I recently owned the Canon EF100-400 ver.2 and had adapted it to my R6. When this new lens came out I tested it side by side with the EF and was totally impressed how it matched the EF at every focal length in quality. After seeing my results I immediately sold my EF version; pocketed $1000 and shaved a full 2 pounds off my carry weight. As my use is for landscapes and architecture the lens speed is not a concern as I'm normally shoot at f11.
I thought the EF was definitely better and I was thinking of buying it. Do you think that I would turn to this Rf lens? I would use this tele for landscape and occasionally for wildlife.
@@samuelebertoli The 100-400 is slightly faster so may have a slight advantage for speed on the far end but you will pay for it with much more size and weight. Plus it costs a lot more and you need a $100 ef/rf adapter. I'm a believer in native lenses if at all possible.
Thank you as this is a really helpful comment. I Own an Canon R100 and use the mount adapter for my EF glass. But I am considering what my first RF mount lens will be. You comment makes me happy that the budget RF 100-400mm lens produces photos just as good as your EF mount lens.
I've sold my second hand 70-300 L and bought this rf 100-400. I got 100mm extra reach and also $100(Australian) in my pocket. And the weight saving as well. I use it with my r8. So light. Amazing..
I put this lens on my R7 and literally cannot go over to putting it on my full-frame RP. It's an amazing lens, and with the R7's 1.6x crop factor I get a range of 160-640mm AND a 32.5MP sensor! Pretty much the only combination you need for a day at the zoo!
I bought this lens recently and compared it to the Canon ef 70-300 4-5.6 L lens. As far as i could test it, it was just at least as sharp as the big and heavy white, but with the benefit of 100mm extra range and much much lighter!! Just like Christopher i noticed fantastic sharpness at all focal lengths. The I.S. performs also extremely well, i could get a barcode at 5 metres distance very sharp, shooting handheld at 400mm with only 1/15 of second shuttertime! Considering bokeh, the depth of field at 400mm F8 at a certain distance is already a lot more shallow than using 300mm with F5.6, so don't worry to much about that, it can create fantastic bokeh. The only real downside is indeed the 1 full stop of difference in light compared with the big whites, so you're looking at doubling your iso for shooting with this one. Shooting with this lens though is such an enormous joy due to it's extremely light weight, i cannot emphasise that enough(!) you'll take the extra stop for granted. highly recommended!
I just bought one and I'll get it tomorrow. I also bought a lens hood for $13 and some change on amazon. I'll comment on the lens later after a few photos with it. One of the main reasons I bought this is because it focuses a lot closer than the 9 ft range of my big 150-600mm Tamron. When I'm laying down, shore birds will walk within 5 ft. of me, so I'll be able to capture them with great detail, whoo-hoo!
Thanks Chris for your incredible reviews! This lens looks amazing... Could you please re-review it with the Canon r7? This kit could be an amazing combo for wildlife, if the IQ is good enough!
Thank you very much for this review. I was really looking forward to it. I was a bit disappointed with the sharpness of the RF16mm, but this telephoto lens makes me very happy. thanks.
So, having the 100-400 and the 100-500, i can say that for 2400 euro's less this lens is a far better option for 99,99% of the people who want a tele lens in the RF system. I think it is a golden combo withe the highly antipipated EOS R7. A wildlife combo for around 2000 euro that can match and surpass anything in that pricerange and above.
Duade Patton raves about this lens. I don’t think people realise the native ref mount and nano USM AF mean the keeper rate is extremely high. Similar to the f11 tele 600/800 the weight along makes shooting enjoyable
2 года назад
This is the kind of full frame lens that I have been longing for, ever since I got rid of my APS-C EF-S 55-250mm IS STM (great lens), a truly portable tele zoom with good enough reach for occasional birds and wildlife photography. Sure, there are compromises, but the difference from 5.6 is just one apperture stop. I will be ordering this lens and quite possibly replace my 70-300L lens
Hey. I like how you compare the lens to the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM lens. I think Canon was aiming for this to replace that lens? It looks like Canon is trying to slowly phase out their APSC cameras. When you do the "equivalencies" on the EF-S lens it is similar to a fullframe lens that is 88-400mm and f6.4-f9. That is pretty close to this lens but this lens has nano usm and can take advantage of the features of the r6/r5 like bird eye af or ibis. It looks like the main thing holding back APSC users is the price of the FF bodies. Maybe a breakthrough in FF production can make them release budget options for around $500-$600.
