Thanks Jan. I recently upgraded from my 100-400 II to the 100-500 on my R5. As a direct comparison (both with the 1.4x extender), I found that I no longer need to run the images through Topaz sharpen, based on my first few shots of ships on the horizon a few miles away, cropped.
I've used both, and in the end went back and repurchased a well-used 100-400 II just to cost-balance my overall kit. The 100-500 is exceptional, but now that you can find the EF lens for
@@momo_the_great6969 I wouldn't say it's a ripoff, as there's definitely benefits and the price is a little lower now. But price to value is not as good as the 100-400
I currently use the 100-400 with an R7 which gives me an equivalent 640mm. However, one thing that was not mentioned in this video, is the fact that the 100-400 is 2 aperture stops brighter at the long end. So when taking pictures of owls in a dark forest, the wider opening does help a lot. Especially with a crop sensor. However, I won't deny the fact that the 100-500 does have a sharpness advantage and the extra 100mm is a noticeable benefit (800mm on the R7!!!). However, the sharpness advantage is mostly noticed with higher resolving (high megapixel) cameras which may expose the lens limitations. So, it's a tough one for me personally as the 100-500 is a lot more expensive here in Canada. I really like watching your videos, they are really well done.
Same here. The R7 is my "1,6x extender", so i saved a lot money with the EF 100-400 II. In fact i have a interesting choice with these 3 lenses for less money than a single RF 100-500 would cost: - Sigma 150-600C (good zoom range, just bad stabilized so no handheld video) - RF 800 F11 (super light for hiking etc and the reach!) - EF 100-400 II (universal, good in anything, especially since i dont use a teleconverter at all) - EF 70-200 2.8 III, rarely used for wildlife in my case since the 100-400 II is often macro enough and because its just not "the wildlife" lens to go for mostly. More like the cheaper RF 70-200 2.8 for casual, sports and landscape stuff. often i just pick the sigma or 100-400 depending if i also plan for video or if i want the most reach and little bit universality with one lens, or in some cases the 100-400 on R7 and RF 800 on R6 (its still sharper than the 100-400 could get with 2x TC and better stabilized as well as lighter) The RF 800 give me what the 100-400 or even the sigma with 600mm is not capable of, especially for handholding while hiking for always being ready the RF 800 is awesome in the woods (and the AF is faster and more precise than the sigma is also in low light, on R6 as well on R7)
Thanks for the detailed review. I prefer the look of the EF 100-400 over the RF 100-500, even at 800mm with the 2x extender. It renders smoother and accentuates noise less, just looks nicer and less of a "digital look". Where the EF 100-400 lens really shines though, is in the 200-350mm range, where it outperforms my RF 70-200 f2.8 on the R5 photographing portraits, given the subject size is equal.
I decided to go all in mirrorless because of the quality of the camera and lenses. So I sold my 100-400 mm and bought the 100-500mm. It’s so much lighter. Incredible lens. Thanks Jan for your insight. I love your videos!!!
I had the 100-400 II and compared it to the RF 100-500, both on the R5. For me, the RF 100-500 is quite a bit better. The extra 100mm makes a lot of difference in my photography, since i almost always shoot at maximum focal length. Plus the extra portion of sharpness, which is not insignificantly noticeable when cropping. Subjectively, I find the autofocus a lot faster and more accurate. Plus features like lower weight, not a main reason, but of course nice that it comes on top.
Just bought the RF 100-500 having used the EF 100-400 on 7D2 and for last year R7 mostly for birding-type record photography. I have not yet been able to test the sharpness and definition - which I am hoping will be better than EF lens - but immediately noticeable are two surprising differences. Firstly the rig takes longer to start up from sleep. I carry the rig on a sling where it often lies unused for long periods but normally switched on at the main on off switch. The RF lens takes several seconds to light up with an initial solid black screen - so you cannot locate a bird until it wakes up. The 100-400 does not have this few 'dead' seconds which can be critical for finding an overflying bird. Secondly, and again for BIF; when tracking an bird in flight with the AF tracker on it will freeze on a single frame making it impossible to continue tracking. Major disadvantage over the EF 100-400mm which never does this. Both issues are surprising as I would have supposed the RF lens would communicate with the camera more effectively, but in practise it seems to take longer to establish contact and to maintain comms.
