RF100-500 rental vs EF 100-400Lii

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19530100
I agree with you, there may be a slight difference but the EF 100-400Lii holds its own especially hand held where I do 99% of my shooting, to me the 1.4xiii may be slightly soft (???) the RF 1.4x on the 100-500 holds up better.

Maybe someday I can justify the RF 100-500 after all I still have a hankering for it!!

Canon certainly were thinking out of the box with the RF 100-500 F7.1 LIS. The ef 100-400 LIS II is an exceptional lens an how could Canon top that for the next generation? They created a new optical formula that played to all of the strengths of the previous lens and added to the mix of great features.
The optical performance of the 100-400IIL has always been stellar, way better than the MK1. But also the mkII got far better AF and one of the best ef image Stabilisers every made. But using a 1.4xTC was tricky on a DSLR, the Af systems stuggled with f8. Fast forwards to the newer generation of mirrorless...and the AF is not brightness dependent.

The odd ball brightness rating of the RF 100-500 is actually quite useful at the 500 end of the zoom range, usually the things we need to shoot at 500mm need a deeper depth of field. So it works for us most of the time, and this lens is sharp wide open at 500mm. Unlike the 100-400 IIL, which was always a little short of the 400mm stated (closer to 380mm), the new RF 100-500 is a true 500mm.
The ef 100-400IIL with a 1.4x TC combo is a lot better on the mirrorless format than it was on the EF format, purely because of the superior AF tracking at F8. The only inconvieniences are the increased size and bulk...and the fact ath you have to add a TC. You get a wee bit more focal length (maybe about 530mm?) but a drop of 1/2 a stop. The Af is a little less urgent and the images are slightly softer (although very servicable).

So the upshot is, the RF100-500 is slightly better in every area to the ef 100-400II. But that doesn't devalue the 100-400IIL, it's still an excellent and very capable lens. Canon have sold a ton of these for good reason. The issue is that the new RF 100-500 is a VERY expensive lens. Here in the UK, I can buy a used ef 400mm f2.8 LIS for the same price!

I hope you won't mind if I chime in. I have retained some of my Canon DSLR gear, including the following lenses: 70-200L f/4MkII, 100-400MkII, and 70-300L.

When I went to the R-series MILCs, I got the R5, R6 and R6II units along with my own trilogy of lenses: 14-35L, 24-105L and 100-500L.

I have been testing the performance of various combinations of lenses, and although I cannot offer a lot of images taken with the EF 100-400 AND the RF 100-500, I do have a couple. The R5 and R6 have the same focusing system. I had mine configured to single point eye tracking in servo mode. While the R5 offers the higher pixel count at 45MP, and the R6 has but 20, it does exhibit one EV better DR.

These were taken hand-held, in available extremely dim light, in a reptile enclosure of the Auckland Green Gecko AKA the Elegant Green Gecko. These little fellows are extremely small, perhaps 125mm (5") from nose to tail and they are superbly camouflaged to blend in with their environment. The DoF is pretty shallow, as you can see.

Both lenses are pretty sharp, but the native R lens has dual Nano-USM motors and offers full IBIS+OIS on compatible R bodies - both of these help it find a lock on the eye and hold it for longer. .

Image hosted by forum (1218043) © Tronhard THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Yes the 100-500 is a great lens but to me as an amateur the price is the road block.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19540170
Yes the 100-500USM is a great lens but to me as an amateur the price is the road block.

I totally accept that my circumstances for both investment and mobility are different, so I thought it might be worth looking at the RF100-400 USM if you want to look at an RF optic that is both much cheaper and lighter, yet still offers the benefit of a native RF lens.

I have looked at the two and because I don't do reviews on lenses to the degree that some on You Tube do, here are some videos that I thought offered reasonable views and referenced for my own information, FWIW.

There is a comprehensive and down to earth review by Australian wildlife photographer Duade Paton:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=jVdQT0m3lok

There is a detailed comparison by Justin Abbott: https://www.youtube.co​m …ub24gcmYgMTAwLT​QwMA%3D%3D

The RF100-400 is less than 1/4 the price of the 100-500L model and half the weight, which are significantly differences.

One thing the cheaper version has over the L version is that it will take throughout the focal range the 1.4 or 2.0 RF extender while, for mechanical reasons, the 100-500 can't zoom out below 100mm with an extender attached, which would be annoying for some. In that respect see:
https://www.youtube.co​m …ub24gcmYgMTAwLT​QwMA%3D%3D


https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=CQrdgELaySo

He already has the RF 100-400.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19540588
He already has the RF 100-400.

Yes, thanks Anton, I missed that. My bad!

As I have an R body and will be getting another, the thought of getting an RF lens is interesting so all of this is of interest to me. Yes, the EF equivalents are less expensive. I recently picked up an EF300/2.8 and it looks like it was a good move because the RF equivalent is out of my range. But the RF100-500 vs the EF100-400 choice; that's something I can engage with a bit more as can I between the two 24-70s.

First, though, I need to decide which second body to get.

