Canon RF 100-500mm vs EF 100-400mm Compared by Ken Rockwell
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Canon RF 100-500mm vs EF 100-400mm Compared by Ken Rockwell
I got my RF 100-500 at www.bhphotovid...
I got my EF 100-400 at www.adorama.com...
RF 100-500 Review www.kenrockwel...
EF 100-400mm Review www.kenrockwel...
RF Lens Reviews www.kenrockwel...
EF to RF lens adapters www.kenrockwel...
Canon vs Sony vs Nikon www.kenrockwel...
I get all my gear at www.kenrockwel...
When you click on the links above to various merchants and make a purchase, this can result in me earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Contribute at www.paypal.me/...
Ken Rockwell® is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.
![Run Away - Tzuyu(TWICE) ツウィ 쯔위 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240906](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KnHNNyAYiu0/mqdefault.jpg)
talking about no nonsense straight to the point review, Ken you are the gold standard. 100-400 is better built, more versatile, cheaper, optically at least equally excellent, slightly heavier lens needing an adapter on RF body. I think it is one of the Canon EF best signature lenses alongside 35L 85f1.2L
Agreed. The 100-400 is the worlds best telephoto zoom. It has a fluorite element; 100-500 does not.
@@KenRockwellTV Hi Ken, just want to know one thing the new ET-83F hood comes with rf 100-500 lens, does it fit on EF 100-400 II lens? Really want a white hood. eBay only has beige yellowish JJC branded ET-83D from China.
ruclips.net/video/4yumCq19HuU/видео.html
The stabilizer in the 100-500 is rated 5 stops vs. 4 stops in the 100-400. The 100-500 has a shorter minimal focus and more reach. The 100-500 is optically a tiny bit sharper, if comparing at the same focal length. Ofcourse, the 100-500mm has 100mm more focal length, and once you compare both lenses with 1.4 extenders, they are very much equal but again, the 100-500mm has more reach. The 100-500 is 200 grams lighter (not even mentioning the necessary adapter if using a 100-400 with R bodies). The build quality of the 100-500 may seem less because of the use of reinforced plastics, but only time will tell if it doesn't hold as long.
Yes it's more expensive and is 2/3ths of a stop less bright (but see the stabilizer advantage, which easily compensates this), but if you can afford it, and combined with an R6 or R5, the 100-500mm is definitely the better lens. I am saying this after weeks of travelling with an R6 + 100-500mm and using it in very demanding situations (with regards to low-light / fast moving wildlife photography).
ps: the fluorite argument by Ken is absolutely irrelevant. The images with this lens speak for themselves, not if there is some fluorite element or not... The 100-400 is defintely NOT the worlds best telephoto zoom (anymore).
@@KenRockwellTV Nice review. Thanks Ken! I have the old version 1 of the 100-400 for my R7. As an amateur, is it worth spending the extra $1,000 or so to trade up to version II? I shoot a lot of fast sports at 400mm and still crop, so autofocus speed is key. Trading up further to the 100-500 would be nearly $2K upgrade, which seems tough to justify. Thanks for your thoughts.
Excellent review, Ken immediately gets straight to the point rather than spouting half an hour of needless uninformative dribble. I wish all videos on RUclips were this quick, accurate and frank.
Me too! These why I keep mine to-the-point.
Hey Ken you saved me about $1000 with your review of both these lenses. I have the R6 and was about ready to spring for the 100 to 500 RF but after watching your video comparison I decided on the EF 100-400 which I purchased from B&H used for about $1800. I already had the 1.4x Tele converter for EF lenses along with the adapter for EF to RF for the R6 camera so that was my decision thanks again!
Perfect! I’m loving my 100-400 to death - and it’s -II tele converters.
thanks you Ken! I was looking for an answer to whether I should invest in the RF lens over my EF100-400 with converter on my EOS R body and you have given the clearest of advice that I can find
Thanks! I try to be to the point.
Great, short and sweet straight to the point comparison. Thank you Ken.
PS: years ago I’d frequently visit your website and am happy to find you back online here as well!
Cheers Michael
Hi! I never left! RUclips is just for fun; my written reviews are still the reference. Thanks!
@Ken Rockwell, What a relief, A perfect video for me!! After I pressed the final button to purchase 100-400mm I saw this 100-500mm news..I was quite disappointed as my long term plan is to go towards cannon mirrorless..and moreover I have spent a great amount of time saving money and get get clarified to acquire this lens..but now I am feeling much better..Thanks very much!! Keep posting such great videos..
100-400 is a better lens than 100-500, for less money. Thanks!
