People who have it seem to really like it. It's pretty sharp where it matters and is much smaller, lighter, and cheaper than a faster lens like the EF 100-400 II. It all depends on your needs and what you're comparing it to.
I owned one previously and I will likely get one again in a few months now that I’m back on Canon. I found it to be surprisingly good optically, and extremely convenient given how compact and light it is. Here’s my review of it: https://admiringlight.com/blog/review-canon-rf-100-400mm-f-5-6-8-is-usm/
Worth every penny - Just an unbelievably versatile lens. It's literally the same size as a trendy water bottle, and significantly smaller and lighter than any of the L's in the same category. I find the sharpness, speed, focus surety, IS etc to be top shelf. The IS is staggeringly good. I was playing with my old 70-200 f/4 L and the RF is almost identical in size but lighter - the handling quality of the L is better and not plastic feeling like the RF100-400.
I don't have the 100-500 but I'd bet that it's a step up. My old 100-400 (v1) is out of it's depth in comparison.
To your point, it's not a free lunch and it's optically a lot slower. I get away with that because the R6ii is just so good in lower light and my use cases are not night time field sports where you really need speed.
Jman13 wrote:
I owned one previously and I will likely get one again in a few months now that I’m back on Canon. I found it to be surprisingly good optically, and extremely convenient given how compact and light it is. Here’s my review of it: https://admiringlight.com/blog/review-canon-rf-100-400mm-f-5-6-8-is-usm/
The link isn't working for me. Not sure if the issue is on my end or...
jaredmizanin wrote:
The link isn't working for me. Not sure if the issue is on my end or...
It’s an issue with the forum software. Sometimes it breaks links by appending the fm site to the beginning. If it’s not working for you, you can just copy the URL and paste it.
CarlosJG wrote:
It’s not expensive, and although I can see it has good specifications, it seems its not very fast. Is it really worth it? Any experiences?
I have the RF 100-400 along with the 100-500, R7 and R5. Used all of them for a number of years now. The 100-400 and R7 make a wonderful daylight field combination. Set it to F8 and just use it. You will get great images. It focuses close. It also works well on the R5 but the 100-500 and R5 are magic. I don't do events or sports, just travel and wildlife. If you need to do really low light or really fast shutter speeds then be prepared for getting a very expensive and heavy lens. The R7 + 100-400 weighs 2.7 lbs, a joy to walk around with.
I’m in the UK
For the past 3 months we’ve had gorgeous sunshine everyday. I’ve enjoyed shooting at iso 100 and using 5.6 and F8.
The weather has now changed, autumn will very soon be here. Then it’s 6 months of dark overcast miserable weather. I won’t be using iso 100 then!!
So for me the RF line up with these awful slow apertures are just a non starter unless I want iso 800+ as my baseline.
I still have my old ef 70-300L and 70-300is ii nano
Both can be cropped to give a 400 view, both are 5.6 maximum aperture and both can be bought used mint and probably boxed for way less than the RF 100-400 F8. Hence why I’ve not bought one myself.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
I’m in the UK
For the past 3 months we’ve had gorgeous sunshine everyday. I’ve enjoyed shooting at iso 100 and using 5.6 and F8.
The weather has now changed, autumn will very soon be here. Then it’s 6 months of dark overcast miserable weather. I won’t be using iso 100 then!!
So for me the RF line up with these awful slow apertures are just a non starter unless I want iso 800+ as my baseline.
I still have my old ef 70-300L and 70-300is ii nano
Both can be cropped to give a 400 view, both are 5.6 maximum aperture and both can be bought used mint and probably boxed for way less than the RF 100-400 F8. Hence why I’ve not bought one myself.
Mike_5D wrote:
ISO 800 is nothing for a modern camera. ISO 100 is for landscape and studio photographers.
Sorry
I was referring to crop not FF
I can definitely notice the difference after even 400iso
But yes, FF high iso is amazing. My old 6D never ceases to amaze me… not so with aps-c.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
I still have my old ef 70-300L and 70-300is ii nano
Both can be cropped to give a 400 view, both are 5.6 maximum aperture and both can be bought used mint and probably boxed for way less than the RF 100-400 F8.
By cropping away approximately half the sensor area like that, you’re approximately doubling the noise, which is pretty much equivalent to having to shoot at f/8 instead of f/5.6. This is true regardless of sensor size.
CarlosJG wrote:
...I'd rather rely on personal experiences than on reviews that are often paid for and biased.
Jan Wegener´s reviews are very good and as reliable as they come as user experience. His chum Duade Paton has several very much hands on field reports on the RF100-400 (as well as the other suspects among the wildlife lenses) both with and without the RF1.4x. All well worth watching, among the very best out there especially if you do mostly birding.
melcat wrote:
By cropping away approximately half the sensor area like that, you’re approximately doubling the noise, which is pretty much equivalent to having to shoot at f/8 instead of f/5.6. This is true regardless of sensor size.
Half
Cropping 300 to equal 400 is half??
I thought it would be 25% crop ??
Regardless. I still have my old ef 100-400 that I do use occasionally on FF. but seeing as I now shoot mostly aps-c the 70-300 suffices.
But, can I say this without offending?? To me the bigger issue is the shite sensors (or processors) canon uses in the aps-c line. For the past 3yrs I’ve been using Pentax more and more. I find pentax output much nicer than canon, the downside is Pentax AF is rudimentary..almost crude in comparison to canon. But regardless I still tend to choose Pentax for aps-c and my canon for FF - that’s only because I don’t have or want the Pentax FF.
I have a plethora of aps-c canon bodies from the humble 400d to the M6ii and finally my R50. If I’m feeling lazy I just grab the canon stuff, If I’m in the mood it’s Pentax everytime. The output just has a certain bite that canon lacks. Not sure if it’s the Pentax glass or the sensor or the processor. Whatever it is the pictures seem to be nicer… when the AF has focused correctly that is!
Z250SA wrote:
Jan Wegener´s reviews are very good and as reliable as they come as user experience. His chum Duade Paton has several very much hands on field reports on the RF100-400 (as well as the other suspects among the wildlife lenses) both with and without the RF1.4x. All well worth watching, among the very best out there especially if you do mostly birding.
Oh, thanks for the detailed recommendation. I'll check it out.
