Thank you, Jan, an excellent comparison between these two lenses. I do own the 100-400mm II since 2015 (bought it in Australia during a world trip) and I thought to keep it with my R5/R6 equipment. But recently I decided to go for the 100-500 and shell out the money, because: a) More reach without a teleconverter b) The quality of the 100-400mm with a teleconverter could not convince me. c) Better quality at the same focal length d)Shorter and lighter, especially when considering that the 100-400mm needs an adapter and a teleconverter to get to 500mm e) The selling value of the 100-400mm will probably decline even more, in the near future. For men it's always easy to find arguments to buy new stuff :-)
I've used both, and in the end went back and repurchased a well-used 100-400 II just to cost-balance my overall kit. The 100-500 is exceptional, but now that you can find the EF lens for
@@momo_the_great6969 I wouldn't say it's a ripoff, as there's definitely benefits and the price is a little lower now. But price to value is not as good as the 100-400
Thanks Jan. I recently upgraded from my 100-400 II to the 100-500 on my R5. As a direct comparison (both with the 1.4x extender), I found that I no longer need to run the images through Topaz sharpen, based on my first few shots of ships on the horizon a few miles away, cropped.
I decided to go all in mirrorless because of the quality of the camera and lenses. So I sold my 100-400 mm and bought the 100-500mm. It’s so much lighter. Incredible lens. Thanks Jan for your insight. I love your videos!!!
Thanks for the detailed review. I prefer the look of the EF 100-400 over the RF 100-500, even at 800mm with the 2x extender. It renders smoother and accentuates noise less, just looks nicer and less of a "digital look". Where the EF 100-400 lens really shines though, is in the 200-350mm range, where it outperforms my RF 70-200 f2.8 on the R5 photographing portraits, given the subject size is equal.
I had the 100-400 II and compared it to the RF 100-500, both on the R5. For me, the RF 100-500 is quite a bit better. The extra 100mm makes a lot of difference in my photography, since i almost always shoot at maximum focal length. Plus the extra portion of sharpness, which is not insignificantly noticeable when cropping. Subjectively, I find the autofocus a lot faster and more accurate. Plus features like lower weight, not a main reason, but of course nice that it comes on top.
I rented the 100-500 this week to go with the R6 that I rented too. Wanted to test both out and I guarantee you I'm buying both! The lens is incredible!
I currently use the 100-400 with an R7 which gives me an equivalent 640mm. However, one thing that was not mentioned in this video, is the fact that the 100-400 is 2 aperture stops brighter at the long end. So when taking pictures of owls in a dark forest, the wider opening does help a lot. Especially with a crop sensor. However, I won't deny the fact that the 100-500 does have a sharpness advantage and the extra 100mm is a noticeable benefit (800mm on the R7!!!). However, the sharpness advantage is mostly noticed with higher resolving (high megapixel) cameras which may expose the lens limitations. So, it's a tough one for me personally as the 100-500 is a lot more expensive here in Canada. I really like watching your videos, they are really well done.
Same here. The R7 is my "1,6x extender", so i saved a lot money with the EF 100-400 II. In fact i have a interesting choice with these 3 lenses for less money than a single RF 100-500 would cost: - Sigma 150-600C (good zoom range, just bad stabilized so no handheld video) - RF 800 F11 (super light for hiking etc and the reach!) - EF 100-400 II (universal, good in anything, especially since i dont use a teleconverter at all) - EF 70-200 2.8 III, rarely used for wildlife in my case since the 100-400 II is often macro enough and because its just not "the wildlife" lens to go for mostly. More like the cheaper RF 70-200 2.8 for casual, sports and landscape stuff. often i just pick the sigma or 100-400 depending if i also plan for video or if i want the most reach and little bit universality with one lens, or in some cases the 100-400 on R7 and RF 800 on R6 (its still sharper than the 100-400 could get with 2x TC and better stabilized as well as lighter) The RF 800 give me what the 100-400 or even the sigma with 600mm is not capable of, especially for handholding while hiking for always being ready the RF 800 is awesome in the woods (and the AF is faster and more precise than the sigma is also in low light, on R6 as well on R7)
Great review. I borrowed the 100-500 to use on my R6 and was quite impressed. I also have the 5D4 and the 100-400. Not gonna make the switch to the 100-500. I like having the option of using the 100-400 on both camera bodies and didn’t find the extra 100mm and marginal image quality improvement worth the $1500 hit I’d have to take to make the switch.
I've got the 100-400 II, and I'm really on the fence about going with the 100-500, primarily because of the wonky teleconverter issue. Thanks for the great info, it's helping me decide.
Great to hear! It's a tricky decision when owning the 100-400 already. The TC issue potentially will show up less for you, since you don't need to use the TC to get to the 500mm range
I got the 100-400 II. It is packed in my camera bag with a 1.4X III + ring adapter. Those 2 NEVER come off this lens. And I always shoot wide open, never stop it down. I use this on an R5. I do agree with Jan's review. But I would add this: when you post process these images with Topaz DenoiseAI the difference in sharpness and detail as shown on the video are reduced dramatically. And Topaz DenoiseAI can now process CR3 files. No conversion required to Adobe DNG. I would love to have the 100-500, but because of the weight savings. Once you add the adapter and teleconverter it is a lot heavier setup..
Thanks for your review! I have a 100-400 ii with extenders 1.4x iii and 2x ii (EOS R) and I don't think it is worth upgrading just because the newer model is slightly better. In terms of sharpness, there's a lot that one can do in post. In most cases, good light makes more of a difference than pure sharpness levels. For new buyers, the RF is possibly a better bet.
