A Remarkable Long Lens

The price of this bad boy sure did give me pause. But having the R5 I needed to add a competent longer lens than my RF70-200 f2.8L. So I managed to find one after months of looking. The build quality is stunningly solid all the way. There is NO play in this lens at all, and it's solid as a boulder. The IS on it is amazingly stable. I even use a RF1.4x on it from time to time with NO loss of sharpness or contrast which is rare. The focus on it is completely instant with NO hesitation. I've even shot with it in my dimly lit living room for fun and found it doesn't hesitate to lock focus across the room. The sharpness is absolutely unreal excellent. I've had many longer lenses from Nikon, Fuji and Sony and NONE have been sharp on this level. Once you've used it you realize just how valuable it is to have one on hand.

Sony 200-600 is a sharper lens, and overall a better lens and even cheaper. I am a Canon user, but what is true, is true.

Let's face it, all manufacturer offer very nice and very expensive lens and cameras these days.

YES..... if you get a stellar copy.
but most of the 200-600 copy have similar of sharpness as 100-400mm.
also, mind you canon R5 has light OLPF so it would reduce image sharpness a little bit . while equivalent sony camera eg A7RIII or A1 don't.

here 200-600 and 100-500 at f/7.1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1510&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
similar sharpness with 100-500 perform a bit better in the corner

AtmaWarna wrote:

YES..... if you get a stellar copy.
but most of the 200-600 copy have similar of sharpness as 100-400mm.
also, mind you canon R5 has light OLPF so it would reduce image sharpness a little bit . while equivalent sony camera eg A7RIII or A1 don't.

here 200-600 and 100-500 at f/7.1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1510&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
similar sharpness with 100-500 perform a bit better in the corner

Not saying either lens is better than another but unless they are shot on the exact same body (which isn’t possible) it will never be an actuate apples to apples comparison as the sensor does play a factor in this.

ProDude wrote:

The price of this bad boy sure did give me pause. But having the R5 I needed to add a competent longer lens than my RF70-200 f2.8L. So I managed to find one after months of looking. The build quality is stunningly solid all the way. There is NO play in this lens at all, and it's solid as a boulder. The IS on it is amazingly stable. I even use a RF1.4x on it from time to time with NO loss of sharpness or contrast which is rare. The focus on it is completely instant with NO hesitation. I've even shot with it in my dimly lit living room for fun and found it doesn't hesitate to lock focus across the room. The sharpness is absolutely unreal excellent. I've had many longer lenses from Nikon, Fuji and Sony and NONE have been sharp on this level. Once you've used it you realize just how valuable it is to have one on hand.

I ordered one about 6 weeks ago from B&H, still waiting for stock. Hoping to get plenty of wildlife images in Alaska next spring. I really hope it comes in by then...

1Dx4me wrote:

Dlee13 wrote:

AtmaWarna wrote:

YES..... if you get a stellar copy.
but most of the 200-600 copy have similar of sharpness as 100-400mm.
also, mind you canon R5 has light OLPF so it would reduce image sharpness a little bit . while equivalent sony camera eg A7RIII or A1 don't.

here 200-600 and 100-500 at f/7.1
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1510&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=1438&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1
similar sharpness with 100-500 perform a bit better in the corner

Not saying either lens is better than another but unless they are shot on the exact same body (which isn’t possible) it will never be an actuate apples to apples comparison as the sensor does play a factor in this.

true, if 2 lenses are used on 2 different cameras (2 different brands), 2 different iso setup and 2 different setup on the lenses, then i wouldn't call it a fair test or one lens is better than the other. however, lens IQ is so close among the 3 major brands that it is like splitting hair.

to me, canon EF 100-400 is the standard for quality and the photos it produces--i haven't seen another tele zoom as versatile/hi iq and producing the best quality bokeh and mfd as this lens anywhere, so far.

+1

Lighter would be nice, and an extra 100mm would be nice, but that EF 100-400 mk2 is a spectacular lens, and it is built like a tank.  I am confident that if anyone ever tries to take it away from me, I will be able to beat them to death with it, and continue shooting.

CWaterston wrote:

Which lens are we talking about?

I'm talking about the EF 100-400L II.

It came before  the R5.

pawn wrote:

ProDude wrote:

The price of this bad boy sure did give me pause. But having the R5 I needed to add a competent longer lens than my RF70-200 f2.8L. So I managed to find one after months of looking. The build quality is stunningly solid all the way. There is NO play in this lens at all, and it's solid as a boulder. The IS on it is amazingly stable. I even use a RF1.4x on it from time to time with NO loss of sharpness or contrast which is rare. The focus on it is completely instant with NO hesitation. I've even shot with it in my dimly lit living room for fun and found it doesn't hesitate to lock focus across the room. The sharpness is absolutely unreal excellent. I've had many longer lenses from Nikon, Fuji and Sony and NONE have been sharp on this level. Once you've used it you realize just how valuable it is to have one on hand.

Thanks ProDude

I have this lens. Agreed that it is very nice lens. Fast AF and sharp, even with 1.4x. Best of all, it is very light.

Yes it's excellent with the RF 1.4. Crop

Original

Alben wrote:

You say very light, less heavy than a ef 100-400 mk2 that I am considering replacing with the RF version. I am torn between the two, later I will google the specs.

I remember when it was first announced everyone was as little shocked at with 7.1 at 500. Now it and the RF600 and RF800 are getting very good feedback.

I was out taking pictures at an airshow last weekend, the R5 and RF100-500. The inability to zoom out to less than 420mm with the 1.4x TC made the TC worthless (I ended up taking it off and putting it away).

A 140mm to 720mm would have been great for things like take-off runs of planes. At 140mm, I could have just gotten the whole plane framed with a little room to spare at its nearest point on the runways. I wanted the 720mm for when the plane was at the end of the runway or when flying. When the planes are flying, 420mm is too long on their nearest approach.

ProDude wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

Lighter would be nice, and an extra 100mm would be nice, but that EF 100-400 mk2 is a spectacular lens, and it is built like a tank. I am confident that if anyone ever tries to take it away from me, I will be able to beat them to death with it, and continue shooting.

I get it. But one has to realize that technology does move on. The RF mount has compatibility with RF lenses that bring some new issues to light. Speed and edge sharpness are the 2 most prominent. Areas in particular you can expect the RF to exceed the EF's performance. I get why folks wish to hang onto their EF glass. But in almost all cases the RF glass has moved on. The 100-500 would be just one perfect example.

No argument there.  If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I would probably be in the market for a 100-500.

That said, the 100-400 does have a couple of things going for it.  The EF 100-400 has much less vignetting (although the RF lens isn't terrible), but more important (to me) is the fact that the EF 100-400 is internally focusing.  That means you don't have to move air in and out when you zoom and/or focus.  As a result, the lens is bulkier, but it is also far less likely to get dust or moisture inside.  I like that.

Functionally, the 100-400L has been flawless on the R, and on the R5.  Safe to say that either lens is a fine choice.  For now, I do not see a compelling reason to trade up.