Impressed with RF 100-400. Am I the only one?

I’m constantly impressed with the RF 100-400 for its weight advantage over the RF 100-500 L and the quality I can get.

Aside from the aperture differences and the weather-sealing, what else am I sacrificing by not using the RF 100-500 L? Has anyone done tests to compare the two on IQ? The RF 100-400 seems pretty good for a consumer lens.

Thanks!

One other advantage for the rf 100-400 is its the only lens other than the GREAT WHITES that work with the RF extenders the 100-500 only works at the long end.

davel33 wrote:

One other advantage for the rf 100-400 is its the only lens other than the GREAT WHITES that work with the RF extenders the 100-500 only works at the long end.

For sure! I can’t believe they didn’t engineer the 100-500 to work along the whole zoom range with the extenders!!! If they can do it on the 100-400, surely they can do it in the 100-500. Wouldn’t you think?

as a beginner hobbyist its great guess if i was a pro might see it different.

Ember88 wrote:

I’m constantly impressed with the RF 100-400 for its weight advantage over the RF 100-500 L and the quality I can get.

Aside from the aperture differences and the weather-sealing, what else am I sacrificing by not using the RF 100-500 L? Has anyone done tests to compare the two on IQ? The RF 100-400 seems pretty good for a consumer lens.

Thanks!

I don't have either (I still have EF 100-400L ii), but TDP testing shows that 100-500L appears to be very noticeably better at all focal lengths and apertures - sharper and less aberrations.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1572&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=1510&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

But perhaps in the real world the RF 100-400 would be perfectly adequate for most people in most situations - at a fraction of the price.

Ember88 wrote:

I’m constantly impressed with the RF 100-400 for its weight advantage over the RF 100-500 L and the quality I can get.

Aside from the aperture differences and the weather-sealing, what else am I sacrificing by not using the RF 100-500 L? Has anyone done tests to compare the two on IQ? The RF 100-400 seems pretty good for a consumer lens.

Thanks!

I forgot to add this…I’m assuming contrast and sharpness is improved in the 100-500 L, but has anyone compared whether there is a noticeable improvement when viewing images side-by-side? (Not just from charts).

Ember88 wrote:

Ember88 wrote:

I’m constantly impressed with the RF 100-400 for its weight advantage over the RF 100-500 L and the quality I can get.

Aside from the aperture differences and the weather-sealing, what else am I sacrificing by not using the RF 100-500 L? Has anyone done tests to compare the two on IQ? The RF 100-400 seems pretty good for a consumer lens.

Thanks!

I forgot to add this…I’m assuming contrast and sharpness is improved in the 100-500 L, but has anyone compared whether there is a noticeable improvement when viewing images side-by-side? (Not just from charts).

I know from shooting with friends that especially at the long end their 100-500 L is a bit sharper; less diffraction maybe since my shots were at slower apertures. It's expected given the prices. But it's still a terrific lens given the price. In good light it would probably give the 100-500 a run for its money for most uses.

There are some good actual photo comparisons in this video by Dustin Abbott: https://youtu.be/Tc1FFLT09hU Go to about 8:00 to see the conclusion. Spoiler: the 100-400mm is good in the middle, and stopped down some depending on zoom setting. But the 100-500 is better out to the corners, and wider, and across the zoom range.

Ember88 wrote:

Ember88 wrote:

I’m constantly impressed with the RF 100-400 for its weight advantage over the RF 100-500 L and the quality I can get.

Aside from the aperture differences and the weather-sealing, what else am I sacrificing by not using the RF 100-500 L? Has anyone done tests to compare the two on IQ? The RF 100-400 seems pretty good for a consumer lens.

Thanks!

I have that lens, a Tamron 150-600 G1, a Canon 500mm F4 Gen1, and I mostly use the 100-400, so much lighter and a great image quality.

My friend has the EF 100-400 Gen 2, the RF 100-500 and the RF 100-400, we did many tests in the field and the difference is really minimal, I was going to buy the 100-500 but the price is not worth it to me. Each is own preference. This lens is so much fun to walk around. And the minimal focus distance is also great, even better with a extension adapter. Also great focus speed.

I forgot to add this…I’m assuming contrast and sharpness is improved in the 100-500 L, but has anyone compared whether there is a noticeable improvement when viewing images side-by-side? (Not just from charts).

I love this lens. I'm not a serious wildlife photographer, so I can't justify buying something big, heavy, and expensive in this range. But the RF 100-400 is so small, light, and cheap, that it's pretty much a no-brainer to get it. Here's one I took yesterday, trying it out on my new R6II:

And with the R7:

And with the 1.4X extender on the R7:

It's plenty sharp enough for my purposes. It's also a pretty good outdoor sports lens.

Yesterday.

Crikey what a ripper.

Cheers

Steve

One of my favorites.

GraphAD wrote:

Yesterday.

Great shot!

Ember88 wrote:

davel33 wrote:

One other advantage for the rf 100-400 is its the only lens other than the GREAT WHITES that work with the RF extenders the 100-500 only works at the long end.

For sure! I can’t believe they didn’t engineer the 100-500 to work along the whole zoom range with the extenders!!! If they can do it on the 100-400, surely they can do it in the 100-500. Wouldn’t you think?

I am sure they could, but probably choose to keep the lens a small as possible. My guess is the lens would be 1-2 inches longer if they supported extenders for the whole range. Personally I wish they had made the choice. I love my 100-500, works great with and without extenders. I also have the RF 100-400 for when I want to go lighter.

I really light the RF 100-400, but the RF 100-500 is easily the best lens I have owned in my 40+ years of photography.

I'm a big fan of the RF 100-400 too-- and I've also got the 100-500L and RF 600mm f11.  They all fill a niche, but the 100-400 easiest to use and most versatile because of its friendly size and weight.

Bramble9

Ember88 wrote:

GraphAD wrote:

Yesterday.

Great shot!

Thanks!

have to reinterate im a beginner/hobbyist

have r6 and r6ii not into tech side of cameras to much a broad understanding.

rf100/400 seems to be better on r6ii than origanal r6

gut feel looking at photos

I think it's great. I own the EF L II lens, and love it - but don't love carrying it just in case. This RF lens, though, can go with me wherever. I use it loads for landscapes and travel when I just can't take the weight of the EF lens. If I'm shooting sport or wildlife, then I would want the 100-500, and use the EF L II, but the fact is that the RF 100-400 gets more use simply because I'm happy to carry it.