Yes, both are great lenses. I tried to be pretty neutral in the review and sharing my observations. The 100-500 is slightly better, but not but an insane amount that everyone has to upgrade straight away. The main difference for me is the extra 100mm that can come in handy
Sharpness with the 100-400mm mii is as good as the rf100-500mm. The fact you can't add Tele extenders unless you're at 300mm or higher restricting your range. Plus the cheap plastic of the 100-500mm. Stabilization is about equal but the 100- 400mm mii can be found at cheaper cost add the ef/rf adaptor and you have a solid metal constructed workhorse heavier but built solid. And will.out range the rf. The choice is clear for me for I use Canon pro dslr's so using the 100- 400mm II on my Canon R3 is going to be a great choice for me.
I recently took delivery on athe Rf 100-500.. I was using the RF 100-400 before. I -love- the results from the 100-500. I am shooting with the 1.4 just like I did with the 100-400. The only negative (minor) to the 100-500 is the physical size and weight - manageable.
Initially, I decided I would keep the 100-400. After watching your first review of the 100-500, I became more intrigued about the lighter weight, extra reach and faster AI. Also, not having to use the EF converter would be a plus. So now I own both, but I'm contemplating selling my 100-400 and 1.4x EF teleconverter. I do find that the 100-500 performs better. As an intermediate-skilled hobbyist it's a lot of money to spend, but I enjoy bird photography and having more keepers with less effort is worth it to me.
I went through the same experience but kept my teleconvertors to use with my EF300 f4 prime lens, and have sold the EF100-400 before the selling price drops further. However it will give someone the chance of buying a superb lens if they can't afford the 100-500 mm.
Jan I have the R5 and have this week purchased the RF100-500 to replace my Prime EF 400 F/5.6L EF USM. The EF 400 was a very sharp lens that made my bird photography pictures pin sharp, but the new RF100-500 has amazed me with its versatility and sharpness also very fast auto focusing too. The RF 100-500 comes highly recommended from my self and has replaced both my EF70-200 and the EF 400 with no regrets from me.
I have the EF 100-400 II and EF 1.4x III, but I'm gonna make the switch to the RF 100-500. It looks like the RF lens has about the same reach as the 100-400 + 1.4x. This means an extender is not necessary on RF, and you get the benefit of better image quality by not having to use one. This is the main selling point for me. And lighter and smaller package overall when considering the size/weight of the extender (and also the EF-RF adapter) is icing on the cake.
I sold my 100-400mm and will buy the 100-500mm. I have committed to RF mount so I'm all in. The EF is heavier to start with, then you add the EF to R converter and 1.4 extender and the weight just keeps heading north.
Hello Jan. Thank you for the speedy delivery of this promised video. Watching your videos is an expensive experience for me! I had convinced myself to wait for Canon to produce an R7, when your R5 review seduced me. I saved up my bikkies and bought it last week, rationalising that using my 100-400 ii plus 1.4 extender would be more than sufficient. Now you’ve blown that idea out of the water! All this before I graduate to lusting after a 600mm f4! Cheers.... Chris
I used to have both lenses at the same time but now only RF 100-500L is the keeper. Just love the range and overall performance. I also do more landscape than birds, so f/7.1 does not really bother me as much.
The new 1.4 x Extender on the Nikon 70-200S Mirrorless is the first extender ever that is NOT a compromise Optically or AF Speed.No Image loss on the latest Nikon Tech >> You are of course correct on old Nikon setups and Current Canon offerings
I own a R5 since a month. I also have the 100-400ii + 1.4X Extender, up to recently used with my 7D2. My thought was that the 100-400 + 1.4X in combination with the 800/11 would provide me with what I need. However, after this month I found several reason to upgrade to the 100-500: - Weight! With the 100-400 I need a RF Mount adapter and the EF 1.4X . Also the 100-400 is somewhat heavier, altogether I get more than 400 g added weight. - Stabilisation, in the best of worlds 6X, compared to 4X with 100-400, provides new opportunities like handheld video. - The combination 100-500 + RF 1.4X extender, will mean I can have the extender in my pocket until needed, as compared to the need of wearing a backpack for the 800/11. The combination is also weatherproof, and give me a minimum focusing distance 1.2m, as compared to 6m with 800/11. Finally, and most important, Sharpness! I feel the need to always have my 1.4X extender mounted on the 100-400 to avoid extensive cropping, to be compared with 100-500 on its own. Also when needed, the combination 100-500 + 1.4X (=700mm) is at least as sharp as the 800/11.
@@jan_wegener I agree. The smaller sensor can be a problem if they de idę to add to much pixel. 17mpix out of R5 is enough. I didnt like too much the images from 7d or 7d2. Especially when comparing them with ff sensor.
I have the EF 100-400mkII, and unless it gets damaged, and will cost more than $1000 to have it repaired, I'm staying with it. I went on recent shoot where there were egrets and herons, and I got photos of them tossing small fish into the air and catching them. Images were clean, detail was fantastic. I do have the extenders but I use those with my EF 300 and 400 L IS primes. Fantastic images using those, also.
I have the 100-400 EF is II. I'd love to have the RF100-500 but I have the R6 mk ii as well as the 90D DSLR. So I'll keep my EF lens and use an RF/EF adaptor so I will still be capable of using both cameras. Also have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 and I'd also like to switch to the RF version, but again can't use with both cameras, which I do frequently. I did purchase the RF 24-70 which I love.
