heat haze, etc. That stuff is the worst for all lenses, and compounded by distance and TCs, so if you use the TC, make sure you're not shooting something that's just too far away or through too much air.
Great video! Have the 100-400, and I like it a lot. Was thinking about getting the 1.4x TC for the extra reach on my R6, or just grab the 800… and it looks like the 800 is the better option, than opting for the teleconverter. 👍🏻
Same issue here Brian. I have the 1.4 TC BUT for the canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6l is ii usm lens with adapter, but I'm wondering if the 800mm is worth getting too as the effective 560mm I have is often not enough.
If you're going for pure reach/image quality, the 800 IMHO is way better than this with the TCs. Plus if you can keep this, then the 800 will compliment it wonderfully.
I bought this to replace my EF 70-300 II, for hiking/more casual stuff. It's got more reach and has a better MFD than the 70-300. I still plan on keeping on my 100-400 II for its better acceptance of TCs/higher quality, but the RF 100-400 does have a place in my kit.
@@E_D_W-e5q I found IQ to be similar. I no longer have the 70-300, so I can't quite do an apples-to-apples comparison. You can focus a lot more closely with the 100-400, so that helps with background blur, but it does have a smaller aperture overall, so at equivalent focal lengths, yes, the blur will be less on the 100-400.
Great videos. I look forward to see them every week. What program do you use to stitch the panos together? I just got an rf100-500 for my r5. For my first shots, its great. But it is Heavy,
When this lens first came out and I did this video, I had only rented the lens, but recently (about 6-8 mo. ago?) I finally just bought it, and let me tell you I've had it with me EVERYWHERE. It's such a perfect travel lens for landscape and wildlife, and so light and small that it always stays in my bag now.
Hi Brent, your opinion please.....I have the "R" and use the Canon EF 70-300 L lens with the RF-EF adapter , would there be an advantage for me to buy the R 100-400. My prime use is video.
oh idk, that's pretty specific. I gues sit would depend on a few things, like do you need the extra reach, do you want a native mount, and on flip side, are you cool with the slower aperture of the rf 1-4, lack of weather -sealing, does weight matter, cause the rf 1-4 is stupid light.
Hey, love your videos! I have one question. You say the 800mm is better than the 100-400mm with an extender. Does this same logic apply to the 100-500mm? What delivers superior quality? 800mm or the RF 100-500mm with a 1.4 (or even 2.0) extender?
That's tough to answer. Yes, the 1-5 is quite superior to the RF 1-4, so yes it takes a 1.4 TC very well. The 800 is sharp, but the F11 is a bit restrictive, as is the focus box and lack of weather-sealing. It's really a toss up on the 1-5 with TC vs the 800, because it depends on a lot of things, like price, size/weight, versatility, etc. And all of that is completely different for everyone. I think I did another video about using the 1.4 and 2X TCs with the 1-5 and the 800. Might be worth a watch if you want to see how it went.
I was thinking it would be more worth it. I have a Canon R10 and I want a telephoto lens for animals. I automatically thought of the RF 100-400mm. Native and with high focusing speed in addition to the low price (in my case 600 euros). On the other hand, there is the option of the sigma 150-600 contemporary, with a higher price (800 euros) + adapter (70-100 euros). What do you think is more worth it, losing those important mm in bird photography or the focusing speed in addition to perhaps other problems you have for not being Native?
I think the RF 1-4 is much more worth it, especially compared to the old sigma, which doesn't perform so well on RF bodies, and is a LOT heavier. Just my 2 cents.
Brent, Another great very informative video! Are you of the same opinion that the RF 800 is a better choice that the RF 100-500 L with either teleconverter? Mike
Thanks Mike! Oooh, that's tough. That's the one comparison I really wanted to test, but didn't have the time while I had the TCs. I might rent the 1.4x again, or maybe just buy it, we'll see. Maybe I'll do a Q & A video about that since a lot of others have been asking that question as well.
Mike, I have to R5/100-500 and 2x TC. I’ve had some awful images and some extremely nice images with this combo. The key is distance, lighting and atmosphere as always. The 1-5 is limited to a minimum f/l of 600mm w/ the 2x. I personally would rather carry the 1-5 with a 2x than the 800 and the 1-5. Just my experience. Hope this helps.
@@hawgbreath That has been my experience as well. Absolutely correct. Depends. Light is everything. Even with a prime lens. Lousy light adversely affects focus and apparent sharpness. I have a 1.4 on my 500 f4 nearly all the time. In good light I can't distinguish when it's on or not on from the image. I have also had some success with it on my 100-400. Just can't imagine being stuck with f/11. Shoot in good light (which you should anyway) and converters work great, as long as you don't expect too much of them. They aren't really meant to drag a wolf in from a mile away. They are designed to fill the frame with something relatively close.