I own both lenses and have both 1DxMk2 and R5. I'm picky about photo quality and find 2x on 100-400 is not acceptable. The 1.4x is on the edge for me personally. The extra reach of the 100-500 is really nice, it's already helped me to get a couple of great photos. 100-500 being lighter and carrying 600mm helps, vs the 100-400 which is heavy. I wanted the extra reach so the 100-500 is great. If I didn't have the money and the extra weight wasn't a problem then consider the 100-400 or stay with it using the adapter. I agree the 1.4 & 2x for the RF is a joke that can't go below 300mm on the zoom. Maybe it's not possible to engineer one that works on the full range with a mirrorless, but I find it disappointing. In my comparison with the 100-400 & 1.4x and just the 100-500 on the R5 I prefer the quality and weight of the 100-500, but if you have the 100-400 or pick one up to run on a mirrorless I don't think you will be unhappy. I think if Canon creates the 1Dx Mirrorless replacement in the RF mount the EF mount system will be on the way out. It will take years to replace all the lens and people will still have the EF mount and not give it up. You can see they have a plan and if it works out I believe they are going full RF out in the future. They said they are not going to make a new EF mount lens, so everything will be RF. Currently, that is not an issue until they come out with a great lens everyone wants that you can only get in an RF mount, then people will be forced to consider staying with their old EF system or moving to the new one RF. The good news this time is the adapter to run the old EF lens on the RF system works great, this provides people more options and time.
Thanks!
Thank you, Ken. I love the EF 100-400 II. Plus, works great extended. Would have never known about the limited zoom range. That's crazy.
Crazy but true! Thanks!
Thanks Ken. I own the EF 100-400 and both the 5D M4 and the R5. This has been helpful in my decision as whether to sell the 100-400 and buy the 100-500 or keep the former. For now I will keep the 100-400 and use it on both bodies with the 1.4 and 2x TC’s. As always I enjoy your comments and opinions. Ken Kindy
Thanks! I kept my 100-400,, and I shoot lots of Canon 5DS/R
keep the 100-400. I haven't seen anything showing better image quality on the 100-500 for comparable focal lengths. Plus the RFs are still really expensive
@@brianbeattyphotography I have always thought the EF 100-400 was one of the best lenses Canon ever made especially considering the cost. I’ve kept it!!
@@kim0942 good choice :)
Love my 100-400, bought it for my 90D, I also have an R8 with the 200-800 mounted. I paired the EF lens with the 1.4 ext and the control ring adapter and could not be happier with the results..
Thanks! Still waiting for my 200-800
Picked up the 100-400 new after the 100-500 was launched for half the price of the 100-500. I also use both the R and 5DSR, so it was an easy choice to go with the EF version. IQ is stellar, and the difference in weight matters less than compatibility across both bodies.
That’s what I do! 100-400 is a more professional lens - for less!
The one thing I appreciate is that you actually acknowledge your affiliate links which you have some I bought my D200 back in 2005. A lot and it's probably all other channels use tactics. I'm a man I like a straight shooter.
Thanks, but I don’t understand what you mean by “tactics.”
@@KenRockwellTV most use a 'funnel' tactic to get you to go through their affiliate links.
@@KenRockwellTV 'marketing funnel'
Nice points Ken. I just bought the 100-400L II so what I'm about to say is obviously not motivated by a need to reassure myself that I've made a good choice, however another reputable content creator has made a side by side comparison of the IQ of these two lenses and the RF 100-500 is significantly sharper in that comparison. I don't think you'd need to do much digging to find the video I'm talking about, he compares heads of birds.
I tend to doubt that; both are superb. What happens when ordinary people try these comparisons is that there is often some other overlooked variable that adds obvious differences that aren't form the lenses themselves. Thanks!
Thank u Ken for a great comparison review.
I'm not allured by MILCs and continue with my old workhorses like EF 400mm f/5.6L and EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II. The latter is always paired with a 2x converter. The body workhorses are 5DII and 7D. Don't see any need to change these lovely reliable tools.
Exactly. Thanks!
Hello Ken, first thank you for the compassion, I think I will stay with the Ef 100mm-400 for now. I have both the EF 1.4x III and EF 2.0x III Extenders and they are not stackable. I'm not sure about older versions of the converters.
The EF III and RF converters do not stack. The original EF and EF II converters do. Thanks!
jup, gonna keep the 100-400! thank you so much for this comparison.
That's what I did, since I already own my EF 100-400. Consider the new plastic ultralight RF 100-400 (www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-400mm.htm) for times you don't feel like hauling the beastly EF 100-400.
@@KenRockwellTV good thought, although i like the metal one because it's reasonably fast at f5.6 and just soooo tough! and i already think of it as the light option compared to my tele-prime XD maybe one day, if i have 600 bucks that i don't know what to do with XD
Congratulations, I can't wait for the next videos! Thank you for maintaining the great level of your reviews. Objective and scientific, mr. Rockwell always supplies us with information, does not mislead us and our choice of equipment to be used is always according to the conditions and needs of each one of us. Thank you again!
Thank you!!!! That’s why I do all this.
Thanks, I'll keep the EF 100-400 II lens on my R series bodies and use the 1.4x TC if I need to.
Love it! That’s what I do. Also consider the RF 100-400 which is so much lighter than anything else www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-400mm.htm
I chose the ef 100-400 with the 1.4 adapter for my eos r when I swapped from Nikon dx. Not at all disappointed. Great build and image quality.
My choice, too. The older extenders can stack, and work great that way.
Very exciting video! How is the image quality between the rf 100-500mm and EF 100-400mm ii lens with 1.4x III converter? Thank you!
All excellent. Thanks!
With the version III Canon EF teleconverters, you cannot stack them unless you have an extension tube between them.