@@peterfritzphoto when using an extender with the 100-400, does it limit the focus area to a small centered box, or do you still get the full frame AF coverage?
@@Jimmy-jb5yx I can only assume so, but I don’t have the RF extender, so don’t know for sure. When I used the EF lens + converter + extender, the whole AF area remained.
I have had this lens for a month now and I am very pleased with its image quality and autofocus .I photograph with both RP and R6 and works very well with both bodies.The best thing is that it is so light and small compared to my EF 100-400mm ll. I strongly recommed
@@samuelebertoli In my opinion yes its comparable ,its one stop darker but sharpness and contrast are both very good and I am very critical about these things. Maybe ,if you pixelpeep 100% you might find some differences.
Thanks to your review, I'm ordering this lens and the R7 with kit 18-150 lens. Will be my first venture with Canon. I've mostly shot with Nikon and Sony DSLR/ ML the past 4 decades. Looking forward to trying Canon.
Ok, Christophers review was the one I was waiting for to complement my 24-105mm lens and it checked the right boxes: good focusing, good image quality, little focus breathing. So I just ordered it 🙂
This is exactly the position I'm in! I love the 24-105 for most use cases but there are times I want that extra reach and as a hobbyist photographer the L 100-500 is way out of my budget. Now if only Canon would open up the mount to 3rd party manufacturers...
Thanks for this review! Since Canon has not included any MTF charts on this lens the last time I checked, its image quality was a real unknown. It looks respectable from your tests, so a definite possibility where smaller size and lighter weight are important.
Just got mine today. I have the very heavy sigma EF 70-200, and I am not exaggerating when I say this lens is VERY LIGHTWEIGHT. It is lighter than most of my lens!!! it makes it feel kinda ‘cheap’ but i will actually use this lens because I will actually keep this in my bag! I ALSO RECOMMEND.
Great review, thanks. I bought lens two weeks ago. I haven’t photographed much, but I can say it’s sharp, compact and lightweight. I wasn’t wrong to buy it. For that money great.
I've been enjoying the rf 100-400mm every day on my R6. I definitely would recommend the lens hood for protection from sticks and bumps and scratches to the front of the lens when out hiking. I prefer that instead of a filter on this price range lens. This lens and the 24-105 f4 and possibly soon the 16mm 2.8 will be my super lightweight Wildlife Trinity of lenses for the R6. Great review as always and best of luck to you!
@@heppoify49 Nature & Wildlife. Anything wider than the 24 mm could handle. Panoramas, sunsets, waterfalls, whatever. I have macro and the long end covered with my Sony.
@@ForrestWest i hve been thinking of these exact three lenses. I have the 24mm-105mm and 50mm 1.8(nifty fifty). Its been a year since you last commented, so how do you think of the lenses? Where they good enough for you?
@@SkyPathProductionsit adjusts to that aperture automatically, which is common of any non-fixed aperture lenses. Otherwise they wouldn't have to put the f8 in the name.
So my RF 100-400 arrived. And despite the advise I also got the lens hood. What I saw: the lens does look a bit less ridiculous with that attached. So for this otherwise fine lens that might also be a reason for getting it ;-) And also there are cheaper aftermarket non-Canon versions for this hood available for about a third of the price as the ET-74B is also the hood as for the EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS II USM lens which has been available for a while.
This is certainly an excellent 'entry-level' lens. I'm impressed. If I had to pick my first camera system today, I'd probably go with Canon, alas, there's no New Game+ for life.
I just got this lens and no longer have the Sigma 100-400 contemporary - and keep in mind that there seems to be a lot of variation in IQ with the Sigma lenses - but the RF 100-400 definitely is sharper at the long end. I actually had 2 copies of the Sigma and sold both because they were soft at 400mm.