I sold my 1-400 mk II. It was never sharp on all of the dslrs i have owned: 70D, 6D, 80D, 7DM2, 5DM4, 5DSR, and 90D. Thur the OVF, of course. i love that 1-500 and don’t regret buying it for a minute. You didn’t mention how great it is for handheld video, but imagine being in 4k crop mode and 800mm effective, and rock steady. i agree 100% that the extra 100mm in the field, super sharp with no extender, is a big deal even though many people think otherwise. i don’t care what folks think though, its my money I’m spend. i think the r5 deserves the best optics you can put on it (i have a 500 mm f4 II IS USM as well). thanks for the video!
I did talk a lot about video in my review of the 100-500, so didn't want to mention it here too much, but I could also hand hold some video pretty well with the 100-400. I agree with you that a cam like the R5 should get the bets optics for max IQ.
I've just gone completely mirrorless upgrading from EOS5d Mk4's to an R6 and now an R7. I've had the EF100-400 but greatly appreciated the light RF100-400 as I do most of my wildlife photography hand held and on foot. I have just traded in my EF100-400 and ordered the RF100-500 because of the better reach and lighter weight. I will also use the new lenses at air shows where the greater reach and general sharpness will be much appreciated. I've enjoyed your RU-vid videos.
Another great review mate, it really is a tough choice if you already own the 100-400 that is for sure. I enjoyed using both, but I will be getting the 100-500 as it is such a good lens. Cheers, Duade
I've always been a prime shooter until I got my R6 and the 100-500. I really love the versatility of this lens, it's super sharp and the close focus distance is just killer. I also have the RF 800 F11 prime and while it's nice to have the reach, the slow aperture and long minimum focus distance is very limiting. Excellent comparison video Jan, thanks for putting it together.
Heath I am curious.. Since you have the 100-500 and the 800 what would you do in my situation. I run my 70-200II f2.8 with a 2x and I find it just as sharp as my 400mm 5.6 and also why i never bought a 100-400. So I was thinking 140-400 is close to the 100-500 and I should just get the 800 f11. Since you have been able to play with both, in my situation knowing what you do now.. would you get the 100-500 OR the 800. you can only have one in your decision and you cannot buy the 1.4x
@@MaddManzz00 I find when I'm moving around I tend to use the 100-500 much more than the 800. The slow F11 aperture can means high .isos in low light and very long minimum focus has made me miss shots where the subject was just too close. I only moved to mirrorless last year so I still have a lot of EF lenses, I also have the 400 F5.6L and it's a great prime. If I had to choose between the 100-500 or an 800 I think I'd still save up and get the 100-500 as it's just so versatile. It's minimum focus is really close and since the mount is RF you don't have to use an adaptor which would make a 100-400 even longer and heavier. The one thing I have not tried yet though is tele convertors, I have an EF 1.4x II but I have not purchased any RF tele convertors. The other downside to the 800 is that the autofocus points are limited more towards the middle of the frame so you can't use the whole viewfinder to autofocus. Things I do like about the 800 though are that it is sharp for a non L lens, the image stabilization works well, and 800mm is nice when you need that extra reach. The price is big factor for the 100-500, it's a really expensive lens and I had to sell other gear and save to purchase it.
I have owned the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM since it debuted. It is a wonderful lens however now I own an R6...the RF 100-500 is calling to me! For a while, I thought that I could just use a 2x converter and it won't be that bad...however watching this video, well I knew the conclusion all along. I am an enthusiast-level bird photographer (see: can't commit to the expense and burden of hauling around a huge prime). That extra 100mm of reach would really help! I shoot mainly in the woods - small, fast moving subjects so auto-focus response is nearly as important as IQ - an extender diminishes both. And I was pleased to see that Jan found the RF 2x converter (1000mm) to be acceptable so that is nice to have that option as well. The new problem - trying to actually buy an RF 100-500! The demand is so high, they sell out immediately so it will be a struggle!
Yes, I got lucky that my dealer had a few in stock! 2x on any zooms lens isn't great, but on the 100-500 it did a decent job at times on the 100-400 I didn't like it at all
Excellent review of these lenses Jan, I found exactly the same results albeit I couldn’t do a side by side comparison as I needed to sell the EF100-400ii to pay for the RF100-500
Canon 100-400 vs rf 100-500 vs 400 DO mk2 + 1.4 extender. Thanks Jan for a very informative video comparison. I am doubling down on my bird photography in preparation for a trip to Africa next year and find myself agonising over my new R5 kit. I have the 100 to 400 Zoom, which works extremely well , and I recently bought the 100 to 500 RF lens which is an even bigger pleasure to use. The extra hundred millimetres is certainly noticeable in the field. My question relates to a 2 camera setup: given that weight will be a major issue on an African Safari And that with advancing years I really don’t think I’m up for a 500 mm or 600 mm prime, I’m thinking of 2 alternate set ups to give me maximum versatility including low light shooting. The first is to keep the 100 to 400 for its native range, probably on an R6 mk2 body and pair it with a 100 to 500 mm with a 1.4 extender to give me an active range of 100 mm to 700 mm, using the 100-500 + Ex as a fixed 420 to 700 mm lens. The wild card is the idea of getting an EF 400 mm, DO mk2 and using that with my EF 1.4 converter to give me a 5.6 prime of 560 mm as my premium set up and keep the 100 to 500 as a native set up on the other camera. Have you tried that lens, which seems to offer big white versatility and quality with relatively small size and weight? It should also help with low light shooting at Dawn and dusk, which are of course premium times for African and most other forms of wildlife. I really appreciate your thoughts, since I have been unable to find anything that directly covers my question. Many thanks for your excellent videos, which I’m thoroughly enjoying while recuperating in hospital for a procedure. I’ve just booked myself into your master class, because if I can get bird shots that are a fraction as good as yours I’ll be a happy chappy. Keep up the good work.
while I haven't gotten my hands on a 100-500 yet to test it, I was able to test a Sony 200-600 today and boy was that sharp and nice to use (tested on A1). A bit of a bummer for us Canon shooters, that Sony lens is only 1700€ vs. the Canon 100-500 is >3000€. The Canon is the harder to pull off from an engineering standpoint, but the Sony has 600mm reach. I'm not switching or anything, that's for sure, but I really hope Canon's RF lens prices will be adjusted rather sooner than later.