Ouch! So stick with the IIs I use www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/extender-2x-ii.htm and www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/extender-14x-ii.htm thanks!
One hour ago I was shooting with a 5D4 + 2x III + 2X II + 100-400L II. All stacks together fine without modification.
Was also shooting video in 4K for the 1.8x crop. Yes, my small subject was 250m away.
Works great. = a 2880mm field of view.
I feel like Alan Alda just helped me decide which lens to buy. ;)
I keep hearing that... Thanks!
Hi Ken - been away from photo 15 years, great to see you are still around, you were and still are the best! One question: I have the old 100-400 mm and always loved it, used it back then with my 30D. Now I want to buy a Canon R 7 and pair it with my old 100-400. But some folks here say that pairing my old lens with mirrorless will make the autofocus slow and not perform as fast as the RP 100-500 mm - especially when its about action photography and long focal lengths. Is that true in your opinion?
You’d have to try that combo yourself. I prefer the new EF 100-400 II. No reason not to try and if you hate it, only then spring for the expensive 100-500. Don’t forget the tiny RF 100-400. I’m tired of lugging the huge ef 100-400 around. Thanks!
PS - unlike every other brand, Canon EF adapts to Canon RF brilliantly. Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it. www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/ef-adapters.htm
I just picked up a 100-400 mk2 for $850 Aud.
I've used the rf 100-500 for about a month when I borrowed one from Canon.
I definitely preferred the extra reach. But the 100-400 feels like it's built to last, whereas the rf 100-500 felt alright.
If I had to buy new I'd pick the rf one even tho it feels cheaper. Although for $850 I couldn't really go wrong with the 100-400 mk2.
Exactly. Thanks!
Good to see Ken Rockwell here on RUclips. Good stuff thanks.
Thanks!!!!!
Brilliant review. To the point and covers everything you need to know.
Thanks! I really work hard at zero BS and getting straight to the point. Thanks for noticing.
Thanks so much I was deciding between a 70-200 and 100-500 but already have 100-400 ef. Really helped me with my selection to stick with the 100-400 as my photo quality is already great
EF 100-400 II is state of the art; best tele zoom ever made - however as the only true pro lens out there today, it’s all metal and thus very heavy.
I'm currently in the market for one of these lenses to use on my R6. If I had unlimited funds, I'd probably buy the RF, however the EF is considerably cheaper (I buy used almost exclusively) & it's hard for me to justify ~100% higher cost on for me what is only a hobby.
100-400 is a much better made lens and much more flexible and useable with EF extenders - but weighs much more because it’s pro grade all metal. 100-500 is a consumer lens mostly made of plastic.
I have the EF lens and I'm always afraid to mess the focus by turning the focus ring so I put a scotch tape on the joint with the collar so I still can use the focus ring by turning the collar , what a pity ,scotch tape on a 1900$ lens
Thanks!
It was great. I had a question. Is the Ef lens good for bird and nature photography ???
Both lenses are superb for birds. The next step up costs five figures.
Great review. I have always found your reviews to be helpful Ken. My 100-400 ii is arriving Monday which will pair with my 90d (a camera I love). I still like Canon DSLR's, especially the 90d and 6D ii as they are reasonably light in weight and nice to handle. I hope Canon won't ignore DSLR users anytime soon, with their mirrorless cameras being such a hit!
Yes!!! Thanks!
hope you're enjoying the 100-400! it's an exceptional lens, and I think one of the all time bests of the EF line
@@brianbeattyphotography I'm extremely impressed by it and happy with the purchase. It's more like a prime lens in terms of sharpness than a zoom I'd say! Not too big and heavy either and on the 90d it gives good reach for wildlife
I just bought 100-400 ii today,its awesome!!.. thank you sir..
Thank YOU! Still my favorite for when I don’t mind the weight.
It seems like the RF lenses are cheaper made even though they work well, but the prices are so high, ive got a couple of RF lenses but i think ill stay with the 100-400
Yes. Photography has been this way each generation since the 1970s.
@@KenRockwellTV Do you want to carry around an EF 600 4.0? Today we have EF 600 4.0 III:
Same size, half the weight, much better IQ, better AF, IS, ...
This was the 90s, the 70s you took a Novoflex "cannon" to try your best ....
What a change in technology!
@@DavCro Let those people talk! I already ordered one. I did initially not get the information the EF version II so much better than version 1, I did not but carry around far to heavy equipment. Big whites are great but a pain if you work non stationary.
Then I decided to skip the purchase to go into the market as soon as RF version is available.
All those talking about "plastic" is nonsense. The great EF 400 2.8 and the 600 4.0 development in a quarter century: Even more robust, even more IQ, faster AF, IS, more features. Still rocket proof weather sealing and robustness - just today half the weight! 3000g saved due to modern technologies and materials.
The 100-500 is going to be a great carry around lens for wildlife, nature, landscape.
@@peterebel7899 600 f4 iii is worse IQ than the mark ii though. Sony 600mm and the mark ii Canon are the best 2. Not sure what Canon did wrong with the mark iii.
@@timwhite1111 I do not know, I use Mark II. All is brilliant since years now, just the weight more than a body weight above Mark III. The II will stay for stationary work with DSLR & R-bodies.