I had the Sigma 100-400mm for EF and I was not a huge fan. My copy, as are quite a few from what I've seen, was just not that sharp at 400mm and had weird focusing speed issues when adapted to mirrorless that didn't exist when using it on a DSLR. It was quick to focus to infinity but VERY slow to focus back, so if the camera missed focus on a flying bird or something it would take so long to hunt that it was faster to just grab the focus ring and focus it closer.
I have the Sigma which I use with the RP. I think I got lucky with my copy as it's very sharp at 400mm. I find the the optical stabilization is much better than I had read in reviews . While it focuses well with still subjects I have had issues with focus hunting when shooting birds. For that reason I am very tempted to get this Canon RF 100-400mm!
Im a big fan of this kind of lens. The Nikon 100-400 just announced will obviously be better but I'll never able to afford one whereas if you're a canon shooter this lens is relatively attainable and also nice and light.
For Nikon, the best budget friendly option is still the F Mount 200-500 F/5.6, quite cheap (800€ used). Although it is already a specialized lens, way less versatile and 4 times heavier.
I bought a 400 f/5.6, and sold EF100-400 MK2 and pair with this. Have a good image quality in some situation if I needed to and flexibility to travel with low weight along with telephoto. I really loved this lens. Still thinking if I should invest more and get a RF 100-500, but by now I am pretty happy with this combo.
Great review as usual I would love for you to do a comparison between this and the ef 400mm 5.6 L to see if the af advantages make up for the loss in brightness and now you have the R7 as well be great to see the Ef 400 on that and see what your recommendations are wether the rf 100-400 is a upgrade from the old 400L
Im waiting for the RF 100-500. Planned tu buy it last christmas but it was out of stock, since then im waiting for it to be available again but nothing gets shipped to Switzerland, one retailer told me he has about 180 backorders but gets like 2-3 Lenses per month, and that its a similar situation for other retailers unless they decide to US Import but then you loose the canon 3y warranty. Same goes for the RF100mm and from what i can see also the 100-400mm. The issues of living in a small country that are usually not visible, manufacturers see your market value as miniscule and give you miniscule shipments.... Oh i also now saved up the money for a new graphics card and there its the same.... I WANT TO BUY EXPENSIVE TOYS ... but i cant... that situation is sooooooooooo silly... i actually thought about selling my R6 just to buy an R5 so i can spend some money :S maaaan weird two years.
Not true, this lens goes down to f8 pretty much instantly, while the 100-500 stays at f5.6 till 380mm, basically it’s the old 100-400L f4-5.6 with 100mm added onto it. Big difference
Chris we need big Canon battle. This 100-400, old 100-400 L ver II lens and Sigma C 100-400 and RF 100-500 to comparison. All on Full Frame R5 and APSC R7.
Christopher, I’m guessing you’ve tested the Sigma 150-600mm on the Canon R5 as well. I have the opportunity to get this lens, or the Sigma. If you don’t mind me asking, which would you suggest?
What do you mean it should have weather sealing at this price? It's the cheapest 400mm canon has ever made. More expensive 400mm L lenses haven't always been weather sealed.
@Christopher Frost - Thank you for this review! I see that this lens takes 1.4x and 2x extenders, but does that make the focus area a centered box like you have on the 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11? (Anyone else who knows this answer should also feel free to weigh in!)
There's no real limitation I've found when using the 1.4x teleconverter with this lens, other than the obvious of further darkening the maximum aperture. But with AI Denoising, I've taken great, sharp bird photos with it even at ISO 12800 on the R5.
I feel we'd be better off using a Sigma 100-400 instead. A good used one would cost about the same and still be f6.3. Although it would weight almost double the RF lens. But personally, I can't driveway an f/8. Perhaps that's the APS-C experience in me that's talking.
In terms of bokeh and depth of field, f8 on a full frame is equivalent to how f5 would appear on an APS-C body. If you're a full frame user surely would miss out on the depth of field and would rather spend more on brighter glass, but for those upgrading from APS-C, they're not losing much. I remain wary about third-party adapted lenses, I have the Tamron 150-600 G2 and often the focus fails to lock on. Can't speak for the Sigma 100-400 but there are reports of the Sigma 150-600 doing the same thing.
