Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM vs EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS II USM

[Swerky]

I’d like to ask if anyone has used both lenses either on an R body or on their respective mounts, and wether, the 400mm focal length not being necessary, the brighter aperture on the EF lens makes it a more compelling choice. Arguments concerning sharpness, autofocus, stabilisation and minimum focusing distance and other factors can be discussed as well.

 

[PicPocket]

This might interest you

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4646834

Personally, if I was only going to use a R mount body, I will go for RF lens. The aperture difference is fairly small to sacrifice the size / weight / sharpness / IS differences

 

[Swerky]

This might interest you

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4646834

Personally, if I was only going to use a R mount body, I will go for RF lens. The aperture difference is fairly small to sacrifice the size / weight / sharpness / IS differences

Thank you. I’ve just taken a couple of ideas there. I think optical factors will be decisive. Sharpness, fringing, etc

 

[ppage]

I haven't used either of those lenses, but I did sell the EF 24-105 F/4 II to buy the RF 24-105/F4, so I can compare more or less equivalent EF to RF lenses. I honestly didn't notice any difference in image quality but I definitely got much better image stabilization, which is why I switched. If image stabilization is important to you then get the RF lens.

The longer lens is a full stop slower than the other, but with the improved IS you can easily use a slower shutter speed to compensate. Or you can bump up your ISO by a stop. With today's sensors and much improved noise reduction in software, bumping up your ISO a stop will not present a problem. I often shoot as high as ISO 12,800 on the R5.

You'll also enjoy the extra reach; going from 300 to 400 is quite noticeable.

 

[tdbmd]

I own the EF 70-300L and have rented the RF 100-400. The RF lens is quite good, especially for the money but I don't think the images are quite a good as from the 70-300 (and EF 100-400L II, which I also own). I have used the RF 100-400 for some landscape/nature stuff as well as a little bit of sports in the form of XC. While the images and AF are quite good, I (personally) think the 70-300 and 100-400 L lenses have a bit more "pop" or contrast. Not really sure how to describe it exactly. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Swerky]

Thank you for your input. Yes using a slower shutter speed thanks to improved stabilisation is possible as long as the subject is perfectly still.

 

[Swerky]

I own the EF 70-300L and have rented the RF 100-400. The RF lens is quite good, especially for the money but I don't think the images are quite a good as from the 70-300 (and EF 100-400L II, which I also own). I have used the RF 100-400 for some landscape/nature stuff as well as a little bit of sports in the form of XC. While the images and AF are quite good, I (personally) think the 70-300 and 100-400 L lenses have a bit more "pop" or contrast. Not really sure how to describe it exactly. Just my 2 cents.

Thank you. Well the L lenses you’re mentioning are different animals than the

non L 70-300.

 

[grovep]

I’d like to ask if anyone has used both lenses either on an R body or on their respective mounts, and wether, the 400mm focal length not being necessary, the brighter aperture on the EF lens makes it a more compelling choice. Arguments concerning sharpness, autofocus, stabilisation and minimum focusing distance and other factors can be discussed as well.

I used to have the EF 70-300 IS II USM and now have to RF 100-400. If you shoot wildlife then the IS improvements are limited by movement of the subject. I am in the UK where the light is not alway great so I have on ocassions found the extra stop of the 70-300mm would have been useful as well as the slightly more diffuse background. I shoot with an R5 so can also tolerate high ISOs but the UK can be dark at times! Both lenses focus quickly and of course you dont need to bother with adapter for the RF lens and also you can use the RF extender with the 100-400 which I do if light permits. The MFD on the 100-400 is excellent and I would say the image quality is similar both being good but I am not a pixel peeper.

My biggest concern is rain and I must confess I have been tempted to get a second hand 70-300L as a walk around lens to address this and get an extra stop if I need it.

So to end my rambling both lenses are good value and light but I guess it really depends on you main use and whether the extra 100mm would be useful and if the extra stop would be a big deal for your use.

Of course the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II USM or RF 100-500mm L tick more boxes but at a cost.

 

[Swerky]

I’d like to ask if anyone has used both lenses either on an R body or on their respective mounts, and wether, the 400mm focal length not being necessary, the brighter aperture on the EF lens makes it a more compelling choice. Arguments concerning sharpness, autofocus, stabilisation and minimum focusing distance and other factors can be discussed as well.

I used to have the EF 70-300 IS II USM and now have to RF 100-400. If you shoot wildlife then the IS improvements are limited by movement of the subject. I am in the UK where the light is not alway great so I have on ocassions found the extra stop of the 70-300mm would have been useful as well as the slightly more diffuse background. I shoot with an R5 so can also tolerate high ISOs but the UK can be dark at times! Both lenses focus quickly and of course you dont need to bother with adapter for the RF lens and also you can use the RF extender with the 100-400 which I do if light permits. The MFD on the 100-400 is excellent and I would say the image quality is similar both being good but I am not a pixel peeper.