The RF 100-500 will be the walk and shoot option.
According to several other reviews the newer lens (100-500) gives a better quality picture especially with the extenders on - so people should look at that as well
Hi Karyn, I compared mine and they’re the same. The biggest differences are price, plastic versus metal, and mostly that the RF lens isn’t as compatible with extenders. RF lens only works with one extender at a time and - here’s the weird part - only over a fraction of its zoom range! Most importantly see the complete review at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-500mm.htm and the explicit comparison section there. I prefer the 100-400 mostly because I can run it with my 1.4 AND 2x extenders at the same time and it works great. Sample images at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100-400mm-ii.htm Avoid RUclips and online reviews; see www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm Thanks!!!!!!
@@KenRockwellTV I did watch your full reviews. I was just pointing out several reviewers state the the quality with the extenders on isnt as good on the 100-400.. I appreciate the advice about avoiding the online reviews - I try to take more stock in people that are not sponsored by the camera companies. However, I am not going to avoid the reviews... lol if I took that advice I would not have found your channel.. besides I have learned to take everything with a grain of salt and many opinions together tend to reaffirm anything I might feel is good advice... for example.. many reviewers say the battery life on the EOS R5 isnt great and buy extra batteries... so that is what I will do when I purchase the camera...It is the entire reason I found your channel yesterday.. looking for a review on which lens to buy for wildlife 100-500 rf or 100-400 ef..
Hi Ken. I’m fairly new to your channel. I recently bought a Canon RP with kit lens. I also have the amazing EF100-400f4.5-5.5L IS II lens which I am going to use on my RP once I receive the EF-RF adapter. Based on watching this video, you convinced me that it would be a great investment to get a teleconverter. I just bought a used (B&H Photo condition “9”) Canon 2.0X III teleconverter and can’t wait to use it! I just wanted you to know that I enjoy your channel and its content, and liked your review and operating manual for the RP. Thanks so much! I’m a happy subscriber!!!
Excellent! I prefer my EF 100-400 over the 100-500, mostly to stack converters and because I already own it. You can’t stack the III converters, only the originals and the II versions, so you’re done with the 2x. Hope you love it as much as I love mine. Thanks!
Someone may have brought this up already. I have both lenses but on the 100-400 the newest versions of the Canon extenders dose not allow you to stack them. Maybe I am doing something wrong...Anyhow thanks for the great review!
Correct; the -III won’t stack; I use the -II.original converters also work.
@@Methodical2 NB the lens will not focus at infinity with the extension tube - i tried it!
IMO the ef 100-400 mkii is the best buy because it can used on both RF and R eco systems
I agree. Better built and works much better with teleconverters and costs less. Thanks!
exactly!
A great comparison you made and your analysis is sound, agreeable and good. Both are excellent despending where you are coming from. I am keeping my EF100-400 ii with more metal and proven ruggedness despite buying the R5 and R to go with the 7D ii and 5DIV. All have these alternatives have strong points. Ultimately for me my old lens is better and $4300 cheaper in comparison to the the RF version with two new TCs. I will save my money for something else. I also am keeping the EF 70-200mm iii as it is an amazing lens too. All my EF lenses continue to work superbly on the RF mount cameras when adapted including my primes as well as my 12 lb EF400mmf2.8L IS USM orignal 1999 classic. I have five RF lenses now. That will keep me for awhile. RF 15-35mm RF 24-70, RF 35mmf1.8, RF 24-105f4L, & RF 24-240mm. The RF 24-240mm is the very much a pleasant and inexpensive superzoom surprise in all of these. I love that lens for hiking and travel. Better than any superzoom I have owned before and some of the L lenses were very expensive. The new is better in some ways and worse in others. Not all the old ones are easily replaced. Including me.
Exactly - and New lens can’t work with more than just one tc at a time. Thanks!
The EOS Canon 1.4 mk iii extender was rubbish on my 7D2 with 100-400 Mkii, on the R6 with 100-400 it is magic certainly a totally different piece of kit matched to mirrorless
Bravo! Thanks.
Ken, does autofocus and IS still work with the EF 2X extender or when extenders are stacked? With my EOS, I'm limited to the 1.4X extender if I want to use autofocus and IS.
It all works great with extenders. Only the EF and EF II extenders stack, not the EF III or RF. Biggest problem is 100-500 only works from 300-500mm settings, sort of a waste of time. I prefer my pro EF 100-400 l II is.
@@KenRockwellTV great, thanks for your help. I have the 100-400 and love it. Being able to add the 2X extender along with the RF ring adapter while retaining AF and IS on the R5 makes it easy to decide what gear to get.
Very interesting comparison, thank you. The 100-400ii is a fabulous lens. I use a 100mm macro too, and whilst this is not replaced by the zoom for my purposes, I know what you mean. My 100-400 is usually on my 7D2, but it works very well on my EOSR. It would be interesting to know how well the R extenders work with the 100-500, especially compared with the Mk 3 EF counterparts on the 100-400.