Thanks for this review. Very helpful. I'm considering this native RF lens for my R6 due to the paucity of reasonable options, until something better is available (venting here LOL...). The Canon RF 100-500 seems to me to be grossly overpriced for what it is and should have been a max f5.6 lens rather than a max f7.1, and doesn't accommodate their 1.4x extender very well. I'm quite jealous that Nikon users have the 200-500 f5.6 zoom for just over a thousand dollars (much more fairly priced) and a 500 f5.6 prime as well. I'm also quite jealous that Sony users have the excellent 200-600 max f6.3 native top line lens for their mirrorless (and fairly priced at just under $2000). I don't own the excellent Canon 100-400 EF L II and used prices on it seem very high for a lens and associated replacement parts that will eventually be phased out (about $1900 used). Lastly the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 EF mount options have auto-focus tracking problems on the mirrorless Canon cameras. So until Canon, Sigma, and/or Tamron get serious about making an excellent RF mount zoom lens for wildlife at a fair price, the lens here in your review seems like to me the best interim zoom option for closeup 'ish wildlife photography where the 70-200 f2.8 doesn't have enough reach, but the excellent Canon 800mm f11 is too much reach. Thanks again.
@@BrentHall Thanks for your reply. Yes, I have the 100-400 RF on order and am looking forward to trying it out on some BIF. Based on comments I've read, I hear the optics are good and it is sharp even wide open (compared to other lens that need to be stopped down) and excellent auto-focus consistent with the excellent R5/6 system. Thanks again for your channel here, which I've found to be very helpful in my own pursuit of wildlife photography. Funny regarding my comment above, Canon Rumors just released the following information TODAY regarding some lens patents that Canon just applied for: USPTO Patent US20220035144 shows the following optical formulas. Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L Canon RF 200mm-400mm f/4L Canon RF 200mm-500mm f/4L Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L....... Ask and ye shall receive??? Perhaps Canon is listening and we will have a 150-600 f/5-6.3L similar to the Sony version (which is an amazing lens I hear) which I referred to above. Being an L lens, it will probably be pricey, but if done well, I could get more excited about shelling out the necessary funds for it (but maybe they will surprise us and price it competitively like the Sony version). Regards. www.canonrumors.com/patent-impressive-super-telephoto-l-zoom-lenses-for-the-rf-mount/
So about that...good news and bad news. Bad news is that I didn't have enough time to get an entire video about that filmed while I had the TCs. I had 3 other videos I had to film first and they took more time and effort than I anticipated. Good news (relatively good anyway) is that I did manage to get enough usage in with the 500 and and TC to at least do a Q &A video about it where I'll go over a few images and give my overall thoughts about it. That's about the best I can do right now, since I'd have to rent the TCs again to make another full video about it and I have other monetary priorities right now.
@@BrentHall would love any insight! You helped me choose between an r5 and r6 last year and your videos are highly praised and relied on in my local group of canon shooters who are making the mirrorless switch. I’ve seen a few videos getting good results with the 2x with reasonable expectations and I’ve finally got a 100-500 on the way. Looking forward to watching when you get it up. Glad your account was recovered. You’ve got lots of fans up here in Canada!
Hello, I am enjoying your videos from Germany. I have been using RF100-400mm with EOS R6 since two months. Now everyday it is rainy and cloudy in winter and it is difficult to take a good picture of birds (too dark). I hope that I would take better ones in spring and summer in the better weather after I have got used to the lens.
Another great video and real usage of lens. Btw. I see you are using Adobe Color for camera color profile. New Adobe camera raw and lightroom supports native R5, R6 color profiles, try it. It is huge difference and I always hated Adobe colors, those were always kind of muted on Canon cameras.
@@nordic5490 DPP is ultra slow :-) and try to process 100 photos, it will take forever. Lightroom is much better, it has more edit options, and it now fits the color profiles from DPP 100%.
@@jzphotoDPP has the best lens correction profiles. Only Canon engineers know how to make Canon lenses truely sing. Canon DPP is the correct way to convert your Canon RAW files. DPP will give the same or better lens correction than the camera will. Canon engineers designed the system to use DPP, and, you already paid for DPP in the purchase price of your camera, so you would be mad not to use it. I started using DPP for all my Canon lens raw file conversions 7rs ago, and haven't looked back. Those of us in the know are using DPP raw conversion for Canon lenses for superior results. Plenty of pro birding web sites will repeat what I have just written above. Yes, DPP is a bit slow, but also works the best. I batch the raw conversion, and step away and do something else whilst my 150 R5 images are converted to 266MB 16bit tiff files. This might take 30mins, but is worth the wait. The Adobe lens correction profiles are not as good. I also perfectly denoise high iso images, and DPP is key to this process.
