Is it WORTH the extra cost? Canon RF100-500 L vs RF 100-400 for Bird Photography 

Thanks, glad to hear that you found it useful

Glad to hear that the video was helpful!

Thanks a lot

Thanks, happy to hear!

Happy to hear that

Thanks 😊

Thanks

Thanks! I will maybe keep the lens for another video 😊

Thanks

Have fun with the lens!

Thanks a lot 😀

Thanks 😊

Thanks

I totally understand

A 100mm of extra reach for the extra £2100 isn't worth it, the IQ and sharpness difference is negligible, the weather sealing is an issue but you can put a weather resistant camo cover on the 100-400 for peace of mind.

It’s not only 100mm more, the Bokeh (look) is also different and the RF100-500 provides a better background blur, etc

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography True, and no question if you can afford it the 100-500 is the way to go; but, let's face it, you can add background blur in post. Not quite the same, but a reasonable substitute if you just don't have almost three grand laying around!

​@ajc1482 except IQ isn't negligible, it's huge in the field. Taken them both on safari and its not even close.

Thanks! Yes, I find in challenging light conditions it’s most visible. Personally, I prefer not to blur the background of my images in post - but everybody as he/she prefers 😊

I'm still in the DSLR world, but I am looking at both this camera, and this lens for the long zoom, when I make the jump.

Your reply or experience is quite helpful. Could you please help me by sharing your experience with low light conditions like in wedding or family shoot with R7 and 100-400. I will highly appreciate if you could show your insta or other show case.

Happy to hear that the video was helpful

Thanks and have fun!

Thanks

Thanks for your words 😊

Thanks for your comment 😊

Thanks

Thanks! The larger maximum aperture is the main advantage of the RF100-500 over the 100-400 in my opinion. And not everybody needs that

Wow. What do you shoot at f11? The sun?

Thanks! Unfortunately, the AF E-Book is only available in German. It takes a lot of time and effort to translate it 😕 I hope you can enjoy the bird-book. Just make sure you get the english version 😊

You’re welcome

You’re welcome

Sure!

Thanks! It can help, Since at 400mm you are 2/3 steps faster. But more important for me was the extra reach and blurrier background

Thanks

Thanks, that’s a good point

Thanks!

May I ask why are you not happy with the R7? I sold mine and I’m kind of regretting it

⁠@@FotosyMas.sorry, just seeing your question now in earlyOctober. I find the R7 just misses focus a bit more than it should. And i find the higher iso images a good bit more noisy than my Nikon Z50. Plus, with all the Canons the exposure shifts around more as the focus point moves around, requiring more post editing. In the same settings, my Nikon’s matrix metering just seems to get exposure ‘right’ more often. Hope this helps.

I Have the R10 and the Canon Rf 100 400 mm and very satisfied with the quality of my pictures, also the Eye tracking is very fast, af is extremely fast, it s working great for bif.

I‘m sure you will not regret it 😊

Thanks! Hmm, depends whether or not you need the extra reach of the 100-500. Overall I would prefer the 100-500, but the 70-200/4 is a very light and inexpensive alternative

Thanks! Yes, I think that comes down to financial and photographic priorities

😅

Thanks!

I think the bokeh is really heavily influenced by the type of glass or coating that’s used in the two different lenses

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Do you notice more "specular highlights" (onion ring bokeh) and rainbow artifacts on the RF 100-400 than the 100-500? I've not been bothered much myself but one of my peers has been constantly frustrated by 100-400 and the autofocus accuracy with the R7 and believes it ruins macro pictures (for example the rainbow artifacts show up on spider webs). It might be less obvious depending on the processing method but it seems to be a big shortcoming not many users have emphasized.