Well,RF extenders only work between 300 and 500mm on this lens, which is frustrating, and they can’t stack. 100-400 II and EF II TCs are much better if TCs are important. Heck, a 2x and 100-500 only begets 600-1,000mm while a 2x on 100-400 creates a far more useful 200-800mm range.
A lot of people won't know what Ken means when he says you can replace a macro with this. There is a difference between close ups and macro and its irresponsible for him to ignore that fact. Being sure of yourself and being correct are 2 different things. I'm going to block the channel now .
@@markrigg6623 Indeed, the 100-400 can function as a close up but not true macro. I've had some great close ups with it, but it can't do what the macro does. The 100-400 is a very versatile lens.
@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for this. I'd be interested to know if the R extenders have the same or less adverse effect on image quality as the EF 3 ones.
@@MrAppoline Absolutely. You know the difference between macro and close up.
Which would be good for wildlife? Just got my canon R6
Either one. If you don’t use teleconverters get the 100-500. If you use teleconverters and need longer than 500mm in a zoom, get the 100-400. 100-400 built heavier and better and costs less. If you need super long, consider also the 800mm www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm thanks!
Can you stack 1.4 iii and 2.0iii converters with the r6 on the 100-400ii? Thx for your answer
@@DJBastor No the mark iii extenders can't be stacked at all, only the 1.4 ii and 2.0 ii can be stacked
Would like to purchase the EF 100-400mm for shooting wildlife. What canon camera would you suggest to go with it. Dont mind the age of the camera and wouldn't want to spend over £1000 for for camera. Both items will be bought second hand for extra value.
I’d look at your choice of APS-C dslr. I don’t know prices. See what the 80D or 90D or 7D Mk II sell for; those are top cameras.
@@KenRockwellTV thanks for the advice. Much appreciated.
@@KenRockwellTV this was the other topic I was looking for some serious advice and from a pro..I being an armature photographer and considering all my EF-S and L lenses compatibility I was planning to upgrade from Reble7i to top notch aps-c 90D..however I was slightly inclined to 5Dmark4 also but considering price and seeing the latest releases in mirrorless do you recommend me to go for mirror less R6 than 90D or 5Dmark4? Well I know one downside would be 20mp in R6 while I do love birds photography but your advice is highly appreciated.
Why would you want to use a tele converter on a 100-500mm and zoom it out under 300mm what is the point of the tele converter anyway?
Not much with the 100-500, and the sad part is that extenders work so well on Mirrorless. That’s why I prefer my EF 100-400L IS II.
Thanks Ken. The only problem I have with my 100-400 is when I use the 1.4 extender I seem to get almost a painting effect on my images, a little muddy for some reason with the canon R6. I’m exaggerating a bit but definitely image degradation is noticeable. I think that could be where the 500 by itself can help. But the price isn’t worth it for me right now. Great review
My best guess is that this effect is from the additional internal noise reduction that comes along with higher ISOs which were most likely used with the extender. In other words it’s not likely the lens or extender, but the effects of a higher ISO you would have used with them. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV it wasn’t too high. I believe about 800. To a lot of people they may not even notice. But I have the 600mm version 2 f4 lens and uses to using that with the extender. So it’s not a fair comparison, but it still looks a little mushy in comparison, more than the bare 100-400 lens. I guess I got pretty spoiled with the big lens quality maybe lol
Can always count on you to get into the details. Didn't disappoint,
Thanks!!!
The 100-400 is my dream lens!! I’m saving up for it now! I’ve been using your website as a tool to get the best reviews on camera equipment!
You’re the best! I’ve loved that 100-400 since I got mine when the first came out.
@@KenRockwellTV aww thankyou ken..you're my go to with all my camera reviews when I am researching!
Ken, I have been searching for this exact video! Cut to the chase this was very helpful and I am definitely keeping my eye on the EF lens. Very nice information.
EF lens is built better and better with EF teleconverters. 100-500 goes to 500 and weighs less, but costs much more. What else is there to know? Thanks!
Hi Ken, amazing review. Thank you so much. I’m a wildlife photographer and thinking of buying the R6 en sell my canon800D and tamron 100-400. I definitley want a Canon lens, but don’t know wich one.. 100-400 + teleconverter + EF/RF converter or just the 100-500 without teleconverter. Sometimes my reach with my tamron 100-400 wasn’t enough for wildlife photography, and the quality and speed not that good. Hard choiches!
If you need TCs, the 100-400 and EF TCs and EF-RF adapter much better. Thanks!
Love all your Canon Videos!!! Very helpful and educational. I have the EF 100-400 and even though its a weight beast, I love this lens and plan to use it on my R and backordered R5!!! Keep the videos coming!
100-400 works AWESOME! No need to buy anything other than an EF RF adapter.
@@KenRockwellTV Got the adapter with the control ring and it works flawlessly with the EF lenses on my R. For me, IS is important given nerve damage in my left wrist so having the IS in the lens on the R makes a world of difference. Cheers - Dan
Thank you Ken, you just helped me made that decision. What you said was exactly how I felt about these 2 lenses especially with the TC.
Thanks!!!
Both Phenomenal Lenses!
Yes! Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV I have the Canon R7 and I just picked up the 100-400 EF, and it is phenomenal! I looked at the 100-500, but it was too expensive!