@@jan_wegener Hi Jan - using a 256GB SDXC V90 card. Yes I agree I was not expecting the lens to make any difference to this sort of thing... I have my first full day out in the field with it tomorrow so will report back.
Hello Jan. Thank you for the speedy delivery of this promised video. Watching your videos is an expensive experience for me! I had convinced myself to wait for Canon to produce an R7, when your R5 review seduced me. I saved up my bikkies and bought it last week, rationalising that using my 100-400 ii plus 1.4 extender would be more than sufficient. Now you’ve blown that idea out of the water! All this before I graduate to lusting after a 600mm f4! Cheers.... Chris
Another great review mate, it really is a tough choice if you already own the 100-400 that is for sure. I enjoyed using both, but I will be getting the 100-500 as it is such a good lens. Cheers, Duade
Thank you, Jan, an excellent comparison between these two lenses. I do own the 100-400mm II since 2015 (bought it in Australia during a world trip) and I thought to keep it with my R5/R6 equipment. But recently I decided to go for the 100-500 and shell out the money, because: a) More reach without a teleconverter b) The quality of the 100-400mm with a teleconverter could not convince me. c) Better quality at the same focal length d)Shorter and lighter, especially when considering that the 100-400mm needs an adapter and a teleconverter to get to 500mm e) The selling value of the 100-400mm will probably decline even more, in the near future. For men it's always easy to find arguments to buy new stuff :-)
Well put; you nailed it! Mine should be arriving tomorrow (I sold my 100-400 mm II (EF) to get the RF, actually). My only mirrorless is the R6 Mk II, and I finally decided I wanted one lens to put on that body without the adapter. This means my 7D Mk II will generally be using my 24-105, which is a really versatile lens, and my 1DX Mk III will use my Sigma 100-600 Sport.
I sold my 1-400 mk II. It was never sharp on all of the dslrs i have owned: 70D, 6D, 80D, 7DM2, 5DM4, 5DSR, and 90D. Thur the OVF, of course. i love that 1-500 and don’t regret buying it for a minute. You didn’t mention how great it is for handheld video, but imagine being in 4k crop mode and 800mm effective, and rock steady. i agree 100% that the extra 100mm in the field, super sharp with no extender, is a big deal even though many people think otherwise. i don’t care what folks think though, its my money I’m spend. i think the r5 deserves the best optics you can put on it (i have a 500 mm f4 II IS USM as well). thanks for the video!
I did talk a lot about video in my review of the 100-500, so didn't want to mention it here too much, but I could also hand hold some video pretty well with the 100-400. I agree with you that a cam like the R5 should get the bets optics for max IQ.
I rented the 100-500 this week to go with the R6 that I rented too. Wanted to test both out and I guarantee you I'm buying both! The lens is incredible!
Great review. I borrowed the 100-500 to use on my R6 and was quite impressed. I also have the 5D4 and the 100-400. Not gonna make the switch to the 100-500. I like having the option of using the 100-400 on both camera bodies and didn’t find the extra 100mm and marginal image quality improvement worth the $1500 hit I’d have to take to make the switch.
I use the 100-400 with 1.4 extender on my R and it is a great combination. Birds in flight, dark days, it simply works well on mirrorless. I won't be bothering with the 100-500, too expensive for the ROI I would be getting, but I am just a hobbyist.
I purchased the Canon R5 earlier this year. I have been shooting with the Tamron Contemporary 150-600mm G2, but have been planning to upgrade to one of the lenses you compared here. However, I have gone back and forth and back again on which one to buy. I am hung up on the limitations of using the 100-500mm with an extender which has been my primary reason not to buy it. When shooting air shows, I often have to pull back into the 100-300mm range so this issue poses a problem for me. However, watching your demonstration on how the picture quality suffers when using the 100-400mm an the extender is very helpful - even three years after you made this video. The Tamron lens I've been using is heavier and longer than both of these lenses, so the dimensions and weight of these two Canon lenses in inconsequential to me. While I don't relish the idea if stacking an RF converter AND an extender on the 100-400mm in order to compete with the focal length the 100-500mm offers, I also hate the limitations caused by the extender on the RF model. I have been seriously considering buying the EF lens, but your comparison has shown me that maybe I don't really need to buy an RF extender. Thank you so much for this informative video! I am thankful to have discovered your channel.