As my only big lens, the Sony would be a nice choice, because of the reach. As a secondary lens like I use it, the 200-600 would be much too large for me and I value the versatility the 100-500 brings to the table. Both lenses are great, really. The pricing on the RF stuff is certainly very aggressive
I’m sticking with my 100-400 for the time. Maybe I upgrade in the future but my hope is for Sigma n Tamron to produce r mount equivalents to their EF 150-600 so that I can move to them at a fraction of the price and even more reach and simply sidestep the canon 100-500.
I have a Tamron 150-600. It's decent and much cheaper, but it weighs a ton by comparison and isn't fun to shoot with; and it isn't as sharp as that Canon. As soon as the 100-500 comes back in stock, I'm trading the Tamron for the Canon without looking back. Canon doesn't open their mount for third parties, so they have to reverse engineer RF mount versions. No one has produced a third party RF lens with AF and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one, especially a super telephoto zoom.
@@jan_wegener Samyang does two MFs and one AF. I suspect the legacy third parties like tamron and sigma take their time because they want to improve their lens designs.
Third Party lens manufacturers have not struggled. Canon is suing anyone who tries to reverse engineer the RF mount, unless they have permission. And Canon has not given permission. Samsung has been forced to remove its reversed RF’s from their line up.
I bought the 100-400 II intentionally over the 100-500L! (because of price and its EF mount so i have the filter adapter/sensor protection between the camera and lens) I began wildlife with the RF 800 F11 and EOS RP full frame, then i upped the game with the R7 which made the RF 800 more like a "moonzoom" lens at 1280mm minimum! Just a good weather lens with superb focal lenght and small size/weight for hiking etc anymore. As Universal lens i got soon later the Sigma 150-600C. Except for the poor stabilizer, slower AF and sometimes focus breathing (on EASY, slow or even not moving subjects!) which barely if at all exist at fast objects make this 2kg beast pretty perfect for me. Mainly im using the Sigma 150-600C on full frame or APS-C R7, but on the R7 i prefer the 100-400 II often over the sigma... just much better stabilized, so also good for video and as much you say 5.6 vs 7.1 is not really a difference - IT IS! Not that it would make a huge difference, but often i just prefer the 100-400 with F5.6 over the Sigma just because there is a difference, especially in low light!
I got my R5, and only after that did i start to consider to get into bird photography for the first time... luckily i got hold of a pristine second hand 100-400 ii for 850usd which i found an amazing deal to let pass. I use it now with a 1.4 ex iii and i am extremely happy with the whole setup. Thanks for another great video! Cheers
Great job on this video comparison, Jan. You hit the ground running, didn't waste your viewers' time (Thank You!), and backed up your analysis with image comparisons. The Canon design/firmware limitation on using the 100-500mm in using an extender only at 300mm+ is a What The...? moment for me, but it is what it is. My takeaway is that the 100-500mm is just a bit better in several ways than the 100-400mm, which we would hope for with newer hardware, but at a cost increase that may not match the gain in image quality and usability. So for those with deep pockets, upgrading to a 100-500mm if they already own the 100-400mm plus a mirrorless body and lens adapter could be a no-brainer. But those with tighter budgets, and those who do bird and other wildlife photography and need large prints only rarely, might hold off on upgrading. One less expensive workaround: post-processing software is getting better at improving sharpness with a minimal hit to noise. What you gained going to the 100-500mm, I think people may be able to get with the 100-400mm PLUS Topaz AI Sharpness and/or Topaz AI DeNoise, at a significantly lower cost. Of course that workflow is slower, so one would only go that way with keeper images, a good desktop PC/Mac than can handle the Topaz apps efficiently, and more time than money for lens upgrades.
I have been using the 100-500 a lot lately and it's a pretty amazing lens. I have hardly any OOF images. But I agree that it comes down to budget, especially if you already own a 100-400. The lack of the 100 extra mm is the key thing missing from the 100-400 and that cannot really be compensated for.
Completely agree with everything you said. I did trade my 100-400 in on the 100-500 and it fills that gap I had from 400 to my 600 F4 much better. If I didn't get a good trade in price on the 100--400 I'm not sure I would've bought it.
I have a 100-400 (gen 1)...now I have an R5 I will be getting the 100-500 in due course, seeing as thier was a quality jump from gen 1 to gen 2 the 100-500 is 2 steps up and this makes it worthwhile IMHO
I own the 100-500, never shot with the 100-400 but both have their weaknesses and their strengths it seems to me. The 7.1 aperture isn't to much of a big deal, the 100-500 stops down to 6.3 around 365mm and goes to 7.1 at around 472mm. So you lose a 1/3 of a stop at 400mm compared to the 100-400 but you gain an extra 100mm at the long end. Sure I would have liked a 5.6.at 500mm but you got to pay for it somehow, ie price and weight. The extender isn't a big issue for me, I put an extender on and use it for the long end 99.999% of the time. I'll switch to my second camera body with my 70-200 2.8 on it if subjects get real close. Both of these lenses are great lenses!
I have a 100-400 II and a 500m prime for shooting birds. When 100-500 first came out I decided to skip it especially because i just bought a RF70-200 not that long ago... but watching your vedio has made me rethink...