Ken I recently opted for the 100-400mm because of the lower cost. I see in this video to talk about a teleconverter for this EF 100-400mm lens but my question is should I get the RF 2.0 Teleconverter or the EF 2.0 Teleconverter? Thanks for all your help and info through the years!
Easy! Only the EF converters work. You can’t mount the EF RF adapter over an RF converter. If you want to stack them a kind the EF III. I ise the EF II which stack.
@@KenRockwellTV Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. That is exactly what I wanted to know. So the RF converter will not work with the EF-RF adapter like I had thought. Thanks again sir!
Ken, will you do a shootout between the rf 24-70 is and 28-70 rf. Many say that they are optically the same, but i tend to value your opinion more.
They’re all essentially optically perfect. It isn’t 1992 anymore where sharpness varied. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV yeah, 1992, when I first subscribed to Popular Photograpjy and Herbert Kepler was the editor, until a few years later when Ken Rockwell.com took over! I should have also noted that some pros claimed that the 28-70 is sharper and its pictures have a much more special look due to its f2 aperture. Do you agree?
Hey Ken would you maybe review the laowa 100mm 2.8. I am very interested in your thoughts about it!
Some day. Here’s the F2 www.kenrockwell.com/tech/laowa/105mm.htm
Good video. Question for you, does the IS on the 100-400 work with the IBIS in the R6 or R5 or, is just limited to the IBIS?
As my research shows, IBIS adds no significant improvement with a stabilized lens. See www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r5.htm#stabilizer and www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r6.htm#stabilizer thanks!
Maybe another way to answer your question is that the lens’ IS always works. The IBIS doesn’t do much of anything to improve things.
When I'm using the R5 with the 100- 400, the image is very noticeably more stable when I'm focusing than it is on any of my dslrs. The ibis is definitely working synergistically with the lens stabilisation. Rfs may work a little better again, but on the EF the difference is still quite profound.
Why can’t all review videos be this good?
Guess there’s only one of me. Thanks !
Does anyone know whether it is possible to combine lens stabilization and IBIS with The 100 to 400 EF on the R bodies with IBIS ?
If this is only possible with the RF lens, I think it is a rather big advantage for the 100 to 500
EF and RF lens IS both with the same with IBIS. IBIS works with in-lens IS automatically. You can’t use just one or the other forms of IS, they always work together. See more details under ‘stabilizer modes” at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r5.htm#usage thanks!
Ken Rockwell thank you for clearing this up.
reading other experiences with the EF on R body left me with the impression that the is and ibis sometimes counteracted each other and people turning the ibis off to prevent this. This resulting in fewer stops of image stabilization with the EF and R combination that with the R an RF combination
Do we need to set the manual focus override every time we power the camera or change lens or its a one time thing? for the 100-500. It might be a deal breaker for me.
I don’t think so. You set that in the camera menus here www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-500mm.htm#mfo
I have an RP, is the R6 any better for photography other than image stabilization? Trying to decide to upgrade my camera or to buy this lens. Any suggestions??? (Not interested in video so 4K and CLog don’t matter)
R6 stabilization is no better with stabilized lenses; only advantage is with unstabilized lenses. R6 is if you want to track and shoot action. RP is smaller and lighter and better if you value portability or price. If price matters and speed doesn’t, forget everything except the RP.
Ken Rockwell thank you so much for your quick response! I think I’m going to stick with the RP and buy the RF 100-500. Maybe save for the R5 if I outgrow my set up! Great videos! New subscriber! 🚀
Perfect. No idea why some people waste time with old news like Sony or Nikon. It’s not 1987 or 2013 anymore; Canon has been way ahead since 2018. I think some people have so much baggage with old gear or old perceptions of when those other brands were better, but I wouldn’t buy them today when ever thing from Canon these past 2 years has been so superior.
Replacing the Makro lens!? Sry nope!
Surely this is perfect for flowers, butterflies and dragonflies but there is smaller stuff to explore and therefore you need a true Makro lens.
All depends how close you need to be. Thanks!
Nope. The 100-400L II is a great maco lens because you dont neet to be too close the critter you are shooting. I usemine a a macro all the time.
The conceptof 'true macro' is for mugs. The Canon 100mm macro is only true macro if witnin a couple of inches of your subject, and critters dont like that, not to mention the shading of light from the lens, and the crazy tight dof.
@@nordic5490 Stupid discussion around here.
You can shoot landscape with 20mm or 200mm.
Same in the macro range, focal length matter, it has to fit to your needs.
0.3x is no macro range, it is close up.
But the 100-500 is great for some bigger insects, even flying, ...
Hey guys... I am shooting alive bugs with more than 2 times magnification. A telephoto cannot replace a true 1:1 or even 2:1 Makro lens. But I think Ken does very well know what I am talking about. And I already said that this is perfect for Butterflies, Flowers, Dragonflies but for smaller stuff like Small flies, Jumping Spiders etc you need a 1:1 Makro or extension tubes on a 50mm.
@@nordic5490 that's right some critters do not like this and you have to be very patient to get some nice shots....
You can put a 2x and get a cropped body and you are waaaaaay longer than the rf
Thanks!