Great post as usual, Jan! Like at least one other person below, I'm going with the 100-500 for my R6 Mk II. I'd been using my EF glass with an adapter, but finally decided I wanted an RF lens specifically for that camera. I'd been waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting some more for Canon to release more of the 200-800 RF, but I got tired of waiting, and also of Canon's complete lack of communication regarding when that would be available, so this is the next best thing for me.
Excellent video as always. I have the 100-400 version II and it would have been nice to crop the images to match 500mm for comparison. For now, I rather crop and take advantage of the brighter aperture. Did you crop and compare the images?
cropping from 400 to 500, isn't that much of a deal, the bigger question is what happens and how does IQ get affected if you can;t get close enough and need to crop more than you want, in those cases more focal length has the biggest advantage
I've got the 100-400 II, and I'm really on the fence about going with the 100-500, primarily because of the wonky teleconverter issue. Thanks for the great info, it's helping me decide.
Great to hear! It's a tricky decision when owning the 100-400 already. The TC issue potentially will show up less for you, since you don't need to use the TC to get to the 500mm range
I got the 100-400 II. It is packed in my camera bag with a 1.4X III + ring adapter. Those 2 NEVER come off this lens. And I always shoot wide open, never stop it down. I use this on an R5. I do agree with Jan's review. But I would add this: when you post process these images with Topaz DenoiseAI the difference in sharpness and detail as shown on the video are reduced dramatically. And Topaz DenoiseAI can now process CR3 files. No conversion required to Adobe DNG. I would love to have the 100-500, but because of the weight savings. Once you add the adapter and teleconverter it is a lot heavier setup..
I will keep my 100-400. Losing two stops of light at the long end with a 1.4 tc kind of negates any benefits to my mind. I shoot a lot of early morning and dusk, so it might make a difference. Caveat, I've never used the 100-500 though. Would I buy it it if I had lots of money to throw around? of course! 😁 ButI would upgrade to more MPX for wildlife before getting the 1-500.
Thanks for your review! I have a 100-400 ii with extenders 1.4x iii and 2x ii (EOS R) and I don't think it is worth upgrading just because the newer model is slightly better. In terms of sharpness, there's a lot that one can do in post. In most cases, good light makes more of a difference than pure sharpness levels. For new buyers, the RF is possibly a better bet.
Yes, both are great lenses. I tried to be pretty neutral in the review and sharing my observations. The 100-500 is slightly better, but not but an insane amount that everyone has to upgrade straight away. The main difference for me is the extra 100mm that can come in handy
Sharpness with the 100-400mm mii is as good as the rf100-500mm. The fact you can't add Tele extenders unless you're at 300mm or higher restricting your range. Plus the cheap plastic of the 100-500mm. Stabilization is about equal but the 100- 400mm mii can be found at cheaper cost add the ef/rf adaptor and you have a solid metal constructed workhorse heavier but built solid. And will.out range the rf. The choice is clear for me for I use Canon pro dslr's so using the 100- 400mm II on my Canon R3 is going to be a great choice for me.
Hi Jan. recently discovered your channel and planning to improve my photography skills. Switched up to R7 I. Spring from90d but kept my 100-400Lii (economics) seriously tempted to move to RF 100-500, it loses the converter and interesting it’s not so good with 1.4xiii - I guess things are cheeper for a reason. Love your images - has kind of sold it to me. Off to watch more of your channel.
Initially, I decided I would keep the 100-400. After watching your first review of the 100-500, I became more intrigued about the lighter weight, extra reach and faster AI. Also, not having to use the EF converter would be a plus. So now I own both, but I'm contemplating selling my 100-400 and 1.4x EF teleconverter. I do find that the 100-500 performs better. As an intermediate-skilled hobbyist it's a lot of money to spend, but I enjoy bird photography and having more keepers with less effort is worth it to me.
I went through the same experience but kept my teleconvertors to use with my EF300 f4 prime lens, and have sold the EF100-400 before the selling price drops further. However it will give someone the chance of buying a superb lens if they can't afford the 100-500 mm.
