Looking for comparison of 100-400 f5.6 EF II vs 100-400 f8 RF onR7

I have an R7 with the Canon 100-400mm f8 RF lens. How does it compare, for wildlife & birding, to the EF 100-400mm f5.6 MK II lens. I know the specs (weight, apertures, etc.).

The 5.6 aperture at 400mm (640 on the R7) would be a benefit for sure. Weight is OK.

Just looking for opinions, particularly from folks who have used both lenses, of image quality, EF to RF adapters, stabilization, focus comparisons, etc.

Thanks!

Fred

aVolanche said:

I have an R7 with the Canon 100-400mm f8 RF lens. How does it compare, for wildlife & birding, to the EF 100-400mm f5.6 MK II lens. I know the specs (weight, apertures, etc.).

The 5.6 aperture at 400mm (640 on the R7) would be a benefit for sure. Weight is OK.

Just looking for opinions, particularly from folks who have used both lenses, of image quality, EF to RF adapters, stabilization, focus comparisons, etc.

Thanks!

Fred

Click to expand...

I have used both lenses on my R5, but not on my R7 as by the time I bought the R7, I had traded the EF 100-400L ii f4.5-5.6 for the RF 100-500. All I can say is that the EF is a better lens in every respect than the RF 100-400 5.6-8, but that is hardly surprising given its cost, weight, quality of construction, aperture and focus speed/accuracy. But the RF remains a decent lens at a very attractive price, and is far more portable and travel-friendly. Your choice!

aVolanche said:

I have an R7 with the Canon 100-400mm f8 RF lens. How does it compare, for wildlife & birding, to the EF 100-400mm f5.6 MK II lens. I know the specs (weight, apertures, etc.).

The 5.6 aperture at 400mm (640 on the R7) would be a benefit for sure. Weight is OK.

Just looking for opinions, particularly from folks who have used both lenses, of image quality, EF to RF adapters, stabilization, focus comparisons, etc.

Thanks!

Fred

Click to expand...

I have the EF 100-400mm lens (on the R5 Mark I) but not the RF model that you mentioned. I sometimes use the EF lens with a Canon 1.4x extender. As mentioned, the EF lens is a fantastic lens for birding/wildlife. My only "complaint" is its weight. On the positive side, I was able to purchase a second-hand version in excellent condition for about half the price of a new lens.

aVolanche said:

I have an R7 with the Canon 100-400mm f8 RF lens. How does it compare, for wildlife & birding, to the EF 100-400mm f5.6 MK II lens. I know the specs (weight, apertures, etc.).

The 5.6 aperture at 400mm (640 on the R7) would be a benefit for sure. Weight is OK.

Just looking for opinions, particularly from folks who have used both lenses, of image quality, EF to RF adapters, stabilization, focus comparisons, etc.

Thanks!

Fred

Click to expand...

Perhaps this link might be helpful:

The EF100-400 MkII is superior to the RF100-400 in pretty much every way except for price and weight. It's a pretty heavy lens and still sells for a fairly hefty price. The performance is excellent and pretty much on par with the 100-500 except for the extra 100mm of the 100-500, which made the difference for me, and in my opinion, the focus on the 100-500 is faster. Having said that though, the RF100-400 is an excellent lens and performs beautifully. It's very lightweight and with the R7, it makes a great combo that you can carry around all day, and it yields wonderful results. It's a great lens for birds-in-flight and for wildlife in general, as well as nature shots. Of course it's not weather-sealed and has a lesser build quality, and the focus is not as quick as the 100-400 MkII, but the two, the R7 and RF100-400, go together beautifully. If you decide to get the EF 100-400 MkII, rest assured that the EOS-R adapter works extremely well and doesn't degrade performance at all. I used the 100-400 MkII for quite some time with the adapter on the R6 and then on the R7 with superb results before finally purchasing the 100-500. If I were to recommend one over the other, I'd recommend the 100-400 MkII because of its outstanding performance and "L" level build quality and glass. But if you are a bit more budget conscious and if weight is a concern at all, then the RF100-400 might be the better choice and I still think you'd be very happy with the results.