I also stick with my 100-400 II. For two reasons: 1. the price tag, it just does not seem to be worth spending all that money for the extra 100mm. And I never use a 2x converter, so the image quality improvement is neglectable (and 5.6 vs 6.3 at 400 is also an advantage). 2. As I'm often go on Safari with my 600 4.0 II and 100-400 II lens, one of which I use on my 5D IV. That way I can switch between the two cameras, one with the fixed Tele the other with the zoom. If I had the 100-500, I would be less flexible, I would have to use the 600 on my 5D IV and could not swap the lenses between both cameras.
What might have been interesting is to shoot the 100-500 lens using the R5, and then shooting the 100-400 lens using the R7, to see then how the two lenses compare in overall sharpness & performance without having to use the 1.4X converter 🤔. Good video and interesting to listen to 👍
This has just opened my eyes. I loved my 100-400 II, which I sold when I was moving to an R5 body. I have debated the RF 100-500 but £2700-2900 cost for 'just' the lens, is hard to swallow for enthusiast like me. So I have considered reacquiring the 100-400 II (loved the build, speed, size) and the suggestion of the R7! 160-640 equivalent! Interesting to say the least.
I agree. I have had 70-300L years ago then 100-400 II for many years. Both outstanding lenses for sharpness and IS. But RF 100-500 takes it even further!! I find its extra 500mm and extra sharpness and pop in images to be truly unique. I am glad that I sold my 100-400 II and now happy with 100-500 RF!!
Hello Jan. Nice video, thanks very much. The biggest investment for any bird pro/am photographer will be the Glass. But the new Canon F11 lenses IMO may be a real game changer with these bodies. Best regard, Thomas
man, stop tempting me into purchasing the 100-500 ;-) the incompatibility for the TC and the availability of the 600 and 800mm small aperture but low price primes are the reason I can't make up my mind. I don't even have a 100-400, I had one years ago on the 5D2 but sold it. For sports I was never happy with the AF performance, but then again that's mostly the camera's fault. It's good to see that the 100-500 basically delivers a better image than the 100-400 + 1.4x. Very tempting indeed, it's just that I don't use Teles that much. I have some telscopes with up to 3000mm of focal length, so I'm covered there. I'm quite annoyed that the 70-200 2.8 doesn't allow the TC at the full range either, otherwise I think it would be the better choice for my usage scenario, then again, all portraits I take with the 135 2.0. I start to appreciate my R5 more by the day (I've had it for two weeks now) but the new RF glass is great and VERY tempting in some aspects, but also more limited in ways like the TC limitations. So I'm not sure what to do. The pricing is quite prohibitive. But for filming, even my really good EF 24-70 F/2.8 now seems dated, because the focus pulls are super harsh and the focus motor is very noisy. So the first lens I'm looking into getting is probably the fancy 28-70 2.0L and then sell my 24, 35 and 50 primes. it's an expensive hobby for sure, astronomy is cheap compared to it ;-)
haha! I just got another R5, it's a great camera! I was also bumped that the TC doesn't fit on the 70-200. The 28-70 must be an amazing lens. I have been looking at it for a while as well, would be fun for filming and can likely replace a few other lenses
@@jan_wegener thanks for the reply. That's my current predicament. Glad I'm not the only one who finds it tricky. But I think I agree the R6ii makes more sense. Invest in glass and on occasion use upscale if needed.
I am in the exact position you mentioned, a5dsr with 100-400 mk2 user wanting to upgrade to the R5. I don't like spending money but the 100-500 makes a lot more sense in the long run
Really helpful plain English video thanks. Exactly the dilemma I am facing, so you've helped lean me in the direction of the 100-500 and also saves buying the converter ring too of course.
I own and love my 100-400 which I used on a 1Dx II. Yet the only RF lens I purchased was the 100-500. I don't care for image quality on the 100-400 ver II. with an extender and never shot with it with a teleconverter. Weight for handling and travel restrictions also important. From a 1DxII + 100-400 to a R5/100-500...no comparison. I was reluctant to invest the money, but glad ai did. thanks for an excellent review (again)
Thanks for the great comparison. While I used the 100-400 with very good results on the 1DX II, even with 1.4x extender, it seems the R5 sensor is more challenging for this combo. Unfortuntaly, for some reason neither me nor Canon fully understands, the R5 with 100-400 plux 1.4x gives me far more defocussed images than correctly focussed images. Very sad and frustrating and I hope that Canon will either resolve the problem (firmware 1.30 didn't do the job) or replace the R5 with a properly working one. As far as I know the described behaviour is rare but a known problem.
Thanks this answered my question. Another awesome review Jan. I am keeping my 100-400mm mark II and paired with my R6 and it really produces a sharp image.
I have tried the EF100-400II with the 1.4x extender on the R5 and are very happy with the results. With the R5 having 45mp there is scope to crop so can use the EF100-400II without the extender when I want maximum sharpness. It I want maximum reach I will use my EF500 MKII with the 1.4x extender.
Thank you Jan. Another excellent video. I own the 100-400 and a 1.4x iii. For now at least, I plan to stick with them, but I found your comparison to be very enlightening. I was debating whether to buy a 2x iii. I think I'll take your advice instead and try to get closer to my subjects. I also have a 500mm f/4 prime, so I still have some options. The idea of the 100-400, the 1.4 and the 2x was very attractive as a versatile kit for carrying on longer forays away from our vehicle, but I think I'd be disappointed with the performance of the 2x.
@@alcosound I'm using the R7 myself. I've used it with the 100-400 and the 1.4x III tc quite a bit. Other than being a bit slow (f8), the results have been very good. Being a zoom, it would probably be perfect for air shows - zoom out to locate the subject and zoom in to take the shot(s).