Canon 100-400 vs rf 100-500 vs 400 DO mk2 + 1.4 extender. Thanks Jan for a very informative video comparison. I am doubling down on my bird photography in preparation for a trip to Africa next year and find myself agonising over my new R5 kit. I have the 100 to 400 Zoom, which works extremely well , and I recently bought the 100 to 500 RF lens which is an even bigger pleasure to use. The extra hundred millimetres is certainly noticeable in the field. My question relates to a 2 camera setup: given that weight will be a major issue on an African Safari And that with advancing years I really don’t think I’m up for a 500 mm or 600 mm prime, I’m thinking of 2 alternate set ups to give me maximum versatility including low light shooting. The first is to keep the 100 to 400 for its native range, probably on an R6 mk2 body and pair it with a 100 to 500 mm with a 1.4 extender to give me an active range of 100 mm to 700 mm, using the 100-500 + Ex as a fixed 420 to 700 mm lens. The wild card is the idea of getting an EF 400 mm, DO mk2 and using that with my EF 1.4 converter to give me a 5.6 prime of 560 mm as my premium set up and keep the 100 to 500 as a native set up on the other camera. Have you tried that lens, which seems to offer big white versatility and quality with relatively small size and weight? It should also help with low light shooting at Dawn and dusk, which are of course premium times for African and most other forms of wildlife. I really appreciate your thoughts, since I have been unable to find anything that directly covers my question. Many thanks for your excellent videos, which I’m thoroughly enjoying while recuperating in hospital for a procedure. I’ve just booked myself into your master class, because if I can get bird shots that are a fraction as good as yours I’ll be a happy chappy. Keep up the good work.
Great job on this video comparison, Jan. You hit the ground running, didn't waste your viewers' time (Thank You!), and backed up your analysis with image comparisons. The Canon design/firmware limitation on using the 100-500mm in using an extender only at 300mm+ is a What The...? moment for me, but it is what it is. My takeaway is that the 100-500mm is just a bit better in several ways than the 100-400mm, which we would hope for with newer hardware, but at a cost increase that may not match the gain in image quality and usability. So for those with deep pockets, upgrading to a 100-500mm if they already own the 100-400mm plus a mirrorless body and lens adapter could be a no-brainer. But those with tighter budgets, and those who do bird and other wildlife photography and need large prints only rarely, might hold off on upgrading. One less expensive workaround: post-processing software is getting better at improving sharpness with a minimal hit to noise. What you gained going to the 100-500mm, I think people may be able to get with the 100-400mm PLUS Topaz AI Sharpness and/or Topaz AI DeNoise, at a significantly lower cost. Of course that workflow is slower, so one would only go that way with keeper images, a good desktop PC/Mac than can handle the Topaz apps efficiently, and more time than money for lens upgrades.
I have been using the 100-500 a lot lately and it's a pretty amazing lens. I have hardly any OOF images. But I agree that it comes down to budget, especially if you already own a 100-400. The lack of the 100 extra mm is the key thing missing from the 100-400 and that cannot really be compensated for.
I recently took delivery on athe Rf 100-500.. I was using the RF 100-400 before. I -love- the results from the 100-500. I am shooting with the 1.4 just like I did with the 100-400. The only negative (minor) to the 100-500 is the physical size and weight - manageable.
I have the EF 100-400 II and EF 1.4x III, but I'm gonna make the switch to the RF 100-500. It looks like the RF lens has about the same reach as the 100-400 + 1.4x. This means an extender is not necessary on RF, and you get the benefit of better image quality by not having to use one. This is the main selling point for me. And lighter and smaller package overall when considering the size/weight of the extender (and also the EF-RF adapter) is icing on the cake.
Really helpful plain English video thanks. Exactly the dilemma I am facing, so you've helped lean me in the direction of the 100-500 and also saves buying the converter ring too of course.
Hi Jan I really enjoy your videos. These days we have less and less tutorial videos like yours. Most of your videos help us to improve our skills. Sadly, these days youtubers want us to buy the latest and the greatest most of the time. Some videos you did like Shooting Manual, Exposure, 20,000$ vs 2,000$ were excellent. In this video, you ask us to share our thoughts on 100-400 II vs 100-500. My opinion is to keep what I have (5D IV + 100-400II) as long as possible. As an intermediate++ hobbyist, I can't justify the cost for switching systems these days. Money does not grow on trees. I am convinced that a R5 + 100-500 is a better combo than 5D IV + 100-400 II but I get most of the shots I want. By the way, I am impressed by the beautiful birds you have in your country even in your backyard. In which part of the Australia do you live ?