Sniper here. Can anyone explain how much "times" magnification is "500mm"? We in military are used to what certain magnification looks like. Rifle optics have both variable scopes and fixed magnification scopes, like 4-16x or "straight" 10x.
Also most of the time our trade involves shooting pictures, not bullets, and I have to make an educated purchase, however "500mm" makes absolutely nothing to us.
Hi! If 50mm is a normal lens for you, 500mm is ten times (500/50=10) the magnification compared to a normal lens. Since most finders are about 0.8x magnification with a 50mm lens, looking through the finder of a camera with a 500mm lens will be about 500/50=10, and 10x0.8=8, or 8x. Does this help? Thanks!
Be sure to look at the ultralight collapsible 800mm lens www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm which is 13x. Use it with the 1.4x or 2x converter for 18x or 26x, and you can hand- hold it as well. Thanks!
You forgot the IS is better on the new version.
Both are very good. Thanks!
Spot on!
Thank you!
Thank you for this video 👍
Thank YOU!
Hi Ken. You're a popular reviewer for evaluating prosumer gears as well as premium ones. I'm also highly excited with your review of Canon MILC adapters. As I possess an array of great Canon telephoto lenes, premium and prosumer combined, I can now safely contemplate a mirrorless camera if need be.
In this connection, could u kindly evaluate Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM prosumer telephoto?
Thanks in advance.
All the Canon EF work brilliantly on RF. The 200/2.8 is great, but 99% of the world prefers a zoom.
@@KenRockwellTV, thank you very much. I also have a bad habit of stacking extenders to get maximum possible reach while focusing manually under compulsion. Perhaps an MILC will AF in the EVF in this case! Am I right?
Does the EF lenses get cropped in RF camera ?
No. EOS-R cameras and RF lenses are all full frame.
Great info!
Thank you!
@Ken Rockwell I was looking for an expert's advice and wrote the same below but I guess u have overlooked it..I am an armature photographer and considering all my EF-S and L lenses compatibility I was planning to upgrade from Reble7i to top notch aps-c 90D..however I was slightly inclined to 5Dmark4 also but considering price and seeing the latest releases in mirrorless do you recommend me to go for mirror less R6 than 90D or 5Dmark4? Well I know I have some wrong comparisons and one downside would be 20mp in R6 while I do love birds photography but your advice is highly appreciated while canon made me highly confused..
These are all very different cameras for very different people and applications. Who are you and what do you want to to do with it? Only knowing that can anyone make any sort of inteligent suggestions. Feel free to contact me directly www.kenrockwell.com/contact1.htm Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV will do..
I prefer Micro Four Thirds for my telephoto stuff... way lighter for equal or better results. Bonus- significantly cheaper!
Excellent! Thanks!
think the magnification difference is more relevant not 25 percent but about half as much
Rh! Thanks!
EF 100-400 II is better, better build quality, same image quality, works flawlessly on the R5, and you can get it for half the price, pass on this plastic stuff.
That’s right!! You have to hand it to Canon for giving us these options. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV I just wouldn't trust the RF 100-500 as much as the EF for taking a beating in the jungle
that was exactly my thought process. plus it works on older models, so when I came across on a great deal for a 5D (after getting the 100-400) I didn't have to worry about compatibility
For me, weight is an important parameter when using these lenses. Also image quality is not equal, at least on the R5. The 100-500 has a fairly significant edge on the 100-400. These two points steer me solidly in the direction of the 100-500.
@@MartinBrandt Which is why I sold all my Cabo gear and moved to Sony. Image quality and weight.
What’s the rule of thumb when you’re using lenses backwards, are you looking forward to more RF? Or do you still buy ef lenses around? It’s so hard to decide which ones to future proof because I like both mounts
Easy: if you use both mounts, go EF. Unlike lesser brands, EVERYTHING Canon has made since 1987 works flawlessly with the EF RF adapter. I still love my 28-135 IS USM from 1992; nothing else today shares the same useful range and small size. Thanks!
Ken Rockwell okay that makes sense, so if nothing like it exists like the 15-35mm F2.8IS then you get that , but if you’re okay with the 16-35f4L is or f2.8 then u get that. Okay that makes sense! That’s why you invest in glass that you love because it’s holds value ❤️🥺
I love my EF 16-35/4L IS. Works great and much less expensive than 15-35.
Ken Rockwell definitely going to look into that lens, but for me i have a crop sensor so maybe the 17-55mm f2.8 IS would be better for now! My question is, I’m watching old footage of michael Jordan, and i’m just so grateful for the cameras we have today, but i can’t help but wonder maybe you can answer this question: how come the noise was so pleasing back then? For some reason on my eos-m any video above 100 iso is unusable, but for some reason the camera’s in 1997 just has such pleasing noise, it is not distracting, the image is still sharp, and it doesn’t take away from the story. I haven’t had that before besides my canon 60d and my canon SL2 but everything else i tried the noise was just so disturbing? I’m so confused.
Simple: in olden days we didn’t have advanced noise reduction, if any. Thus the noise was like film grain: the image was never altered as it is today.
…calling industrial composites “plastic” seems very junior and misleading to me! Esp. recognising the fantastic abilities of those materials… (weight, strength, manufacturing precision, …to name a few)!