Andy

acollins said:

The EF100-400 MkII is superior to the RF100-400 in pretty much every way except for price and weight. It's a pretty heavy lens and still sells for a fairly hefty price. The performance is excellent and pretty much on par with the 100-500 except for the extra 100mm of the 100-500, which made the difference for me, and in my opinion, the focus on the 100-500 is faster. Having said that though, the RF100-400 is an excellent lens and performs beautifully. It's very lightweight and with the R7, it makes a great combo that you can carry around all day, and it yields wonderful results. It's a great lens for birds-in-flight and for wildlife in general, as well as nature shots. Of course it's not weather-sealed and has a lesser build quality, and the focus is not as quick as the 100-400 MkII, but the two, the R7 and RF100-400, go together beautifully. If you decide to get the EF 100-400 MkII, rest assured that the EOS-R adapter works extremely well and doesn't degrade performance at all. I used the 100-400 MkII for quite some time with the adapter on the R6 and then on the R7 with superb results before finally purchasing the 100-500. If I were to recommend one over the other, I'd recommend the 100-400 MkII because of its outstanding performance and "L" level build quality and glass. But if you are a bit more budget conscious and if weight is a concern at all, then the RF100-400 might be the better choice and I still think you'd be very happy with the results.

Andy

Click to expand...

How does the close focusing and max mag compare? I know I can take a picture of my feet at 400mm with the RF but I don’t remember being able to with the EF. I don’t have the EF anymore and my RF is on loan to someone.

aVolanche said:

I have an R7 with the Canon 100-400mm f8 RF lens. How does it compare, for wildlife & birding, to the EF 100-400mm f5.6 MK II lens. I know the specs (weight, apertures, etc.).

The 5.6 aperture at 400mm (640 on the R7) would be a benefit for sure. Weight is OK.

Just looking for opinions, particularly from folks who have used both lenses, of image quality, EF to RF adapters, stabilization, focus comparisons, etc.

Thanks!

Fred

Click to expand...

The RF 100-400L ii is the only EF lens I kept since switching to RF last year. Having said that I have not used it since I bought the RF 100-400. Both were used on my R10, not R7.

The EF lens is, as others have said, unsurprisingly, better than RF, but IMO not by a significant margin in "normal" use. If light is challenging where the extra stop becomes particularly important then the EF takes the lead.

I think that for normal use on a relatively sunny day for wildlife (perhaps excluding BIF which require faster shutter speeds), some pixel peeping may be required to pick the differences between images from RF vs EF.

Theoretically RF has 5.5 stops of lens IS and EF has 4 stops, and I think that the AF speed is probably similar. Obviously EF has various modes of IS (eg. panning) whereas RF has no switch. I only have the basic Canon EF to RF adapter and it works as intended

When I still had my EF gear I did some testing out front of my house - not scientific/lab testing but I did use a sturdy tripod and 2 second timer. From memory I was using One Shot, not Servo, and the centre AF point was on the number plate (I haven't gone back to DPP to check that).

The images below were converted using DxO PL8 with the only "adjustment" being me clicking on Deep Prime.

R10 + RF 100-400



R10 + EF 100-400L ii at f8



R10 + EF 100-400L ii (at f5.6)



You can view these shots (Original size & magnified) yourself to see the differences - which IMO are fairly minor.

For me, being 61yo and 5'6", the size and particularly weight advantage (of about 1100g including adapter) of the RF offsets the relatively small IQ benefit of the EF. I also wanted something smaller & lighter for traveling. I can walk around (such as at a zoo) all day with RF and it isn't a chore, whereas EF gets pretty weighty after a bit.

The only reason I have kept the EF is that I plan to visit Africa again for another safari (or more likely a few of them) and thought that the faster EF might be useful for early mornings and late afternoons.

The other that I find makes a difference is the noise reduction in DxO - which enables the use of much higher ISO speeds than I would ever have used previously on a APS-C camera - this obviously allows higher ISOs to be used to facilitate the faster shutter speeds.

If you are shooting mostly BIF at fast shutter speeds, often in poorer light, and/or using a TC, and OK with the extra weight, then the EF almost certainly has benefits.

Andy01 said:

aVolanche said:

I have an R7 with the Canon 100-400mm f8 RF lens. How does it compare, for wildlife & birding, to the EF 100-400mm f5.6 MK II lens. I know the specs (weight, apertures, etc.).