@@steve.hamlin.artist Since I own already the 100-400L II and the 1.4 TC II, I may go for the R7 (but the body is too small for my large palms - is there some grip available?). What about the speed and accuracy of focusing? My 80D is shooting fine with the 100-400L II alone, but the 1.4TC II limits this body to the center focus point only, if I remember correctly. And I want more reach, to tell the truth (looking at the RF200-800 with interest, I have to admit)
@@alcosound The gen II 1.4 TC works fine too. There's a slight difference in sharpness with the gen III. I'd recommend upgrading to it if you plan to stick with the 100-400 IS II, but you should get very good results with the gear you have. SmallRig makes a cage for the R7, but I don't have it. I've seen some RU-vid videos where people have mounted old battery grips to get the extra grip size, The battery part is nonfunctional. I have fairly large hands (wear size large gloves) and I find the R7 to be perfectly comfortable as is. I have an M6 Mk II which I found uncomfortably small. I did mount a SmallRig cage on that. The AF on the R7 is very good, but a little unpredictable. There are a lot of really good RU-vids that discuss the strengths and weaknesses, including at least one by Jan. The AF area is virtually the entire screen - much larger than on any DSLR. Mounting the 100-400, with or without the TC has no effect on it. The only lenses that do that I know of are the f11 600 and 800mm. Even they have roughly the same size AF area as a typical DSLR at its best. The advantages of a mirrorless go far beyond the AF area. I think you'll really enjoy the R7. Check out factory refurbs from Canon. You can get a camera that has been more thoroughly checked than a new one at a significant savings. Jan - I apologize for hijacking your comment section. I hope you don't mind. I also hope you'll correct anything that I might have gotten wrong.
@@steve.hamlin.artist thanks for the information. I will wait for more impressions from the air shows scene next year of the RF200-800mm as well, which has piqued my interest as you can imagine... I have concluded that this combination with the R7, plus an RF-EF adaptor would set me back about four thousand EUR, which is not for the faint of heart, so the 100-400L II and 1.4TC II might be a good interim solution in the quest for more reach...
I currently have an R5 and a Sigma 150-600 C. The bargain price and specs of the sigma and also tamron 3rd party lenses has kept me from trying out the RF 100-500. Even at a longer focal length of 600mm, the Sigma has a wider aperture than the Canon 100-500. Would be nice to see a comparison if you ever get the opportunity.
Since i got the R5 i was really disappointed with the Sigma 150-600 (which was acceptable on the RP) so i ordered the 100-500 yesterday. After seeing this test i'm happy to have done so, as i also considered a used 100-400 with 1.4 TC as it would have been half the price. The aperture advantage of the Sigma quickly goes away as you need to stop it down to F8 (at least on my copy) to get somewhat decent results. My Sigma gives me similiar results to those shown with the 100-400 with 2x TC, so for me the 100-500 will be a big upgrade. In the end, sadly it still seems that you get what you pay for with lenses.
The Sigmas sharpness and focusing abilities stop you getting the best out of your R5. I wish the Canon didn't drop to 7.1 but it still absolutely kills the Sigma.
Unfortunately I've come to the same conclusion, the 150-600C lack that crisp sharpness on the R6. Was fine on the 80D. Both kidneys are already sold, might try to sell a few toes to be able to afford it.
@@markrigg6623 That's right. I realized that nearly at the first use. The focus is probably the biggest issue as 95% or more of the shots aren't exactly focused... On the rare occasions it really nails the focus, the iq isn't that bad (can be achieved easier with flowers or a closeup of tree bark where I got good results, which simulates lab test conditions). The narrower aperture is to be expected, for one to keep size and weight down but also to avoid it competing with the 200-400 F4 with integrated extender that costs 4 times as much and is 560 5.6 at the longest setting. I think with the R5 7.1 isn't that much of an issue. Will be interesting to see how it behaves on the RP that I didn't sell yet.
@@peterh7176 I believe the focusing system of DSLR's works a bit differently / better with 3rd party lenses (found some indications of that on the web). I had the Sigma 100-400 on the 80D and it worked quite well, didn't test it that much on the RP but after the fact I think it was the better lens but too short for full frame... Sigma stated on their website that firmware 2.0 or higher is needed on the lens for good operation with the R5 or R6, all tough there are still some limitations... For now we'll probably be limited to Canon lenses on R series cameras.
As a fairly advanced amateur in South Africa, a wildlife heaven, I am glad to have come across your channel and this very interesting comparison. I own the 100-400 mkii and use it for anything - from macro to long shots - of Africa's birds, insects, wild animals and lanscape. I missed two things in your review: 1. Obviously the 100-500 is exclusively (I think) a full-frame lens for Canon's new range of mirrorless cameras, however, I use my 100-400 on a 90D and it gives me a focal length of 640 with great results from f5.6 to f8. We have harsh sunlight for 300 days of the year so stopping down to f11 is seldom necessary, Auto ISO does the trick and I hardly ever go beyond f8.I would like to hear your views on the crop sensor and the 1.6 add-on focal range. I also use the 5Div with the 1.4 extender with great results too at f8 in our conditions. 2. The other comparison I missed is the price difference, in our case of 33%, between the two lenses. Given the minor but clear qualitative differences as seen in your video and adding the cost of the 100-500 to the need of moving from high quality DSLR to a R5 or R6 and the 100-500, would you still do it? Your views will be appreciated.