Most people who shoot wildlife at 400mm or above (let's be real, this lens is really only for daytime wildlife shooters) usually stop down to f6.3 or f7.1 for more depth anyway. F8 really shouldnt be an issue in good lighting. Plus all of the EOS R cameras have good to great high ISO performance, even the RP.
I currently use the Sigma 100-400 with an R6 and actually am thinking about getting this Canon one to replace it. The Sigma takes great photos but I always find myself hesitating to take it with me. It’s big and heavy and the adapter works fine but makes it even bigger. Don’t want to know how many good shots I missed because I didn’t want to carry this thing. Also the autofocus on the Sigma is not that great for some reason. It’s louder, slower and sometimes less accurate than on my RF prime lenses and Sigma 24-70. But I also struggle with the thought of f8.
Great video would love to see a comparison video of this alongside a 400L 5.6 to see if the is makes up for the darker aperture or is the L still king 😂
Hello, the video looks great and also the results if you should buy a lens for Wildlife photo/video which would be top: Sigma 150-600c canon 400mm 5.6 or canon RF 100-400 thank you very much
It's interesting that Canon has these lenses. You say they have a dark aperture, but on fullframe you have an extra stop of light to play with. So really, this is like a 60-260mm f/4-5.6 on APS-C. I'm not sure if Nikon will release such a lens for their Z mount as they actually have APS-C bodies. Indeed, their 50-250/4.5-6.3 on a Z50 is probably the closest match (though it is slightly darker, after having taken equivalency into account).
can I use my EOS R10 and this lens for some astrophotography? I keep hearing about using DSLR, but I understand this is a mirrorless. Honestly I don't even know the differences. If anyone can answer it would be greatly appreciated. I would like to know if I wasted 1100 on the R10, before I spend another 500 on a lens that won't work with what I intend to do...
People mostly use wide angle lenses to astrophotography but with good light - for example 24 1.8 , 35 1.4 or even 50 1.8 . So they can keep the ISO low and don't need so long expositions. Longer exposition (like several seconds) and long focal lenght can cause that stars will move during it and you will get lines, not a points. Of course it's great to have long focal lenght, good tripod but you need also invest to tracking guide. So maybe just but RF 24 1.8 or 50 1.8? 24mm on APSC is also very cool focal lenght to use (FF 35mm) and 50mm on APSC is good portrait lens
I have a heavy Tamron 150-600 and I've been pretty happy with it but a lighter lens would be welcome. My biggest concern is, 'will it produce sharper images than the Tamron within the 400mm range'? I'm sure it will focus faster/better.
I have an EF 70-200 2.8II which is way too heavy and big to travel with. I ordered myself the RF 70-200 F4, but it just doesn’t seem special. Maybe I want something longer, so I ordered this…. all my other lenses are Zeiss primes. Gulp
@@dychui feels like the image lacks authenticity- the way they render. Most modern lens designs rely too heavily on digital in-camera corrections, and I think that’s 100% the game with RF lenses. Btw, the 100-400 went back also, mostly because I shoot wide open-to-2 stops down and the 5.6-8 didn’t cut it. I will probably try the EF 70-200 F4 II, seeing that I loved the original so much. I really want something longer than 135, but in Zeiss. I had this experience with some testing of Canons STM lenses for DSLRs. If you turn off in-camera corrections, you’ll see that the optics are horrible. Perhaps that continues, perhaps better with the RF Ls, sacrificing great optical design for size and weight. Not that those aren’t noble pursuits, but at what cost? I LOVE Zeiss optics, and Leica to a lesser extent, for a certain analogue rendering. If you correct the hell out of lenses for certain qualities, other qualities are lost. I find myself loving lenses with personality and those less clinical-looking. That was misleading-I don’t think the RF lenses are clinical, just blah. I just found this- photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses - it’s satirical, trashes Zeiss, but is food for thought. BTW, I’m a 40 year veteran photoguy (mostly editorial illustration and annual reports), embraced digital from the AppleOne and 1Ds. I’ve had maybe 15 systems and way over a hundred lenses.