The 5.6 aperture at 400mm (640 on the R7) would be a benefit for sure. Weight is OK.

Just looking for opinions, particularly from folks who have used both lenses, of image quality, EF to RF adapters, stabilization, focus comparisons, etc.

Thanks!

Fred

Click to expand...

The RF 100-400L ii is the only EF lens I kept since switching to RF last year. Having said that I have not used it since I bought the RF 100-400. Both were used on my R10, not R7.

The EF lens is, as others have said, unsurprisingly, better than RF, but IMO not by a significant margin in "normal" use. If light is challenging where the extra stop becomes particularly important then the EF takes the lead.

I think that for normal use on a relatively sunny day for wildlife (perhaps excluding BIF which require faster shutter speeds), some pixel peeping may be required to pick the differences between images from RF vs EF.

Theoretically RF has 5.5 stops of lens IS and EF has 4 stops, and I think that the AF speed is probably similar. Obviously EF has various modes of IS (eg. panning) whereas RF has no switch. I only have the basic Canon EF to RF adapter and it works as intended

When I still had my EF gear I did some testing out front of my house - not scientific/lab testing but I did use a sturdy tripod and 2 second timer. From memory I was using One Shot, not Servo, and the centre AF point was on the number plate (I haven't gone back to DPP to check that).

The images below were converted using DxO PL8 with the only "adjustment" being me clicking on Deep Prime.

R10 + RF 100-400

R10 + EF 100-400L ii at f8

R10 + EF 100-400L ii (at f5.6)

You can view these shots (Original size & magnified) yourself to see the differences - which IMO are fairly minor.

For me, being 61yo and 5'6", the size and particularly weight advantage (of about 1100g including adapter) of the RF offsets the relatively small IQ benefit of the EF. I also wanted something smaller & lighter for traveling. I can walk around (such as at a zoo) all day with RF and it isn't a chore, whereas EF gets pretty weighty after a bit.

The only reason I have kept the EF is that I plan to visit Africa again for another safari (or more likely a few of them) and thought that the faster EF might be useful for early mornings and late afternoons.

The other that I find makes a difference is the noise reduction in DxO - which enables the use of much higher ISO speeds than I would ever have used previously on a APS-C camera - this obviously allows higher ISOs to be used to facilitate the faster shutter speeds.

If you are shooting mostly BIF at fast shutter speeds, often in poorer light, and/or using a TC, and OK with the extra weight, then the EF almost certainly has benefits.

Click to expand...

The RF 100-400 provides a lot of bang for the buck. And yours is nice and sharp centrally.

The L lens maintains better sharpness toward the edges, and I like the tone curve (colors) better from the L lens.

I shot with the EF 100-400ii +/- EF 1.4x iii for several years and it did well for me on DSLRs. I ultimately went with the RF 100-500 +/- RF 1.4x, but that is much more expensive.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

Agreed. I got my first EF 100-400L in 2008 when I had a 450D (then 600D, then 70D), and then the Mk ii (70D, 6D ii) in 2017 (when I got a 40% discount on it), and both were great lenses - but a bit of a chore to cart around and handhold for extended periods.

As others have said as well, for the size, weight & cost, the RF lens does very well and is hard to beat (on both R10 and R8 in my case).

Many thanks to everyone who has posted about these 2 lenses. It's been an extremely useful thread.

For now, I'll stick with the RF F8 lens. I have a friend who has the EF lens and I'll have an opportunity to use it in a few months.

Fred

aVolanche said:

Many thanks to everyone who has posted about these 2 lenses. It's been an extremely useful thread.

For now, I'll stick with the RF F8 lens.

Click to expand...

See how you like it over an extended period of time. Gain a good idea of any areas where you'd like to see improvement.

If you don't already, I highly recommend shooting RAW, and then processing with DxO PhotoLab (as was previously suggested). My lens combo maxes out at f/10 (on FF), so we're pretty close. I find DxO to be indispensable.

aVolanche said:

I have a friend who has the EF lens and I'll have an opportunity to use it in a few months.

Fred

Click to expand...

Indeed. Trying it out for yourself is certainly the best approach.

Happy shooting!