My biggest concern is rain and I must confess I have been tempted to get a second hand 70-300L as a walk around lens to address this and get an extra stop if I need it.

So to end my rambling both lenses are good value and light but I guess it really depends on you main use and whether the extra 100mm would be useful and if the extra stop would be a big deal for your use.

Of course the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II USM or RF 100-500mm L tick more boxes but at a cost.

Thank you for your input. Given that the full frame R6 that I am considering clearly doesn’t have one stop advantage at high iso over my 6D, both having 20mpx sensors, I guess that the brighter aperture would be more important to me than the extra 100mm for my application. I have the first version of the 70-300 and its IS isn’t bad at all, and the IS II being even better, I won’t need more than that.

 

[TeeJay626]

I’d like to ask if anyone has used both lenses either on an R body or on their respective mounts, and wether, the 400mm focal length not being necessary, the brighter aperture on the EF lens makes it a more compelling choice. Arguments concerning sharpness, autofocus, stabilisation and minimum focusing distance and other factors can be discussed as well.

I've had both lenses, at the same time, and used them on both the R6 and R7. I also had the 70-300 IS II nano USM on my 80D. I really like both lenses. The 70-300 is nice and sharp, has very good IS and lightning fast AF. IMO the RF 100-400 is just a tad sharper, slightly better IS and AF speed is about the same.

In the end, I kept the 100-400 longer due to the extra reach, native mount and it was lighter. Fun fact, the lens hood is the same for both lenses. I don't think you'd go wrong with either lens.

I currently have the EF 70-300L and the RF 100-500L, both amazing lenses. Here's a couple of samples for you.

 

[GEwart]

I only have the RF100-400. I use it with the R5 and R7. It's a brilliant little lens. Pretty sharp to my eyes and great colour rendition especially with the R5. It's not L lens build quality but pretty sturdy for plastic all the same. A nice touch is the clear plastic screen at the lens mount end which prevents some dust and stuff getting into the lens barrel? Well that's what I think it's for!

 

[Swerky]

Thank you. Beautiful shots!

 

[drsnoopy]

I’d like to ask if anyone has used both lenses either on an R body or on their respective mounts, and wether, the 400mm focal length not being necessary, the brighter aperture on the EF lens makes it a more compelling choice. Arguments concerning sharpness, autofocus, stabilisation and minimum focusing distance and other factors can be discussed as well.

I’ve used both, but on different cameras, so difficult to compare. I did not find the non-L 70-300 ii very good (on an 80D). To be frank, I found the RF 100-400 a little disappointing, even trying a second copy and borrowing a third. However at its price, for a travel lens, it’s ok. For wildlife or anything critical, it’s not good enough on an R5. It will “seem” better on a 20MP R6. What was wrong? AF was not always consistent, varying between images in a burst. Bokeh is very busy - branches, grasses etc appearing double, so distracting. IS sometimes gets confused, introducing blur where it shouldn’t - better to turn IS off at higher shutter speeds. Aperture absolutely not a problem - R5 or R6 will be fine at higher ISOs.

I know this lens gets a lot of love, but sadly not from me. If you’re happy to adapt EF lenses, do consider the EF 70-300 L which is a bargain on the used market, a much better lens in my opinion, and balances well on a FF R series body with the adapter. Even better, the EF 100-400 L mk ii or the RF 100-500. If you only have one chance for an image (eg on an expensive safari trip), you will regret not having a better lens.

 

[RLight]

100-400 wins. Real easy. Lighter, sharper, more balanced. More reach too.

Have/had both, on R at that. It’s 100% 100-400. As capable as the 70-300 IS USM II is, it’s both non native, and, doesn’t use latest optical technology. That extra PMo in the 100-400? Makes all the difference. The drop in light is NA. I’ve shot the R8 w/100-400 at ISO 12800 on the long end, no problem. Looks clean.

Now on a crop body? ISO 12800 hurts obviously. But on any modern R! You’re fine. I phrase it accordingly as the R and RP? They’re left for dust by the R5/6/3/62/8…

 

[Swerky]

100-400 wins. Real easy. Lighter, sharper, more balanced. More reach too.

Have/had both, on R at that. It’s 100% 100-400. As capable as the 70-300 IS USM II is, it’s both non native, and, doesn’t use latest optical technology. That extra PMo in the 100-400? Makes all the difference. The drop in light is NA. I’ve shot the R8 w/100-400 at ISO 12800 on the long end, no problem. Looks clean.

Now on a crop body? ISO 12800 hurts obviously. But on any modern R! You’re fine. I phrase it accordingly as the R and RP? They’re left for dust by the R5/6/3/62/8…

Can’t get any clearer.

 

[User1303423862]

I’d like to ask if anyone has used both lenses either on an R body or on their respective mounts, and wether, the 400mm focal length not being necessary, the brighter aperture on the EF lens makes it a more compelling choice. Arguments concerning sharpness, autofocus, stabilisation and minimum focusing distance and other factors can be discussed as well.