@@magiccarpetrider4594 thank you so much for your detailed reply! I also noticed a lot of these new RF lenses taking that approach, such as the 16mm f2.8. This was extremely helpful to me. I just bought the 100-400 rf and will give it a shot for landscape photography. I own the 70-200L F4 non-IS and it’s been a good lens, it’s nice to hear the grass won’t always be greener shelling out another thousand dollars. Do you have a website ? Mine is Chuiphoto :)
@@dychui Lovely landscapes! And I never say this! I backpacked/hitchhiked for 9 months all over North America in the late 70s with a Hasselblad and 3 lenses. Got some good stuff, but yours are MUCH nicer. If you want a great WA lens, look at the Zeiss 15mm- its basically curvilinearly corrected. Theres also the 21. I shoot street these days, selling in 2 galleries in Beijing. I flip between that and corporate design (annual reports, identity programs), and taught both in an MFA program for 10 years after divorce #1. All sites are down as I revamp the 3 I had into one domain. I've had a busy personal life lately (switched from Lightroom to CaptureOne, bought a big house in the woods, on a lake, in Missouri, got divorced #2, now living in Hong Kong and going back and forth to the US now that 1) I'm free and 2) covid restriction-free entry), BUT getting a site up again is a priority. Good luck to us all.
@@magiccarpetrider4594 Hello my friend !! Thank you so much for your kind words and for checking out my website - it means a lot coming from a lifetime photographer. I would love to see your work once it’s up. It sounds like you’ve had a lot of changes recently, congratulations on your new home ! And the 100-400 RF I am enjoying it - what a value !! One of my recent shots on my page is snow falling from a tree in Yosemite, it’s tack sharp - with this same lens :)
I'm wondering if I should grab one of these. I currently run a Sigma 150-600mm C which is H-E-A-V-Y, but its grabbed me some fantastic bird shots on my R7. There is plans of hitting Cuba later this year, and that Sigma would weigh down my luggage. This may be a good substitute for travel.
I currently use a tamron ef 100-400 adapter to my RP. I think the tamron has better IQ and allows me to use a cheap ef teleconverter. The size and weight reduction would be nice but I think the adapted lens is the better option.
Hi Chris, Thanks for the comprehensive review. How does it performs throughout its zoom range when compared to same focal length used on Sigma 150-600 C . Which one will be sharper on Canon R5 ?
I suspect this 100-400 would be sharper. The Sigma 150-600 is not exceptionally sharp, it's fairly average. Personally I'm looking to buy the 100-500 to replace my 150-600. I just need to find someone who is selling it for a low price, because it isn't cheap.
When you have to decide between APS-C and full frame system. Does this lens have any advantage over the Fuji 70-300, 50-200 or Nikon 50-250? The APS-C lenses are faster and the Nikon is even sharper, lighter, smaller and much cheaper. (I don't care about plastic mount) I just don't understand why I should go full frame when I don't need the fast expensive lenses (and weight is important)
No one is saying you should buy a FF lens for a crop sensor, but it makes sense to. Someday you may buy a FF camera and you will already have the correct lenses for it. Another advantage is 100-400 x1.6 on crop Canon compared to 50-250 x1.5 on crop Nikon. In addition to a more robust build with this 100-400. Yes, the Nikon is cheaper, but you get what you pay for. Many years ago I bought a lens with a plastic mount and dropped it. Goodbye mount. Never bought a plastic mount again. You shouldn't' compare the "Lighter and smaller" part to a 70-300 and a 50-250 because the 100-400 is in a different telephoto league.
This is the perfect lens for someone who doesn’t need a serious tele. Definitely will be picking one up for casual travel use. No need to pick up the Z mount 100-400 for a heftier price, glad I left the Z system for these cheaper first party lenses canon is pushing out.
The Z mount version is aimed at professionals, who need the versatility and portability, but also the perfect optical performance, the light gathering, the weather sealing, and the stabilisation.
For Canon EOS R - Landscape photography on a tripod at 24mm. Does it make sense to buy RF 24-70 or RF 24-105 L F4? I know that RF 24-70 is sharper at the corners. Does it have better contrast and color rendition? Does it make sense to spend so much more money on RF 24-70 over RF 24-105 L F4 for landscape at 24mm at F8? Basically, my question is - how big is the difference at 24mm at F8? Will I be able to tell the difference on a processed landscape RAW file on 55 inch LG CX OLED? Thank you.
