p.1 #1 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii? Which do you use most and why? I am contemplating buying the RF version because of the lighter weight and portability. Mainly to use when I am out walking with my young kids. I imagine I would still want to use the EF version in certain circumstances. Just wondering what people feel about having both. Many thanks
p.1 #2 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
You may also want to consider the RF 24-240 for a "walking with the kids" lens. It has become my go-to lens for family outings when I only want one lens. The flexibility can't be beat.
p.1 #3 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
I have been looking at the 24-240 actually, so you have got me thinking now. I do use the 24-105 STM a lot. For the 100-400 I was thinking about when we go walking in local reserves etc - I should have made that clear. To be used onRP/R7.
p.1 #5 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
I've had both EF 100-400s and now the RF 100-400 and 100-500. All excellent lenses.
My wife and I used the RF 100-400 on an R7 along side the EF II on a 5D4 for an Alaskan wildlife trip. Aside from the R7's reach advantage both lenses produced a high keeper rate. This was in gloomy to bright daylight so f8 was not a limitation. I haven't done a deep forest comparison.
After getting the R7 I sold a bunch of unused camera gear which paid for the RF 100-500. From my initial use it is probably the best of the three. Reviews indicate this too. But I would have no issues with any of them.
The RF 100-400 weighs 2 lbs less than the EF and 1 1/2 less than the 100-500 so it will be my lens choice for non wildlife oriented trips on my R5. The RF 100-400 actually weighs less than the EF 70-300 II which I see as its EF ancestor. For wildlife trips or if my wife wants the RF 100-400, I'd take the 100-500. The two RF lenses have enhanced IS on IBIS R bodies. I can see this IS advantage when using the EF 100-400 II. The EF version has a faster aperture at 400 mm than the others. I won't sell my EF lens until I decide to sell my 90D and 5D4.
So, I would choose between them based on weight, reach, and aperture needs. Not IQ at this point.
p.1 #6 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
Keep in mind that the 24-240 has a 38-384mm field of view, reach, on the R7. Using both RP and R7 24-400. Versatility supreme!
I had the 100-400 II and now use both RF 100-400 and 100-500. I did not like the II on R due to the adapter as I usually used it with the 1.4x. The RF 100-400 is very good and very light, the 100-500 is superior to the others. Not by much, because they are all pretty good.
p.1 #7 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
I use the EF 100-400v1 for fast sports since it's push pull and workes great on my R3. Can't get used to the twisting of the zoom ring on fast moving subjects on either the RF 100-400 or the RF 100-500. needs to much movement to go either way fully which also means repositioning my hand to do it. plus i get excillent image quality with it.
p.1 #8 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
I agree with the 24-240, it goes with me (or these days more with my daughter) everywhere. Doesn't mean it's the primary lens, but it gets a lot more use than one may think. It was my 2nd most used lens last time in Antarctica, and it's in the bag for this upcoming trip again, same as with last summer's road trip. Much smaller and better than the 28-300 that it replaced in my bag.
p.1 #9 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
Jeff Nolten wrote:
[...]The EF version has a faster aperture at 400 mm than the others. [...]
I strongly suspect there's no practical difference between the EF100-400L II and the RF100-500L aperture sizes across the range. They both have the same 70mm maximum physical aperture and the reported apertures in the EVF and EXIF depend on whether you configured your camera to show 1/2 or 1/3 stops.
I never had both lenses at the same time, so there might very well be a real 1/3 or 1/2 stop difference at 400mm. Until I see a proper test with controlled lighting proving otherwise, I will keep thinking my RF100-500L is the bestest lens ever
p.1 #10 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
stanj wrote:
I agree with the 24-240, it goes with me (or these days more with my daughter) everywhere. Doesn't mean it's the primary lens, but it gets a lot more use than one may think. It was my 2nd most used lens last time in Antarctica, and it's in the bag for this upcoming trip again, same as with last summer's road trip. Much smaller and better than the 28-300 that it replaced in my bag.
People like to bash the 24-240 because of its relatively slow aperture and software corrections at the wide end. In reality, neither are as big of a deal as they are on the Internet. I'd rather have a slower lens with enough reach to get the framing I want over a faster lens that requires significant cropping. Cropping negates the ISO and background blurring advantages of the faster lens. The 24-240 also has very quiet focusing, making it good for video.
p.1 #11 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
koenkooi wrote:
I strongly suspect there's no practical difference between the EF100-400L II and the RF100-500L aperture sizes across the range.
I agree with you but I was stating specs. The 100-500 actually holds its wide aperture a bit longer than the 100-400 L. I've become a fan of the 100-400 f8 since I mostly use it in daylight hours outside. Its one stop disadvantage really is not for me. It is light weight and relatively cheap but still quite sharp. All winning attributes. The two L versions are probably measurably better but I can't tell in my use. All my 100-#00s have yielded excellent images. The 100-500's advantage is that it goes to 500. Using the RF 100-400 on the R7 is the main reason I purchased a FF R, the two pound weight savings being the critical specification for my air travel.
p.1 #12 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
As to the OP’s question about the two lenses I would say the EF is superior in a number of ways. The only advantages of the RF are smaller, lighter, and cheaper.
As for the 100-500, I don’t find it any better than the EF 100-400 in the 100-400 range. The inability to be able to use TC’s on it in the 100-300 range is a pain.
p.1 #15 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
Black Oystercatcher
Canon EOS R6m2EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lens400mmf/5.61/2000s1250 ISO+1.0 EV
Feb 10, 2023 at 07:24 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #16 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
The Rf 100-400 looks appealing to me since it has excellent close focusing magnification like the 55-250, and is light. Credible reports of focus shift near mfd have me not really considering the 100-400 v2 at this time since I'd use it there a ton. Haven't used these but I've handled the v2 it is large, much larger than v1 IIRC. Supposed to be good though
p.1 #17 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
I don't currently own both, but I did at one point. I also own the Sigma 60-600, adapted. Yeah, the EF was faster and weather sealed, but also pretty heavy. I sold it. I really like the RF. It's got a heck of an MFD and is plenty sharp enough for me. If I need more light/more reach, I use the 60-600, and if I REALLY need more light/reach, I use my 500/with extenders.
p.1 #18 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
CW100 wrote:
I might be interested in the smaller and lighter RF 100-400.
I'm getting old and don't like carrying heavier telephoto wildlife lens
The RF provides very good bang-for-your-buck. It is a pleasure to use handheld due to its light weight and smaller size. It should have had a focus-limiter and despite its weight, Canon still should have put a tripod collar on it, or sold one as an option.
I used the EF 100-400 for many years with great results. Version II was a noticeable improvement over it and worth the extra cost. I never came across any focus-shifting whatsoever, and that has included using extension tubes on it and also using focus-bracketing/stacking.
p.1 #19 · Anyone own both the RF 100-400 and the EF 100-400ii?
Imagemaster wrote:
The RF provides very good bang-for-your-buck. It is a pleasure to use handheld due to its light weight and smaller size. It should have had a focus-limiter and despite its weight, Canon still should have put a tripod collar on it, or sold one as an option.
I used the EF 100-400 for many years with great results. Version II was a noticeable improvement over it and worth the extra cost. I never came across any focus-shifting whatsoever, and that has included using extension tubes on it and also using focus-bracketing/stacking.
got it. I liked the smaller and lighter RF 100-400 hiking six miles through a Florida nature preserve yesterday (Circle B)
