RF 100-400, a great companion to the R7

The RF 100-400 is only $599 right now, so I bought it on impulse. I've just received it, and went into my back yard to give it a quick try. I am very impressed so far. It is replacing my Tamron 100-400. It's so much smaller and lighter, even alone. Add in the mount adapter to the Tamron, and the new RF feels like nothing at all. It's also lightning quick to AF, and, from a few test shots at least, sharper than the Tamron. All in all, the advantages seem to more than outweigh the 2/3 stop loss of light. Here are a few bug shots. I happened to see these beetles getting a bit frisky on the leaf of a tree I was pointing the camera at:

Now, I just have to package up my Tamron and 1.4X converter, and send them off to MPB. I think I'll pick up the RF 1.4X to go with this lens too.

I have nothing useful to add, other than to say you should immediately kill those Japanese beetles!  They will eventually destroy your garden.

Oh, and nice shots!  I've been considering the RF 100-400 as a replacement for my Sigma.  Just a bit worried about IS since it would be used almost exclusively for motor sports.

Been seeing lots of nice shots with the RF 100-400 from both crop and FF bodies.  Looks like a pretty darn good lens from Canon.

oppy wrote:

I have nothing useful to add, other than to say you should immediately kill those Japanese beetles! They will eventually destroy your garden.

Oh, and nice shots! I've been considering the RF 100-400 as a replacement for my Sigma. Just a bit worried about IS since it would be used almost exclusively for motor sports.

Thanks. And why are you worried about IS?

I use slow shutter speeds (1/60 - 1/125) and pan to (hopefully) get nice motion blur.  Image stabilization makes a huge difference.  I use mode 2 on my Sigma which works pretty well, but the keeper rate is still quite low.

oppy wrote:

I use slow shutter speeds (1/60 - 1/125) and pan to (hopefully) get nice motion blur. Image stabilization makes a huge difference. I use mode 2 on my Sigma which works pretty well, but the keeper rate is still quite low.

Right. The RF 100-400 doesn't have different IS modes (just on or off). I think it detects panning automatically, but I haven't tried it yet.

I don't know about the Tamron. But I have have gotten good use out of the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 on my R7, including with a 1.4x TC. The combination is larger but I've found that lens to be quite sharp. The extra light has benefited me as I can get a bit more out of low light (though a lens this dark is never exactly ideal for that). At the same time, the combination is inconspicuous enough to get into a Major League Baseball game.

So for the Sigma user asking — I don't think there is a need to switch, but if you want something even smaller and lighter (and the Sigma 100-400 is already pretty small and light), you may find yourself willing to give up the extra light for the RF, which must be said to be a pretty good lens for the size and price.

In a similar vein, there is the EF 70-300, which is even smaller, but which has less reach and can't be used on a TC.

oppy wrote:

I use slow shutter speeds (1/60 - 1/125) and pan to (hopefully) get nice motion blur. Image stabilization makes a huge difference. I use mode 2 on my Sigma which works pretty well, but the keeper rate is still quite low.

I understand the lack of the panning mode on the RF lens, however, the stabilization on the Sigma Contemporary is relatively weak imo, at least with my copy. I expect the stabilization of the RF lens to be a whole lot better considering the stellar performance of the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm on my R5.  I would definitely give it a try with the RF lens if you need the best stabilization. Of course you can dive in manuals and try to find out if panning is auto detected, but at the end of the day the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

antonio-salieri wrote:

I don't know about the Tamron. But I have have gotten good use out of the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 on my R7, including with a 1.4x TC. The combination is larger but I've found that lens to be quite sharp. The extra light has benefited me as I can get a bit more out of low light (though a lens this dark is never exactly ideal for that). At the same time, the combination is inconspicuous enough to get into a Major League Baseball game.

So for the Sigma user asking — I don't think there is a need to switch, but if you want something even smaller and lighter (and the Sigma 100-400 is already pretty small and light), you may find yourself willing to give up the extra light for the RF, which must be said to be a pretty good lens for the size and price.

I expect a better IS of the RF lens to make up for the darker aperture, at least for my use cases (not a lot of movement).

Less weight is welcome (a little over 600 grams vs 1200 grams, adapter is not a factor as I will need it anyway). Comparing the Sigma Contemporary to the RF lens at The Digital Picture the performance at 400mm is holding me back from switching.

In a similar vein, there is the EF 70-300, which is even smaller, but which has less reach and can't be used on a TC.

Great shots, Alastair.  Wonderful lens too.

thunder storm wrote:

I understand the lack of the panning mode on the RF lens, however, the stabilization on the Sigma Contemporary is relatively weak imo, at least with my copy. I expect the stabilization of the RF lens to be a whole lot better considering the stellar performance of the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm on my R5. I would definitely give it a try with the RF lens if you need the best stabilization. Of course you can dive in manuals and try to find out if panning is auto detected, but at the end of the day the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

My Sigma has been pretty decent overall.

Frankly, the 18-150 kit lens was a disappointment - quite soft in my opinion, and I had a terrible keeper rate.  That's why I'm concerned about panning with the 100-400.

I would hope the 100-400 RF lens has better stabilization, but it'd be nice to see some shots or hear from someone who owns the lens.  Ultimately, if it's less sharp, I'd rather deal with the heavier Sigma lens.  The 100-500L would be nice, but the cost is a deal breaker for me.

oppy wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

I understand the lack of the panning mode on the RF lens, however, the stabilization on the Sigma Contemporary is relatively weak imo, at least with my copy. I expect the stabilization of the RF lens to be a whole lot better considering the stellar performance of the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm on my R5. I would definitely give it a try with the RF lens if you need the best stabilization. Of course you can dive in manuals and try to find out if panning is auto detected, but at the end of the day the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

My Sigma has been pretty decent overall.

Frankly, the 18-150 kit lens was a disappointment - quite soft in my opinion, and I had a terrible keeper rate. That's why I'm concerned about panning with the 100-400.

I would hope the 100-400 RF lens has better stabilization, but it'd be nice to see some shots or hear from someone who owns the lens. Ultimately, if it's less sharp, I'd rather deal with the heavier Sigma lens.

The RF lens definitely has more fringing. It can be corrected and you can add some digital sharpness of course, but this is not a free lunch imo.

The 100-500L would be nice, but the cost is a deal breaker for me.

This is the Contemporary without a tripod at 196mm & 1/5th of a second. There was a fence I could somewhat use as a support, although I still had to aim the lens in the right direction myself. It's not pin sharp, and that's definitely the result of camera motion blur, and it took me some shots to get this. Nonetheless I'm happy with this result. The f/2.8 Sports would have done a better job, but the best lens is the one you have with you.....