Since they are obviously ditching APS-C, as far as RF mount goes, this seems like a pretty good alternative to something like 70-300 F4-5.6 on APS-C camera. There is not review yet for Fuji 70-300 on this channel, but this Canon 100-400 seems pretty comparable to something like Sony E 70-350, at significantly lower price.
Yeah in terms of depth of field/bokeh, f8 is how f5 would appear on a crop body, so it is a bit better than the 70-300 F4-5.6 but you lose out on reach (the latter would be 480mm f9 on APS-C),
@@omegavladosovich6757 More like 459mm vs 400mm, but yeah there is a difference in reach for sure. That might be significant for someone using lower megapixel body like R6, but not that significant for someone using R5, because of a lot of cropping potential
@@tomapaunovic yeah I have the R6 and cropping is a bit of an issue now that I have a wider focal length than my APS-C bodies. I'm using the Tamron 150-600mm G2 and the AF is also very inconsistent. Some situations it works great like flying birds but on other occasions the AF spazzes out instead of locking on.
So this is usable handheld? Do the in-body and lens IS make up for the fairly slow aperture? My slowest other lens is a f/3.5-6.3 Sigma 18-300. Still works flawlessly on my 7DMkII but have been having focusing issues on it with the Canon RF/EF adapter.
Hello, try turning off the IS on the lens if your mirrorless camera has ibis. I’ve heard they can fight each other with some telephoto lenses. Good luck
@@lb7144 I will give it a try, but I've heard that the built-in IBIS is only 1 or 2 stops by itself. So far, my images have nowhere near the sharpness I am seeing in other photos (with RF lenses). I tried with the Sigma and an older Canon 55-250 IS (gen 1). Zooming in on ON1 Photo RAW anywhere past 33% shows soft features where the image was showing focus in the viewfinder. My dad has a EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM. I will have to borrow it to put my questions to rest.
Sure, but only if size, portability, and the flexibility of a zoom are not a consideration. Unlike the zoom, the 400 has a constant physical length and is generally much heavier and bulkier than this, with a metal body.
I own the 400 F5.6L. If purely wildlife at the 400mm range, you can't beat the 5.6L for price/quality. But 100-400 is a great range and it's super light. At $500 during black friday sale it's a steal.
having used both I find RF 100-400 as good as EF 100-400ii in terms of image quality. purchasing EF only makes sense if you're going to use it in extreme conditions (like dusty safari) or need backwards compatibility with SLR cameras. EOS RP+RF 100-400 combo weighs just above 1kg, while with EF 100-400ii it's going to weight 2-2.5kg depending on camera
I prefer Sigma 100-300/4 :) If needed you can slap 1.5x or 2x TC on that and still get usable F stop. 100-400/5.6-8 is black hole. Not to mention you need to stop lenses down a bit to improve image output. So you'll end up with F7.1-F11 range.
I believe he said that at 400mm stopping down didn't really improve anything, so I guess that's sort of a plus. I'm with you though, I own the Sigma 100-400 in Canon and Nikon mounts.
Depends on your use. I had the Tamron 100-400mm which was used purely for cityscapes/landscapes so even though this has a slower aperture I prefer it for the weight savings.
I am curios about how that lens compares with the 55-250 on an APS-C camera. I have a feeling they are the same lens, but this one has an enlarged image circle (something like an integrated "focal increaser")
Why have you stopped your old practice to test full frame lenses on both the bodies, full frame as well as APS-C?..please always test RF lenes on your R5 and R7 body...please add test result of this lens on R7, thanks
Thank you very much! I'm not sure..... RF100-400 or used EF70-200 2.8 II with EF-RF on R6? I also have the RF600 and and I really enjoy shooting with it.....
If you shoot portrait, indoor sports, or just shoot in dark environnement: 70-200 2.8 (and you can maybe even use a 2x teleconverter to have a 140-400 f/5.6, don't forget to stop down a bit for better image quality) If you shoot landscapes, outdoor sports, wildlife... In bright conditions : 100-400RF Personnally i wouldn't go anywhere near those blackhole lenses, and take something brighter, but everyone has it's own needs.
