$499 for the 100-400!

palane wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

palane wrote:

" Barely" heavier than the 18-150?

Its 635 gms versus 310...when paired with a R7 its around 30% heavier.

I said it 'felt" barely heavier. I was reporting my subjective experience, not the actual weight. I am well aware of the actual weight. The fact is that this lens is simply amazingly light for a 100-400. Perhaps it's just that I'm used to mounting the Tamron 100-400 with the adapter. Now that combination is a lot heavier. And still a lot lighter than a Canon EF 100-400. I've just spent an hour or so shooting a pickup football (played with the feet) game with the R7 and 100-400, and continue to be very pleased with how light it is.

A light sensation and very pleasant is the R10 and 18-150( I have the 55-250stm on the R7) with a Tamron 150-600 (its heavy)in the car for occasions.

LOL, yes, your interpretation of barely is subjective of course.

I like a light set up too.

Canon have done what Fuji have done with their 150-600,made them F8 at the long end to keep weight down.

I dont own the 100/400 yet, but everybody is positive about it, the best deal down under is the Equivalent of 600U$,so I'll wait till it comes at a better price.My set up covers plenty atm.

I love the light weight by R7/100-400.   I also have the EF 100-400 and the RF 100-500 to compare.  Each has their important traits but when it comes to easy to carry the RF100-400 wins hands down.  All three have great IQ.  The EF100-400 is the best sealed for rugged use.  The 100-500 is close to prime lens performance at a pretty high price.  Moreover it looses zoom range when used with TCs while the other two do not.