I used to have the EF 70-300 IS II USM and now have to RF 100-400. If you shoot wildlife then the IS improvements are limited by movement of the subject. I am in the UK where the light is not alway great so I have on ocassions found the extra stop of the 70-300mm would have been useful as well as the slightly more diffuse background. I shoot with an R5 so can also tolerate high ISOs but the UK can be dark at times! Both lenses focus quickly and of course you dont need to bother with adapter for the RF lens and also you can use the RF extender with the 100-400 which I do if light permits. The MFD on the 100-400 is excellent and I would say the image quality is similar both being good but I am not a pixel peeper.

My biggest concern is rain and I must confess I have been tempted to get a second hand 70-300L as a walk around lens to address this and get an extra stop if I need it.

So to end my rambling both lenses are good value and light but I guess it really depends on you main use and whether the extra 100mm would be useful and if the extra stop would be a big deal for your use.

Of course the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II USM or RF 100-500mm L tick more boxes but at a cost.

Thank you for your input. Given that the full frame R6 that I am considering clearly doesn’t have one stop advantage at high iso over my 6D, both having 20mpx sensors, I guess that the brighter aperture would be more important to me than the extra 100mm for my application. I have the first version of the 70-300 and its IS isn’t bad at all, and the IS II being even better, I won’t need more than that.

Another UK based 70-300 II USM user here. As well as the extra stop advantage, I chose it so I can use it on my M6ii APSC camera too. Also of interest, it is possible to fit a 3rd party 1.4 or even 2x TC so long as the reporting electronics are removed. Larry Rexley of this parish pioneered that mod and has links to posts explaining the procedure. I also use my modified Kenko TC with a lightweight EF-S 55-250 that I fitted an EF mount-plate to.

 

[tdbmd]

I own the EF 70-300L and have rented the RF 100-400. The RF lens is quite good, especially for the money but I don't think the images are quite a good as from the 70-300 (and EF 100-400L II, which I also own). I have used the RF 100-400 for some landscape/nature stuff as well as a little bit of sports in the form of XC. While the images and AF are quite good, I (personally) think the 70-300 and 100-400 L lenses have a bit more "pop" or contrast. Not really sure how to describe it exactly. Just my 2 cents.

Thank you. Well the L lenses you’re mentioning are different animals than the

non L 70-300.

I also owned the EF 70-300 II NanoUSM and it is a fine lens, especially for the money. Maybe not quite as good as the L version but pretty close.

 

[Duckman21]

I’d like to ask if anyone has used both lenses either on an R body or on their respective mounts, and wether, the 400mm focal length not being necessary, the brighter aperture on the EF lens makes it a more compelling choice. Arguments concerning sharpness, autofocus, stabilisation and minimum focusing distance and other factors can be discussed as well.

I’ve used both, but on different cameras, so difficult to compare. I did not find the non-L 70-300 ii very good (on an 80D). To be frank, I found the RF 100-400 a little disappointing, even trying a second copy and borrowing a third. However at its price, for a travel lens, it’s ok. For wildlife or anything critical, it’s not good enough on an R5. It will “seem” better on a 20MP R6. What was wrong? AF was not always consistent, varying between images in a burst. Bokeh is very busy - branches, grasses etc appearing double, so distracting. IS sometimes gets confused, introducing blur where it shouldn’t - better to turn IS off at higher shutter speeds. Aperture absolutely not a problem - R5 or R6 will be fine at higher ISOs.

I know this lens gets a lot of love, but sadly not from me. If you’re happy to adapt EF lenses, do consider the EF 70-300 L which is a bargain on the used market, a much better lens in my opinion, and balances well on a FF R series body with the adapter. Even better, the EF 100-400 L mk ii or the RF 100-500. If you only have one chance for an image (eg on an expensive safari trip), you will regret not having a better lens.

I have to agree to some extent with your assessment on the R6. One of my peers constantly grumbles about this lens with the R7 and how let down they feel by the focusing inconsistency and the onion ring bokeh/specular highlights being unacceptable for macro shots. They also preferred the 70-300 and 55-250 over this lens.

The IS takes time to settle (sometimes spazzing out for 5 seconds) and in video mode I find myself having to half-press the shutter to prevent it from drifting inexplicably. The IS becomes less reliable with an extender attached too and has a tendency to jump around more.

The AF also gets worse when shooting in overcast conditions. It often does track my subject but doesn't lock on the bird's eye/face as I would like. There's a lot of complaints about third-party lenses pulsing or hunting and struggling to focus on small birds up close with the 150-600mm, but I suspect some Canon lenses do suffer from the issue but it manifests differently. In this case the jump out of focus throwing out to infinity and there is a struggle to re-focus. I'm not sure if this is due to only having one Nano USM motor which is my concern for the 200-800mm.