Depends how much „reach“ you need and how much light you have available. The R8 AF is clearly superior to the one of the R7

Depends how much „reach“ you need and how much light you have available. The R8 AF is clearly superior to the one of the R7

Thanks! No, I only tried it on the R5 and R10

I use 100-400 on R7. Indeed a great combo. I am very happy with it. Shooting a lot of wildlife, birds mostly. Very quick focusing, quite sharp. I use it a lot also for macro, flowers, insects. Actually, I was amazed how good image quality this lens provides. Much better than I expected! What surprised me most was how beautiful bokeh this lens provides! So soft and creamy! I shoot a lot of art macro, so now I use this lens even for art macro thanks to its so beautiful and pleasing creamy bokeh. I don't want a full frame camera for shooting wildlife and macro of insects, because R7 gives me the possibility to shoot at much longer distance and with much bigger magnification. The huge advantage of the 100-400 fir me is its amazing weight. Now I carry R7 + RF 100-400 everywhere with me for any walk and take many very nice pictures occasionally. With a heavier lens even like 100-500, I would not be able to carry it with me everywhere, so I just would miss all these shots ). The only real advantage of the 100-500 is more of background blur. But actually if you take a really great picture and want a little more of background blur on it, you can just do it with modern software quite easily and beautifully ). Earlier I shoot a lot with EF 100-400 II. A superb lens, but quite heavy. So I am really happy to have now the RF 100-400. Truly just amazing lens for its weight and image quality! Thanks Canon for it ). And thanks to the author for so great clear and detailed honest review! 😊

Thanks! Yes, I‘m working on a video comparing these two lenses 😊

Happy to hear that you liked the video

I have all lens corrections turned off

They are quite different lenses, I would not really call the RF100-400 an „upgrade“. The successor of the EF 100-400 II is the RF100-500

I‘m not an expert in sports photography, but for anything under ten meters (33ft) I would rather go for a 70-200mm

Glad to hear that the video was helpful 😊

The RF100-400 can not be set to f/6.3 at 400mm - that’s one of the big limitations

There is now also the option of the RF200-800

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography money in the bank amigo

I think I mentioned the weight difference. And yes, I always leave all my stuff in the hotel room. In the car I‘m a bit more careful, I usually try not to leave my 600/4 for many hours

Or you get the 100-500 + Topaz 😃

Usually I use the edges and corners more for non actions shots. But yes, I guess it can not hurt in general

Hard to tell. If background blur is important and you can afford it, then I would go for the RF100-500 L

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I get it and am hoping on a black friday sale . Just that I am a student on a budget and I go out shooting 2-3 times a week for a couple of hours each session. So I'm trying to gather as much information and experiences about products as possible. Considering I currently have a 1/1.2" sensor on my father's old camera with built in zoom then this will already be a big upgrade no matter what I decide to buy along with the R7

From what I understand, the image quality of the RF100-500 L is better than the EF100-400 II. If weight is a consideration and you can afford it, then I would probably upgrade 😊

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Yeah, I have read the same, the 100-500 has better quality and its lighter too. That said, Im pretty happy with the image quality of the 100-400 L already. What I meant to ask is if its worth to “downgrade” to the 100-400 rf and put the extra money I get in my pocket from selling the 100-400L to get the 100-400 non L rf version… This would save in size and weight… and if image quality is close to the 100-500L the it might actually be similar to the old 100-400L… thats my conundrum… The 100-400 L for sure is built better though… might be the only thing ai will miss out on maybe…

Thanks for the hint about the lens hood! Unless Canon allows it, Sigma/Tamron will not be able to produce an RF lens that can compete with the RF100-500

I thought about switching to Nikon 😅 But the Z100-400 is even more expensive than the RF100-500.

i also find that canon is getting slouchy on their apertures on about all of their lenses. Their decent stuff are financially out of range for most ppl. Id get the tamron 50-400 in a heartbeat if canon opened their mount to 3rd parties. Last canon gear for me. Sony's next.

Glad to hear that your happy with both lenses!

I would probably go for the RF

Thanks! Do you mean that you can only use it from 300mm on?