I'm a amateur birder and I 🤔 if the coming Canon R7 + this lens+2x extender combination could be my birding equipment or not, it can give me 1000mm+ lengths, since I only can afford one set of equipment, if that is ok, it could be a good choice for me considering things I can afford.
Instead of extender, get RF600/800 f11 instead. The optical degradation from extender doesn't worth it. And the aperture will be smaller than the primes I mentioned
Straightforward honest review. This would be a great starter lens for nature/landscape shooters. However, I primarily shoot sports and aviation so no image stabilization is a deal breaker.
The image stabilization in camera with my R6 and the rf100-400mm stabilize the image as well as other medium telephotos I've used. The rf 100-400mm has image stabilization also.
Thanks Jim! Sorry for the confusion in the video. This definitely has IS, it just doesn't have the different modes switch like on the other big white telephoto lenses. The IS on this lens works great though.
Thanks for the review. I just moved up to a R6 from RP for better autofocus. I currently have an EF 100-300L IS USM, wondering if the RF 100-400 would out perform the EF 100-300L. Any thoughts?
How do you think the rp did for you? I’m trying to get into photography and I just got an rp. Starting to get some lenses for it and I’m thinking to just get the rf budget options. Thoughts?
@@dannyarambulo3576 Hi, I have the RP and I love the camera, I use ther EF-RF adapter, I can use my EF lenses and Sigma and Tamron lenses. I think you can buy some good used EF lenses, you have more options imo, just wanted to share my thoughts about this with you :-)
Well, I don't have that lens anymore, but I owned it for many years. I would say it compares pretty much how you would expect it to. The 1-4 mk ii is sharper and faster in aperture, weather -sealed, and has the IS mode switch, but it's far heavier and more expensive.
Personally, I don't like to use 3rd party lenses on my Canon mirrorless bodies anymore due to the inconsistent AF. I just can't can't rely on it and this is my job, so I'll stick with the RF glass for now. As for you or anyone else, that's up to you if you want to go for the reach and AF inconsistency of the 150-600 over the lighter, smaller, cheaper, and native mount of the RF 1-4.
Obviously the 100-500 L is superior to this lens, but for someone who likes wildlife shooting, including birds in flight, is the difference enough to justify the 4.5x price increase? I'm REALLY tempted by both the price and size/weight of this lens.
Value is relative, so I'd say that if you're even thinking about comparing price vs value for those two, then no, it's probably not worth the price increase for you atm.
@@BrentHall Thanks for the reply! I have two main concerns with the 100-400 which make me think I should just save up for the L glass. First, the lack of weather sealing makes me nervous, although where I live the worry is rain/snow more than dust, and I could always pick up a rain cover. The second, and primary concern is birds in flight, and other fast subjects. I've been shooting with a Sony A7R3 and a Sigma 100-400 5-6.3 lens for the past year-ish. I have been frustrated by how often I miss a whole sequence, and while I know the R5 has a newer AF system(Sony's R series was never really meant for action in the first place), I'm curious how well the RF lens keeps up.
All I can say, is based on my week with the rf 1-4 I had zero issues with bif. I'm pretty sure I put a couple examples images in my video, but I don't remember. I do remember tracking eagles flying, and quite a few fast flying Mergansers and again, no issues for me with tracking them, or with image quality from that lens. But that's just my personal, limited experience. I'd say if you're really concerned about it, you should think about renting it. It's like $50 or something, and might be well worth it to see if it fits your needs. I think I even have a discount code for lens rentals in my video descriptions. (Not a plug, just genuine advice)
Thanks for this video. I have this one as well. I noticed that it doesn't come with a lens hood so I got a 3rd-party hood online. I notice more people not shooting with lens hoods on this lens and I'm wondering if it's even needed?
Yeah, that was a downside for me personally. I would have really liked a hood included. If I were to actually buyu that lens, I would (begrudgingly) get a lens hood for it too.
Thank you, a really minor point but how do you know the crop was 65%? Does Lr tell you this somewhere or is it something you have computed based on the number of pixels on each dimension? Or some other way ; eg file size. I’m asking this as I’m trying to work out what’s my crop % across various pictures. Tnx in advance.
