$499 for the 100-400!

PVDL wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

PVDL wrote:

I have a question just slightly off topic. I still have the EF70-300ii IS Nano Usm. EF is F/4-5.6. Did you ever test it adapted on your R7? Could you see a difference in AF/IQ? Except for the shorter focal range of the EF of course. Would the RF100-400 be an upgrade in AF/IQ?

I'm sorry, I've never owned that lens. Maybe someone else could help. I did read good things about it when it came out. I would imagine that it would give just as good results on the R7 as on a crop DSLR. The main advantages that I can see of the RF 100-400 are extra range, a bit smaller and lighter (especially when compared with the EF lens plus adapter combo). The 70-300 is faster.

I don't need the extra range. For me the RF 24-240 would be an option, even more than my EF70-300. Don't use it often above 250mm. I read that 24-240 is also a good lens for the R7 and I could use it on my RP.

Thanks Alastair for the input. Also for your input and experience in other threads, I learn a lot reading them.

Another difference is that the RF100-400/5.6-8 takes Canon's RF TCs; the RF24-240 doesn't.

Most people would probably find the RF100-400 with a 2x to not give enough extra detail of a subject to warrant the 1120mm-FF-equivalent AOV on the R7 or R10, but with the FF models, 1.4x certainly would increase obvious detail level, especially with the R6.  I use the RF1.4x with it often on my R7, used the 2x with the zoom on the R5, but I value proper sampling more than most people, so still tend to prefer double the pixels on subject with a given main lens, even if that lens isn't razor-sharp.