Canon EF 100-400 (version 1) vs Canon RF 100-400 for Antarctica

Peter Fritz review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpHryPGuA9M

This man is a landscape photographer in the UK, but you might enjoy the review all the same.

Don't know how it would compare for critical applications like birds in flight.

635g (1.4lb) vs 1380g (3.04lb) for the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS I USM.

Disclaimer: I just acquired one, but haven't had much chance to use it.

Lucky you . Maybe consider renting a lens from what is presumably a once in a lifetime adventure ?

SekouCaldwell wrote:

Hello All,

I am lucky enough to be on my way to Antarctica in Jan for a few weeks of exploration and photography. I currently own an R5 and am trying to decide my best telephoto to bring on my trip. I currently own the Canon EF 100-400, which I use with an EF to RF adaptor on my R5. Unfortunately, I do not have the budget for an RF 100-500, but am considering purchasing the RF 100-400 in the hopes that a newer lens designed specifically for the RF camera may give better picture quality than an older L series EF lens. Given the 16 hours of day light, speed isn't really an issue and neither lenses are weather sealed, so that wasn't a decision making point for me either. Most of the telephoto photography will be of whales and seals. I plan to bring a 17-40L and maybe a 24-70L as well to complete the travel kit.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I’ve been using the new RF 100-400 for about a week now on my R6 and so far I’m very impressed.  I definitely am finding it’s superior optically than my EF 100-400L (the original push-pull one) and has faster AF and way better IS. It’s half the weight which is fantastic and though the build is plastic it seems solidly enough built to handle some abuse. It seems like an excellent option for travel and I’m looking forward to bringing it on future trips.

Nelson’s Sparrow w/RF 100-400

I received the RF 100-400 lens yesterday and had time for a few tests.  I used my Canon R and compared the RF 100-400mm IS lens to my Canon EF 100-400mm L IS model 1 with an adapter.  In one test I photographed an Edmund Resolving Power Chart #83-001.  At about 40 feet and 400mm focal length the chart more than filled up the viewfinder screen.  I could see all but the last square on each of the diagonals.  I used f/8 and 1/400 sec shutter speed.

I found that the old RF lens (a very good copy) held up very well in the tests.  There was little if any vignetting, and the images were very sharp overall both handheld and on a tripod.  In contrast the RF images appeared to be darker, primarily because of vignetting.  Resolution or apparent sharpness was better on the old EF lens.  There was not much difference at the center, but at the corners the EF lens was clearly better.  The upper left hand corner in the RF images was noticeably less sharp than the others indicating a small bit of decentering.  In nature photography I think the RF lens would be satisfactory.  It is a joy to use because of its size and weight.  The RF images are bright in the viewfinder, and the close focusing feature is very nice.

I will do more testing, but I may return the lens because of decentering.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

SekouCaldwell wrote:

Hello All,

I am lucky enough to be on my way to Antarctica in Jan for a few weeks of exploration and photography. I currently own an R5 and am trying to decide my best telephoto to bring on my trip. I currently own the Canon EF 100-400, which I use with an EF to RF adaptor on my R5. Unfortunately, I do not have the budget for an RF 100-500, but am considering purchasing the RF 100-400 in the hopes that a newer lens designed specifically for the RF camera may give better picture quality than an older L series EF lens. Given the 16 hours of day light, speed isn't really an issue and neither lenses are weather sealed, so that wasn't a decision making point for me either. Most of the telephoto photography will be of whales and seals. I plan to bring a 17-40L and maybe a 24-70L as well to complete the travel kit.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I’ve been using the new RF 100-400 for about a week now on my R6 and so far I’m very impressed. I definitely am finding it’s superior optically than my EF 100-400L (the original push-pull one) and has faster AF and way better IS. It’s half the weight which is fantastic and though the build is plastic it seems solidly enough built to handle some abuse. It seems like an excellent option for travel and I’m looking forward to bringing it on future trips.

Nelson’s Sparrow w/RF 100-400

Any thoughts on the image quality compared to the EF 100-400 MK2? Is it a big gap or quite comparable?

dansg21 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

SekouCaldwell wrote:

Hello All,

I am lucky enough to be on my way to Antarctica in Jan for a few weeks of exploration and photography. I currently own an R5 and am trying to decide my best telephoto to bring on my trip. I currently own the Canon EF 100-400, which I use with an EF to RF adaptor on my R5. Unfortunately, I do not have the budget for an RF 100-500, but am considering purchasing the RF 100-400 in the hopes that a newer lens designed specifically for the RF camera may give better picture quality than an older L series EF lens. Given the 16 hours of day light, speed isn't really an issue and neither lenses are weather sealed, so that wasn't a decision making point for me either. Most of the telephoto photography will be of whales and seals. I plan to bring a 17-40L and maybe a 24-70L as well to complete the travel kit.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I’ve been using the new RF 100-400 for about a week now on my R6 and so far I’m very impressed. I definitely am finding it’s superior optically than my EF 100-400L (the original push-pull one) and has faster AF and way better IS. It’s half the weight which is fantastic and though the build is plastic it seems solidly enough built to handle some abuse. It seems like an excellent option for travel and I’m looking forward to bringing it on future trips.

Nelson’s Sparrow w/RF 100-400

Any thoughts on the image quality compared to the EF 100-400 MK2? Is it a big gap or quite comparable?

I haven’t had an EF mk2 to test side by side but from looking at my older R6 photos with that lens vs what I’m getting from the RF 100-400 it looks like the RF is lose to the EF lens towards the center of the frame.  Out at the edges and corners it looks like the EF has a pretty noticeable advantage.  I would love to do a side by side to confirm this but that’s the strong impression I’m getting so far.