Hey, I didn't focus on the price too much, because it varies so much between countries. All in all the 100-500 is more pricy. And yes it only works with the new mirrorless cameras. Crop sensor can be nice too add range and also come with drawbacks, like lesser IQ and more noise. I have moved from a 5DIV to an R5 and added a 100-500 as well. The difference is night and day compared to my Mark IV to be honest. So much so that I sold it and bought another R5.
I might be wrong but it almost looks like the 100-400mm with the extenders is slightly backfocusing. There seemed to be slightly more details on other parts of the goose than on the eye. Once again, I could be wrong there and youtube compression doesn't help, just a thought I had when you showed the images. Thanks for the video!
With the R5 there shouldn't be any back or front focussing. It's possible that the AF sometimes missed a bit, but I always tried to pick the best images from the ones I took.
@@jan_wegener Oh right with the eye detect, I guess the camera picks what is the sharpest focus. My bad, didn't think of that. Thanks again for your videos
This is very valuable info, but we must bear in mind that comparing samples with and without extenders or with different lenses is subject to autofocus perfectly nailing focus. You can have one image razor sharp and the next might not be quite so...
Hi Jan I really enjoy your videos. These days we have less and less tutorial videos like yours. Most of your videos help us to improve our skills. Sadly, these days youtubers want us to buy the latest and the greatest most of the time. Some videos you did like Shooting Manual, Exposure, 20,000$ vs 2,000$ were excellent. In this video, you ask us to share our thoughts on 100-400 II vs 100-500. My opinion is to keep what I have (5D IV + 100-400II) as long as possible. As an intermediate++ hobbyist, I can't justify the cost for switching systems these days. Money does not grow on trees. I am convinced that a R5 + 100-500 is a better combo than 5D IV + 100-400 II but I get most of the shots I want. By the way, I am impressed by the beautiful birds you have in your country even in your backyard. In which part of the Australia do you live ?
I sold my EF 100-400 and have the RF 100-500 on order. It was a tough choice to make! Although I was very happy with the EF 100-400, I decided to switch for several reasons despite the higher cost. Aside from the extra 100mm and perceived advances in technology, my thinking changed after going from my 5DS to the mirrorless R5. I'm looking long term and the future is mirrorless. Down the road, there will always be something new and improved, tempting me to eventually replace the lens. With Canon accelerating the retirement of EF lenses, hanging on to my EF 100-400 made me think that it would be better to sell my EF lenses now, expecting that the demand for EF lenses will diminish over time (as well as the sell/trade-in market).
I am wrestling with this question now. I wouldn't be using it for bird photography -just the occasional air show. And I wouldn't rule out a few impromptu wildlife shots when the opportunity arises. After some soul searching and number crunching I came to the conclusin that I just can't justify the almost $3,000 (USD) price tag vs a $1,700 for a renewed 100-400 Mk II (add $300 for a 3 year warranty) that will deliver comparable results. Would I rather have native RF glass on my R5? Sure. Absolutely. But the return on investment just doesn't add up for as much as I would have a need for it. I think the 100-400 EF Mark II is still a relevant lens in 2023 for an R5 shooter and am seriously considering purchasing. I already have a 1.4X extender.
Have committed to EOS R and logic is that I will need to change all my lenses anyway sooner or later. So sold my EF 100-400 II for a good price towards my RF 100-500. Helps not to have to juggle with converters (something not mentioned - and they each cost as much as the el cheapo RF 50mm f/1.8). The RF lens has excellent focus speed and image quality. I do however notice that Canon mirrorless bodies struggle to regain focus after "loosing" it - regardless of the lens used.
Yes, that's based on how the mirrorless AF-system works. And can be annoying at times! I am also considering to go all mirrorless once the big primes are out. The extra 100mm can make a big difference.
I recently sold my 100-400 II but instead of going with the RF 100-500 I ended up with the EF 300 2.8 IS II. It cost me close to the same on the used market as the 100-500 would cost me new. I'm always considering lenses that compliment my EF 500 F4 II which the 300 does well. As well, I recently modified a third party RF-EF adapter to be able to take an RF extender which allows me to stack an RF and an EF 1.4x extender. I usually stop down one stop when using that combination for reasons you mentioned in the video. This gives me a lot of options with the above mentioned lenses, a 300 F2.8, 420 F4, 500 F4, 600 F5.6, 500 F5.6, 1000 F8.
@@jan_wegener I sanded down the bottom internal area of the CommLite adapter just above the pins to allow the extender. The OEM adapter does not allow this.
Hi Jan. An extremely well made video review. Ample samples, detailed coverage of all aspects that one can think of or need to know for the buyer. Thanks. As a person who is deciding to upgrade to mirrorless setup, the Sony a7r4 + 200-600mm looks a lot more tempting. Really wish you would make a comparison review on these, to make the decision easier and well informed.
Hey, yes, I will need to get my hands on that set up at some point. In saying that, for birds, knowing that the Canon Eye AF is class leading, I find it very hard to look past and R5 and 100-500 atm.
Thanks for these excellent videos Jan. They are extremely helpful and the information you give is thoughtful and very well presented. This is the best 'CRL', Complete Runaround Lens! I have other RF lenses but they have been lacking what I need - lightweight, extreme versatility and amazing optics - the AF with the EOS R5 is also terrific. Can't thank you enough.