The EF 100-400 II and RF 100-500 are both heavy lenses and tax my back after a few days of shooting when I'm on a photography vacation. By going from the 7D2/100-400II to the R7/100-500, I am saving enough weight to keep shooting - I hope a couple of years at least. The mirrorless gear is very expensive, but for me the change was worth it.

Now having the RF 100-500, I am amazed at its performance. It is especially impressive what it is capable of near the minimum focus distance, where the EF version was a bit iffy. No regrets.

I agree it is a very good lens but for me at this point the cost to upgrade for the difference in IQ is why I am sticking with the 100-400Lii also I love my RF 100-400 when shooting for a couple hours, it is so light!

Here is one with it from yesterday with my R6ii

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19542200
I agree it is a very good lens but for me at this point the cost to upgrade for the difference in IQ is why I am sticking with the 100-400Lii also I love my RF 100-400 when shooting for a couple hours, it is so light!

Here is one with it from yesterday with my R6ii

Hosted photo: posted by Jeff USN Photog 72-76 in
./showthread.php?p=195​42200&i=i249739597
forum: Canon Lenses

Really glad you have a solution that works for you. I know what it's like to be challenged physically and need to carry lighter gear to continue to photography. In those days it was a destroyed knee, and I go the M5 series cameras and EF-M lenses until I got a knee replacement and could function as before.

I got my first knee done last October, was going to have the 2nd in April but my son destroyed his foot and had surgery and was off it for 3 months, I had to put the 2nd knee off till this coming October

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19542565
I got my first knee done last October, was going to have the 2nd in April but my son destroyed his foot and had surgery and was off it for 3 months, I had to put the 2nd knee off till this coming October

For me the knee replacement was a game-changer, I hope you have the same experience with yours.

I replaced my 100-400II with the RF100-500, not because of any issues with IQ. I agree there's very little difference there. For me it was two things; the slightly longer reach, and the fact that I don't need to use an adapter, so there's a saving in weight and bulk. You also get better IS with RF lenses (in theory).

curiousgeorge wrote in post #19550939
I replaced my 100-400II with the RF100-500, not because of any issues with IQ. I agree there's very little difference there. For me it was two things; the slightly longer reach, and the fact that I don't need to use an adapter, so there's a saving in weight and bulk. You also get better IS with RF lenses (in theory).

I have to come up with tuition for one of the kids for this coming year, was thinking I could pull a bit more out of the 401k for the 100-500 but the $3,500 is a lot for a lens for me, just a hobbyist. Also need two new used cars, my wifes is 27 years old, (anyone one want an antique Lexus? 1998) and my jeep is a 2006 and rusting.

I have been using the RF100-400 when weight is an issue and my 100-400Lii with adapter when sitting. here is the EF 100-400Lii hand held

View_Finder wrote in post #19533997
.
We don't know people's background. Some people are just getting into photography - of course they are going to consider the latest equipment. Some people are into expensive clothes, cars, designer purses, expensive watches, $80k bass boats, $160k RVs, .... it makes them happy and I have absolutely no care as it doesn't affect me.
.

Yeah, photography is not an expensive hobby at all compared to most of the other hobbies that the people I know have. . One bass boat costs way way way more than all the camera gear that one could dream of, and that isn't even counting the cost of insurance, trailer, gasoline, etc.
.

View_Finder wrote in post #19533997
.
And mirrorless equipment doesn't HAVE to be expensive. One can get an R10 or R50 with an RF16, RF50 1.8, and RF24-105 STM for WAY cheaper than I paid for my 50D (which I still use) back in 2008 for $1,400.
.

You are right - mirrorless does not have to be any more expensive than DSLR gear. . I recently bought a used Sony A6600 for half of the price it was when it was released a few years ago. . And I got a 15mm shift macro used for half of the new price. . And then I got a 55-210mm kit lens for $99, when the new price is over $300. . Someone can truly add a mirrorless kit to their collection of DSLR gear for very little money, or they can sell their DSLR stuff and use the money to buy a mirrorless kit and not lose anything at all in the process of "switching over".

Used gear. . Deals. . Negotiation. . Craigslist. . Pawn shops. . If you are smart about how you buy and don't make impulsive decisions, there is no need to lose any money on a switch and you will be able to sell anything you buy for as much as you paid, maybe even more.

You paid $1,400 for your 50D in the fall of 2008? . OUCH! . I waited 15 months and bought it in early 2010 for $450, in perfect condition. . The lesson I have learned is to NEVER buy new gear, as a warranty and the "peace of mind" that it supposedly gives is not really of any value at all. . Buy something old and used and discontinued and you get far more for your money.
.

View_Finder wrote in post #19533997
.
I have 24mm to 600mm covered (24-105, 100-400, 600) for less than $1000 total by utilizing Canon's refurb program. Can't get that with EF lenses.
.

I am sitting here reading this over and over thinking I must not be reading it right. . It doesn't seem possible. . I have looked into Canon's refurb thing several times and never bought anything because I never thought the deals were all that great.

Can you please break this down and tell us how much you spend for each lens? . And which lenses they were? . You are talking about RF mount lenses, right?

.