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

drsnoopy said:

aVolanche said:

I have an R7 with the Canon 100-400mm f8 RF lens. How does it compare, for wildlife & birding, to the EF 100-400mm f5.6 MK II lens. I know the specs (weight, apertures, etc.).

The 5.6 aperture at 400mm (640 on the R7) would be a benefit for sure. Weight is OK.

Just looking for opinions, particularly from folks who have used both lenses, of image quality, EF to RF adapters, stabilization, focus comparisons, etc.

Thanks!

Fred

Click to expand...

I have used both lenses on my R5, but not on my R7 as by the time I bought the R7, I had traded the EF 100-400L ii f4.5-5.6 for the RF 100-500. All I can say is that the EF is a better lens in every respect than the RF 100-400 5.6-8, but that is hardly surprising given its cost, weight, quality of construction, aperture and focus speed/accuracy. But the RF remains a decent lens at a very attractive price, and is far more portable and travel-friendly. Your choice!

Click to expand...

Why not then the 100-500 RF? That would seem better for birding.

abe4652 said:

drsnoopy said:

aVolanche said:

I have an R7 with the Canon 100-400mm f8 RF lens. How does it compare, for wildlife & birding, to the EF 100-400mm f5.6 MK II lens. I know the specs (weight, apertures, etc.).

The 5.6 aperture at 400mm (640 on the R7) would be a benefit for sure. Weight is OK.

Just looking for opinions, particularly from folks who have used both lenses, of image quality, EF to RF adapters, stabilization, focus comparisons, etc.

Thanks!

Fred

Click to expand...

I have used both lenses on my R5, but not on my R7 as by the time I bought the R7, I had traded the EF 100-400L ii f4.5-5.6 for the RF 100-500. All I can say is that the EF is a better lens in every respect than the RF 100-400 5.6-8, but that is hardly surprising given its cost, weight, quality of construction, aperture and focus speed/accuracy. But the RF remains a decent lens at a very attractive price, and is far more portable and travel-friendly. Your choice!

Click to expand...

Why not then the 100-500 RF? That would seem better for birding.

Click to expand...

He was just discussing the EF and RF 100-400 lenses (as per the OP). The RF 100-500 IMHO sits (far) atop those threee choices. But it is significantly more expensive.

R2

BirdShooter7 said:

acollins said:

The EF100-400 MkII is superior to the RF100-400 in pretty much every way except for price and weight. It's a pretty heavy lens and still sells for a fairly hefty price. The performance is excellent and pretty much on par with the 100-500 except for the extra 100mm of the 100-500, which made the difference for me, and in my opinion, the focus on the 100-500 is faster. Having said that though, the RF100-400 is an excellent lens and performs beautifully. It's very lightweight and with the R7, it makes a great combo that you can carry around all day, and it yields wonderful results. It's a great lens for birds-in-flight and for wildlife in general, as well as nature shots. Of course it's not weather-sealed and has a lesser build quality, and the focus is not as quick as the 100-400 MkII, but the two, the R7 and RF100-400, go together beautifully. If you decide to get the EF 100-400 MkII, rest assured that the EOS-R adapter works extremely well and doesn't degrade performance at all. I used the 100-400 MkII for quite some time with the adapter on the R6 and then on the R7 with superb results before finally purchasing the 100-500. If I were to recommend one over the other, I'd recommend the 100-400 MkII because of its outstanding performance and "L" level build quality and glass. But if you are a bit more budget conscious and if weight is a concern at all, then the RF100-400 might be the better choice and I still think you'd be very happy with the results.

Andy

Click to expand...

How does the close focusing and max mag compare? I know I can take a picture of my feet at 400mm with the RF but I don’t remember being able to with the EF. I don’t have the EF anymore and my RF is on loan to someone.

Click to expand...