13:02 I don't call that a sharp shot by any means that's just usable and it's even in best light condition at ISO 800! I got a bit excited when I first heard about this lens but digging more in the specs and seeing it's an almost whole range 7.1-8 lens really disappointed me. I don't see any good reason to release such a lens and it's kindda a cheating strategy taken by Canon to give them more time to bring out an apsc body with it's proper crop dedicated tele lens, and beside that convince some ff amateur wildlife photographers to buy this as they can't afford the very expensive 100-500 but eventually end up buying that lens being disappointed by the result with this! If Canon was opening the mount to 3rd parties then the sigma 100-400 dg dn was a way better under1k$ option, also tamron 70-300 would have served apsc owners better as it's even lighter and cheaper and give 6.3 at 300mm. This lens only can suits for videography but it's compatibility with teleconverters is another trick to make you end up buying the 100-500. On this lens and for photography teleconvertors will just make the already poor light even worse and even on the 4k$ R5 that was so obvious in the last shot.
Right now I'm using the 70-200 with a 1.4 teleconverter.. I have the sigma 150 to 600 but it's so damn heavy I hate lugging it through the jungles with me
Follow up Q: I am definitely getting this lens for my R5 for wildlife photography. But I'm starting out in this genre, after largely doing DSLR streetscape photography. Would you recommend the Canon RF 1.4x Extender as an initial purchase, or wait and see after I get the lens and practise?
I would probably wait for the TC, unless you know you're going to use it a lot or use it with other RF lenses. The TC costs almost as much as this lens.
Probably 90% of folks are looking at RU-vid on their phones that aren't capable of 4k, and even if they were, a five or 6 inch screen isn't the best forum for 4k. 4k televisions are probably still in less than half of homes in the US. Most RU-vid content isn't worthy of 4k anyway. Car videos, cat videos, someone looking at the camera and discussing finances! Personally I have never seen the obsession with uploading 4k video to RU-vid. Just my 2 cents.
@@alansach8437 when you have 4K footage and downscale it to 1080p (Full HD), the image is going to look better than it would at native 1080p. You'll find the picture is a lot sharper, the colors more vivid, and (depending on the properties of the image) you'll also see less noise
Well that's a bit difficult because they are very different, but more importantly the Sigma really doesn't work well enough on the RF mount for me to even consider it anymore, so in that regard, for me, it's the RF 1-4 all the way. The Sigma is faster, has great IQ, more weather -sealed, and longer reach, but way bigger, heavier, pricier, and like I said before, the AF doesn't play well at all with the RF bodies.
GUITARS: Tell us about your music background! I am retired and a recent newbie to Colorado, and still recording my music. Colorado has moved me into the "serious amateur" photographer category. Getting ready to sell my Dad's classic 30-30 Winchester to get the R6, so I have long loved your lens videos. Many Thanks!
That's awesome, the R6 is an incredible camera! As for my musical background, nothing super special or amazing. I've been playing since I was a kid, been a few bands, recorded some stuff, but mostly it's just a hobby.
I don't normally. Though for this time, I knew I would be cropping pretty hard anyway, so I put in in crop mode because it will also help acquire focus on distant/small subjects a little better.
If you're going to leave a negative comment in public then you certainly don't have to feel sorry about it, lol. Don't worry, you won't hurt my feelings. I get way worse on this platform all the time, it's just part of the job. Anyways, since you felt strongly enough to leave some criticism for me on my video, then I feel like you should get a bit of my time for an honest reply. It's cool that you didn't like the video, you're not alone there, but to say that it's "totally useless" seems a bit harsh (especially given the number of positive comments stating the opposite). Also, bashing it for not having a comparison seems a bit strange given that nowhere in the title, the description, or the actual video itself was there mention that there would be any kind of comparison at all. That's like going to rent a budget car and expecting a Porsche, knowing that you're renting a Prius, you know? The point of it being too long is definitely fair, and you're (again) not the first person to say that about my videos, lol. What kind of "definitive answers" are you wanting? I thought my summation of the lens was on point with my experiences and real world usage. I said that to me, based on my use, I found it to be light, affordable (I know that's a relative term), and having good enough image quality to hold up to my personal standards for photography (again, I know that's highly subjective), and I stand by my opinion that any beginner, budget-conscious person, or anyone who just wants something light and easy to pack and deal with would be very happy with this lens. Anyways, thanks for the comment, and for watching for however long you made through. I do appreciate it. I hope you find the review you're looking for out there somewhere, and more importantly, I hope you find the lens that's right for you so you can spend more time out in nature than on RU-vid comments :)
There's no comparison in its class. Closest comparison is Sony 70-300/70-350 Tamron 70-300 with x1.5 crop on E/Z mount, or Sigma 100-400 on E mount. And these are either focal length is different, or much heavier