Thank you Jan for a great review with lovely pictures that explain the difference between the lenses. I owned the 100-400 II and really liked a lot on EOS R. This spring a changed to Leica 100-400mm on my Lumix GH5 för video shooting and it works fine (my honest opinion). In the future, if I need a new Canon telezoom it would certainly be the RF 100-500. For reasons that you explain so good. It's more expensive but compared to long white and fast primes it is a bargain over all. (I also own a EF 300 2.8 L IS old version and it rocks, but it's heavy and IS is buzzing all the time draining battery on EOS R) In the contex I think that EF 100-400mm II is a very good lens, affordable for most photographers. Sincerely Jan
Thank you for the great video. I am the owner of a 100-400 mm Version 1 for many years now. I decided to change to 100-500 mm. Time for a change: new technology, the extra 100 mm and the much lighter lens are important to me. I already have the Canon R5 (fantastic body - I was still using the canon 60D ...) but I am very frustrated since the 100-500 mm lens is not available in Europe for the moment. Very, very frustrating.
Great review, I loved it ! When I first bought 100-400 IS2, it took my photography to next level and I stopped missing pictures because of this great telephoto. I liked your comparisons 100-400 IS2 + 1.4X & 100-500, but I would have preferred the comparison between the two lenses at 400mm full open. As you rightly said, we hardly use teleconverters on zoom lenses. Any way, if you are using 100-400mm on R5, you can always afford to crop little. Comparison of both lenses w/o convertors at 400 mm would have given a better picture !!!
Thank you I for the review, just what I needed to see. Have ordered the R6 and the 100-500 mm in the sales, now patiently waiting for a delivery date. Think I’ll be extremely happy
Got the 100-500 and it is just like like you showed, that much better than the 100-400. I find the extra 100mm super handy! I wish they would do a 100-600 or 200-600 that could be very interesting if it was as good as the 100-500. Great review Jan.
My only two cents on this amazing comparison is that the 100-400mm lens has an aperture of 5.6 vs the more expensive lens with a 7.1. In daylight I will say that both will deliver the same results. In early morning I am just guessing that the 100-500mm at 7.1 is going to struggle maybe higher noise. I agree that 100mm more in the field is always a great thing to have. Thanks.
hi Jan , exzellent comparison . I sold my EF 100-400 || and got my RF 100-500 and i am very happy. All the pictures are much more crisp and the extra 100 mm are very often helpful . best regards Bernhard
I have the 100-400mkii and will be buying the RF lens. I'll sell the EF to reduce the $2600 hit though. While I am still very pleased with the adapted EF lens, I feel the RF is designed specific to take advantage of all the features the R5 has to offer. Thanks for your videos. They are very helpful.
Excellent topic Jan. I've used both and the 7.1 aperture was a deal breaker for me. Trying to photograph distant ducks on a lake the first 2-3 hours after sunrise was a real struggle.
Thank you. There will be many interesting thoughts on this topic. Did you compare it to the 100-400? I never felt the 2/3 of a stop made much of a difference, even when it was dark
You need to have a realistic expectation if you are looking for these kind of shots then you need to look for a prime lens, but this lens is exceptionally good in every way.
The RF 100-500 mm is at estimated f6.0 (when set to 1/3 Stop increments it is at f6.3) at 400mm, so it is just slightly darker than your 100-400 at f5.6. You are not convincing me with your arguments. If you are shooting in the evening/morning both lenses are not the right tools for this and you have to choose a Prime Lens instead.
Hi Jan. Very interesting comparison. I have owned the 100-400 for a couple of years, and I have loved it. The speed, the clarity and quality, but recently getting my R5, I sold it and bought the 100-500, and despite the price, it outruns the former. Actually, I used a 1.4 extender to get that reach, and I experienced exactly that drop in sharpness. Besides the things mentioned in your video, I also enjoy, that the 100-500 does not feel that cold in the winter time because of the plastic materials. Good video again, Jan 🤗 Kind Regards, Jan
Have the old EF100-400 trombone lens, work with ring adapter + 1.4 ext on my R5. After viewing your reviews and others will buy the RF 100-500. As soon as it becomes avail from a vendor I want to buy from.
I have used both these lenses and it comes down to how much money you have ! The 100-400 is a very sharp lens, and the RF100-500 on a RF body is extremely good ! However a used 100-400 is £1,400, a new RF 100-500 is £2,750 That is a lot of money for just a little bit more IQ ! I own EF 70-300L f4-5.5, EF 100-400L mkii, sigma 150-600 C, EF 100L macro. IMO the 100L macro is tge sharpess lens in my collection of big zooms.
Excellent comparison. Personally I don’t see any point in stopping down to F11 with the 100-400ii plus TC. At least with my 1.4iii. In my tests I could not see any difference. My experience seems to mirror the test that lens tip performed. Going from F5.6 to F8 at 400mm produced an increase of only 1 lpmm. I’d rather have the extra light. There is always a hit with a TC , but I’m astounded at how little it is on my R5. In order the see the difference Im having to massively zoom and pixel peep to a point that’s impractical. Jan there are lots of people reviewing gear out there on RU-vid but you are among the best. The reviews have both excellent methodology and practicality.
I had the EF 100-400 II when I bought the R5. Various tests I had read confirmed the better sharpness. For me, the better sharpness, 100mm more and the not needed EF-R adapter was the decision to buy the RF 100-500. I was able to sell my 100-400 for a good price and had to invest 'only' 1000€ difference minus Canon cashback. Unfortunately the 100-500 has caused my R5 to freeze 3x, no other EF/RF lens has caused that so far. I'm hoping for more firmware updates.
Well done! Just what I wanted to know. Any difference between phase AF and contrast AF with the 100-400? Contrast is supposed to be the slowest, but most accurate AF. It will negate any adjustment issues which might impact phase AF. For most of what I do, the 100-400 will do just fine. Anything too far away will be 600mm country. The 100-500 is likely to have more problems in bad light. That is Winter in Norway or a dark jungle according to Jeff Cable. Every stop or half stop counts.