Call them what you want, they’re all plastics. Thanks!!!
So the 100-500 only works with the ref telecoverter and gets limited to start from 300mm, sounds like crippling the lens and make it less flexibel.
It has nothing to do with crippling. There simply is a mechanical reason as the teleconverter intrudes in the lens and bumps into a moving element in the RF 100-500 at 300mm.
Kurt Lust I understand the reason, but then you lose the range from 100 to 300mm (x2) so if the subject is coming towards you .... And this 100-400mm doesn’t have this issue, so much more usable (for me at least).
Ageeed. The 100-400 much better with TCs. I use the EF II extenders which stack.
i really wish canon rf mount had a 200-600 mm... like the sony which is only $2000.....this 100-500 with 7.1 aperture is $2800..... too much price
I prefer my EF 100-400. Thanks!
This settles it: I want both.
Good idea! Thanks!
Canon EF 100 400 II + extender 1,4 III + Adapter EF-EOS R = 1975 gr
Canon RF 100 500 = 1365 gr :-)
Yes.
Anybody knows what is the max aperture at 400mm?
Yes. See my review at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-500mm.htm#maxap it’s 6.3 at 400.
@@KenRockwellTV thanks!!!
Actually I have no idea why the plastic lens is even supplied with a tripod collar
Probably, a lot of glass inside is still quite heavy, despite plastics outside.
It’s heavy and long enough to warrant one.
Ken Rockwell I think it’s so great to have such quick access to a guru like you on photography questions
Thanks Ron
Won't replace true macro lens Ken !
No, but as I said it can for many people since few of us - myself included - never use 1:1. This lens gets to 1:3 which is more than I need - and way better than a wimpy 100mm macro, the focal length is long enough to get the correct perspective and working distance. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV You just shouldn't word it the way you did because there's a difference between a close up and a proper macro. The close up abilities of these telephoto are fantastic and very useful as you say but you must be careful to not confuse issues with your wording. A lot of the people watching obviously won't know the difference.
Nope. The 100-400L II is a great maco lens because you dont need to be too close the critter you are shooting. I use mine as a macro all the time.
The concept of 'true macro' is for mugs. The Canon 100mm macro is only true macro if witnin a couple of inches of your subject, and critters dont like that, not to mention the shading of light from the lens, and the crazy tight dof.
@@nordic5490 Well I've got a whole gallery of true macos matey, all taken at life size. You might think the formal definition of macro is for mugs, but you're a mug and you don't agree with it. I mean how freaking stupid to bag proper macro photography . Its just too hard for you that's all.
I agree with Nordic. There’s how I use these. We’re all different.
Unfortunately, I just returned my RF 100-500 lens. Honestly I wasn't impressed. My 400mm 5.6 prime is way better, and faster.
That’s why Canon offers so many choices. I love my 100-400 II. Thanks!
What left you unimpressed with the 100-500?
@@KenRockwellTV Hi Ken. I recently purchased the Canon 100-400 II lens and I love it. Ive never been a fan of zooms but since I purchased the lens, I dont even shoot the 400 prime anymore. The 100-400 II is razor sharp on my 7d mkii and R6.
The plastic lens won't last that much
Then get the 100-400 for less money - it’s all metal. www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100-400mm-ii.htm
The biggest difference is price lol.
And durability and teleconcerter compatibility. 100-400 wins!
Nobody in their right mind stacks a 1.4x TC with a 2x TC.
I do. Never worked well with dslrs in olden days, but works great with Mirrorless. Sample at www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r.htm#sampleimages (scroll down to my handheld moon photo which fills the frame. Thanks!
Bird nutters and astro photographers do and with mirrorless works great
4.5 - 7...hehehe freaken junk Nikon 200-500 constant 5.6
Nein. The 100-500 is for Mirrorless which hardly cares about lens aperture, while dslrs (for which the 200-500) is designed stop working well after f/5.6. Also 100-500 focuses much much closer and zooms twice as wide making it ten times more useful. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV was wondering why I can't find a review which mentions the 2 stop max aperture difference. I shoot action indoors with 2.8 lenses, using ISO 12,8 and up. I'm often at 51,2. Feel I'm in for a steep learning curve when I test the R3 as possible replacement for my 1DX-M3s. Also when I start adding some outdoor events. Looking forward to your videos as low light action photography makes the transition away from DSLR and the EF lens line.
Ken, thanks for the video. I just got the R5 and I have the 70-200 2.8is and somehow I ended up with two 2x converters. I had no idea I could use 2 2x converters stacked. I will try it today, but i can't imagine the image quality being any good. Do you stack converters or are you just saying you can do it? I still can't decide if I want the 100-400 or the 100-500, I will have to head to B and H and try them side by side. I could get the 400 today, but i would need to wait a month to get the 500. :-). This is just a hobby so I guess I should go with 400.
I DO stack my 1.4 and 2. Works great, see www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2018-10-yosemite/EOSR5050-the-moon.jpg for samples. Unsure if the 2s stack with each other. Only the EF and EF II stack; the EF III do not.
See this for sample photos and details www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100-400mm-ii.htm#tc last link was just one image