How good is the RF 100-400 for Sports?

Hi everyone,

I'm just getting back into photography after a hiatus of several years. Ordered a new Canon RP because it fits my budget and seems like it should be a huge updrade from the Rebel T1i that I've had since 2009ish.

One of the main things that I'd like to do with this camera is take it with me to an Ultimate frisbee tournament in June and try to get some nice shots of the action on the field.

I have a cobbled together collection of primes and wide-mid range zooms that I've collected over the years, but the only lens that I currently have longer than 100mm is an old EF 75-300 (https://www.canon.ca/en/product?name=EF_75-300mm_f/4.0-5.6_III&category=/en/products/Lenses/EF-Lenses/Telephoto-Zoom) that I have found to generally not be worth carrying around most days. I don't usually take a tripod with me, so it's pretty rare that I'll have an opportunity to shoot at the longer end of it's range, and most times I'd rather just use my 100mm prime (https://www.canon.ca/en/product?name=EF_100mm_f/2.8_Macro_USM&category=/en/products/Lenses/EF-Lenses/Macro), which I love.

So the question that I'm getting to:

Is the new RF 100-400 likely to be a huge difference for me over the old 75-300?

I'm thinking the IS alone will make it much more usable for the shooting that I do, and I'm wondering if anyone has experience to share with using it for sports. I realize that it's not going to perform like a lens that costs 10-20x as much, but I'm curious if it's likely to be "good enough" or if I'm just going to end up deciding that it's almost never worth the weight and leaving it behind like the 75-300?

Thanks in Advance!

Member Birdbrain thinks very highly of the lens. Check out this thread for his thoughts and the opinions of others. To be honest, it’s either this $650 lens or else you’re north of $2,000.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65597055

From an image quality, the RF 100-400 is miles ahead of the old 75-300.  The question may be more of the AF capability of the RP.  It will work but has a fairly slow fps

Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought.

I realize that the RP is not really considered a great choice for sports, but it seems like it's overall a good fit for me, and I'm trying to figure out what I need to make it also do some sports shooting.

I've found generally that I'm happier in the long run putting the money I do spend into lenses, since there's always a better body around the corner. The 100-400 looks like it's probably worthwhile, and at that price seems pretty reasonable if it will actually let me play with those longer focal lengths. I guess I'm just a little paranoid that if I don't buy an L lens I'm going to end up disappointed like with the 75-300 and end up with 2 lenses sitting at home instead of one. Getting more and more confident that this isn't the case, though.

Thanks! That post by birdbrain was quite helpful. They certainly do seem to like it, and there are some great shots in there. One of the things I was worried about was whether the narrow aperture would be limiting for faster moving scenes, but there are afew beautiful shots of birds in flight, so it's probably not going to be a concern outdoors.

Thanks for the suggestion, but going over budget isn't really an option right now.

This is more of a "go ahead and get it" or "no, it really won't work for that" situation for me, since I don't really want to spend that much, or be stuck carrying a giant heavy lens on a 2-week vacation.

I realize this wouldn't be the best lens for shooting sports (definitely not the best camera, either), but it seems like it should be a pretty big step up from what I've used before, and I'm wondering if anyone has some experience trying it?

Yeah, that's more or less the plan for now. I'm definitely going to have the adapter for all of my other old lenses, and I've got a couple months before I'll probably be doing much outdoor photography.

tdbmd wrote:

From an image quality, the RF 100-400 is miles ahead of the old 75-300. The question may be more of the AF capability of the RP. It will work but has a fairly slow fps

Ok, so here’s the thing: He could buy an R3 for $7,000 and attach a $3,000 telephoto, but he has an RP and wants to know if a $650 lens will work out. He understands that it won’t be as perfect as a $10,000 setup.

In practical terms, he’s asking two questions: Will the $650 lens be notably better than the 75-300 (YES!!) and will the $650 lens be good enough, or does he HAVE to buy a $2,300-ish lens? I’d say that he can get much better photos with the $650 lens, but will run into problems if it gets dark. And the background blur won’t be as good… still, the $650 lens should give him great results.

NorthernMike wrote:

Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought.

I realize that the RP is not really considered a great choice for sports, but it seems like it's overall a good fit for me, and I'm trying to figure out what I need to make it also do some sports shooting.

I've found generally that I'm happier in the long run putting the money I do spend into lenses, since there's always a better body around the corner. The 100-400 looks like it's probably worthwhile, and at that price seems pretty reasonable if it will actually let me play with those longer focal lengths. I guess I'm just a little paranoid that if I don't buy an L lens I'm going to end up disappointed like with the 75-300 and end up with 2 lenses sitting at home instead of one. Getting more and more confident that this isn't the case, though.

The RF lenses in general, seem to be quite good, whether they are "L" or not.  I only have 2 RF lenses, the 35mm and the 24-240 and have been very happy with the IQ from both of them.  I have shot with the 75-300 and it is far and away the worst lens I have ever used on any of my Canon bodies.

MarshallG wrote:

tdbmd wrote:

From an image quality, the RF 100-400 is miles ahead of the old 75-300. The question may be more of the AF capability of the RP. It will work but has a fairly slow fps

Ok, so here’s the thing: He could buy an R3 for $7,000 and attach a $3,000 telephoto, but he has an RP and wants to know if a $650 lens will work out. He understands that it won’t be as perfect as a $10,000 setup.

In practical terms, he’s asking two questions: Will the $650 lens be notably better than the 75-300 (YES!!) and will the $650 lens be good enough, or does he HAVE to buy a $2,300-ish lens? I’d say that he can get much better photos with the $650 lens, but will run into problems if it gets dark. And the background blur won’t be as good… still, the $650 lens should give him great results.

I agree.  And the ML bodies handle the higher ISO much better so the 100-400 will be great compared to the 75-300.  Not arguing that point at all.  Just wanted the OP to be aware that there are some limitations for sports with the RP body

I think the RF 100-400 is a very good compromise of size, weight, cost and image quality.  I use it for kids soccer and it works well on the R6.  It won't match an L lens, but if "good" is good enough, then it's a bargain.  For the reach, it is actually very small.  I use it on the R6 with just a hand strap and it doesn't get uncomfortable over the course of a couple of hours.  I've never walked around with it all day, but I don't think it would be a problem.

I just picked up the 100-400 and plan to use it for my son’s soccer games. But not indoor sports.  The USM focusing motor is blazing fast and almost silent.  For a zoom telephoto at that price it’s pretty incredible and the stabilization is great even without IBIS on the RP.

Shooting sports with the RP isn’t a matter of frame rate and tracking.  What I do is use zone tracking. I place the zone in the frame where I want my subject. Then I keep that zone over my subject.  I use H instead of H+ for better tracking but slower frame rate.  I get a decent hit rate that way.  I also go into the menus and set up my AF for stickier tracking and better EVF refresh rate instead of battery conservation.  Check the manual on that.

Indoors for court sports I’ve been using the RF 85mm f/2.  It’s STM, but a lot brighter than the zooms.  I just shoot when the action is close enough.

Thanks! That's very helpful!

NorthernMike wrote:

Thanks! That's very helpful!

Worst case, you pay $700 with tax, use it a few seasons, sell it for $500 or $550 and upgrade. Not much of a risk.

I have used the 24-240 for XC and been very happy. As noted, is it the EF 100-400L? No, but good results overall.  The RF 100-400 is basically in the same class as far as AF and NanoUSM focus motor