I actually can focus on my feet with both the EF and the RF at 400mm, however, I'm 6'7" and the distance to my feet is a little longer than for most.

acollins said:

BirdShooter7 said:

acollins said:

The EF100-400 MkII is superior to the RF100-400 in pretty much every way except for price and weight. It's a pretty heavy lens and still sells for a fairly hefty price. The performance is excellent and pretty much on par with the 100-500 except for the extra 100mm of the 100-500, which made the difference for me, and in my opinion, the focus on the 100-500 is faster. Having said that though, the RF100-400 is an excellent lens and performs beautifully. It's very lightweight and with the R7, it makes a great combo that you can carry around all day, and it yields wonderful results. It's a great lens for birds-in-flight and for wildlife in general, as well as nature shots. Of course it's not weather-sealed and has a lesser build quality, and the focus is not as quick as the 100-400 MkII, but the two, the R7 and RF100-400, go together beautifully. If you decide to get the EF 100-400 MkII, rest assured that the EOS-R adapter works extremely well and doesn't degrade performance at all. I used the 100-400 MkII for quite some time with the adapter on the R6 and then on the R7 with superb results before finally purchasing the 100-500. If I were to recommend one over the other, I'd recommend the 100-400 MkII because of its outstanding performance and "L" level build quality and glass. But if you are a bit more budget conscious and if weight is a concern at all, then the RF100-400 might be the better choice and I still think you'd be very happy with the results.

Andy

Click to expand...

How does the close focusing and max mag compare? I know I can take a picture of my feet at 400mm with the RF but I don’t remember being able to with the EF. I don’t have the EF anymore and my RF is on loan to someone.

Click to expand...

I actually can focus on my feet with both the EF and the RF at 400mm, however, I'm 6'7" and the distance to my feet is a little longer than for most.

Click to expand...

The RF lens will focus on my toes when I'm sitting down. It says on its side

W:1.2m/3.94ft-∞

T:1.05m/3.44ft-∞

The online Canon Museum Lens Hall says it gives a maximum magnification of 0.41× at 400mm. The Canon Lens Hall also says the EF II will focus down to 0.98m, maximum magnification 0.31× at 400mm.

Of course, a simple 400mm lens at 0.31× magnification would be focussed at 2.214m from the sensor, so those close-focus 400mm focal lengths should be taken with a generous spoonful of salt.

abe4652 said:

drsnoopy said:

aVolanche said:

I have an R7 with the Canon 100-400mm f8 RF lens. How does it compare, for wildlife & birding, to the EF 100-400mm f5.6 MK II lens. I know the specs (weight, apertures, etc.).

The 5.6 aperture at 400mm (640 on the R7) would be a benefit for sure. Weight is OK.

Just looking for opinions, particularly from folks who have used both lenses, of image quality, EF to RF adapters, stabilization, focus comparisons, etc.

Thanks!

Fred

Click to expand...

I have used both lenses on my R5, but not on my R7 as by the time I bought the R7, I had traded the EF 100-400L ii f4.5-5.6 for the RF 100-500. All I can say is that the EF is a better lens in every respect than the RF 100-400 5.6-8, but that is hardly surprising given its cost, weight, quality of construction, aperture and focus speed/accuracy. But the RF remains a decent lens at a very attractive price, and is far more portable and travel-friendly. Your choice!

Click to expand...

Why not then the 100-500 RF? That would seem better for birding.

Click to expand...

It may not be within the OP’s budget.

easy answer the L lens

EJ Fudd said:

easy answer the L lens

Click to expand...

While that may be true purely from a IQ point of view, there is more to using a bigger tele zoom than just IQ.

Cost, size, weight & conspicuousness all play a role to some degree and these depend greatly on the user and their priorities.

Andy01 said:

EJ Fudd said:

easy answer the L lens

Click to expand...

While that may be true purely from a IQ point of view, there is more to using a bigger tele zoom than just IQ.

Cost, size, weight & conspicuousness all play a role to some degree and these depend greatly on the user and their priorities.

Click to expand...

+1 There are certainly a lot of considerations!

It's a good thing that we have so many really excellent choices! :-D

R2

aVolanche said:

I have an R7 with the Canon 100-400mm f8 RF lens. How does it compare, for wildlife & birding, to the EF 100-400mm f5.6 MK II lens. I know the specs (weight, apertures, etc.).

The 5.6 aperture at 400mm (640 on the R7) would be a benefit for sure. Weight is OK.

Just looking for opinions, particularly from folks who have used both lenses, of image quality, EF to RF adapters, stabilization, focus comparisons, etc.

Thanks!

Fred

Click to expand...

You get what you pay for in size, weight and price.

EF lens for quality.

RF lens for size/weight/savings.