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography yeah, storing the lens while not fully retracted is very annoying

No, unfortunately not

That sounds weird, the RF100-500 L should definitely have better image quality than the Rf100-400

I think the price of the RF100-500 is fair, the Nikon equivalent (Z100-400) is more expensive! But it’s true that Canon lacks a more affordable and lower quality zoom like the Z180-600

It could be that you see any AF issues less on the R6 due to the lower pixel density

The RF100-400 can actually deliver very high quality output, but I find the RF100-500 the better and more consistent lens

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography well it should be as it costs almost 4x more~!

Exactly 😊

Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks! Yes, I really have the collar removed 90% of the time. What are your concerns with that collar?

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I cannot specifically comment on the 100-500 but if, as I have read, it is the same as the 70-200 then I have to say that I find the collar to be quite flimsy in comparison to earlier ef lenses. The material that it is made from appears to be able to be distorted out of shape and this results in very uneven operation when it comes to changing orientation from horizontal to vertical and vice versa, not smooth at all! Not only that but, at least on my copy, if I have the lock mechanism of the collar loose enough to rotate the lens I then cannot trust the lock to remain fixed and so cannot attach a strap fixing to it to carry the set up without worrying about the collar opening and therefore dropping the camera and lens. I can lock it down of course and if I was using a strap then naturally I would be using it hand held and not using a tripod so wouldn't need the collar on at all but on a lens that costs in the region of £2750 I don't think this is acceptable. It may well be that it is just that I have a poor copy. As it happens I rarely use the 70-200 on a tripod anyway but I would certainly use a 100-500 more on a tripod. My ef 100-400 has no such issues.

Thanks! Personally, I don’t like blurring the background in post. It also disqualifies for many wildlife competitions

Blurring in post has a long way to go before it’s acceptable tbh

Hey man, no need to be rude in the comments. Fabian did an excellent job objectively comparing each lens here and offered a favorable, non-biased review of the 100-400. An iPhone 14 pro is a professional grade camera compared to what was on the market 35 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's what a professional photographer would use in 2023. You could definitely get pro results with the 100-400, but weather sealing, reach and that aperture difference will be important to someone earning money off their wildlife photos. Let's keep it civil please.

Yes, I remember the discussion. If I recall correctly I said that the RF100-400 is a very good lens for beginners - but that doesn’t mean that more advanced users can’t use it. But I clearly prefer the RF100-500

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks for the quick reply, I am sorry if my final comment was a bit flippant! However, it is easy to compare and demote a lens worth 1/5 of the price of the competition!

Sure, but what other option would you suggest in a situation where you can’t get closer to your subject?

This highly depends on the person who shoots it. For me it would even be worth it paying 3000$ more 😉

Yes, for some people the weight is an important factor. But to be honest, the RF100-500 is already incredibly light for what it is

Hi! Did I get it well? You have an e-book? I’m interested in it but I don’t see the link. Thanks for de video. I’m a photography enthusiast and also a getting in to birdwatching, so… I’m on my way. 👍🏽. From Los Cabos, Baja Sur, Mexico. 🤙🏽

@@alonzoescamilla4960 Hi! Sorry, I completely missed your comment! Here is the link: naturfotografie-fopp.ch/wp/e-book-bird-photography/

Yes, the material is different. But why exactly would the plastic „decay“ after 2-3 years?

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography i believe plastic will be downgraded overtime 😬 maybe?

@@BOLANGTHANG There are many older plastic lenses and still going strong..does not decay after 2-3years LOL

That‘s a matter of perspective and preference. My main lens is the RF600/4, so much bigger than the RF100-500

It’s not ideal to compare it against the old Nikkor 200-500. the competitor is the Nikkor Z100-400, which is more expensive than the RF100-500!

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Despite the weight difference, is it reasonable to compare with the price for the Nikon Z 180-600mm? Here where I live, the price difference between them is 1,500usd.

I think it would be better to compare it against the Z100-400. But I agree that there is no real competitor from Canon to the Z180-600

Thanks