I've just gone completely mirrorless upgrading from EOS5d Mk4's to an R6 and now an R7. I've had the EF100-400 but greatly appreciated the light RF100-400 as I do most of my wildlife photography hand held and on foot. I have just traded in my EF100-400 and ordered the RF100-500 because of the better reach and lighter weight. I will also use the new lenses at air shows where the greater reach and general sharpness will be much appreciated. I've enjoyed your RUclips videos.
Thank you I for the review, just what I needed to see. Have ordered the R6 and the 100-500 mm in the sales, now patiently waiting for a delivery date. Think I’ll be extremely happy
Thanks this answered my question. Another awesome review Jan. I am keeping my 100-400mm mark II and paired with my R6 and it really produces a sharp image.
I've always been a prime shooter until I got my R6 and the 100-500. I really love the versatility of this lens, it's super sharp and the close focus distance is just killer. I also have the RF 800 F11 prime and while it's nice to have the reach, the slow aperture and long minimum focus distance is very limiting. Excellent comparison video Jan, thanks for putting it together.
Heath I am curious.. Since you have the 100-500 and the 800 what would you do in my situation. I run my 70-200II f2.8 with a 2x and I find it just as sharp as my 400mm 5.6 and also why i never bought a 100-400. So I was thinking 140-400 is close to the 100-500 and I should just get the 800 f11. Since you have been able to play with both, in my situation knowing what you do now.. would you get the 100-500 OR the 800. you can only have one in your decision and you cannot buy the 1.4x
@@MaddManzz00 I find when I'm moving around I tend to use the 100-500 much more than the 800. The slow F11 aperture can means high .isos in low light and very long minimum focus has made me miss shots where the subject was just too close. I only moved to mirrorless last year so I still have a lot of EF lenses, I also have the 400 F5.6L and it's a great prime. If I had to choose between the 100-500 or an 800 I think I'd still save up and get the 100-500 as it's just so versatile. It's minimum focus is really close and since the mount is RF you don't have to use an adaptor which would make a 100-400 even longer and heavier. The one thing I have not tried yet though is tele convertors, I have an EF 1.4x II but I have not purchased any RF tele convertors. The other downside to the 800 is that the autofocus points are limited more towards the middle of the frame so you can't use the whole viewfinder to autofocus. Things I do like about the 800 though are that it is sharp for a non L lens, the image stabilization works well, and 800mm is nice when you need that extra reach. The price is big factor for the 100-500, it's a really expensive lens and I had to sell other gear and save to purchase it.
I used to have both lenses at the same time but now only RF 100-500L is the keeper. Just love the range and overall performance. I also do more landscape than birds, so f/7.1 does not really bother me as much.
I own a R5 since a month. I also have the 100-400ii + 1.4X Extender, up to recently used with my 7D2. My thought was that the 100-400 + 1.4X in combination with the 800/11 would provide me with what I need. However, after this month I found several reason to upgrade to the 100-500: - Weight! With the 100-400 I need a RF Mount adapter and the EF 1.4X . Also the 100-400 is somewhat heavier, altogether I get more than 400 g added weight. - Stabilisation, in the best of worlds 6X, compared to 4X with 100-400, provides new opportunities like handheld video. - The combination 100-500 + RF 1.4X extender, will mean I can have the extender in my pocket until needed, as compared to the need of wearing a backpack for the 800/11. The combination is also weatherproof, and give me a minimum focusing distance 1.2m, as compared to 6m with 800/11. Finally, and most important, Sharpness! I feel the need to always have my 1.4X extender mounted on the 100-400 to avoid extensive cropping, to be compared with 100-500 on its own. Also when needed, the combination 100-500 + 1.4X (=700mm) is at least as sharp as the 800/11.
Thank you for this video. This is the first I have seen from you and will certainly watch others. I am currently behind the technology curve and shoot with a Canon G3 X. I will be upgrading to the R5 and this video answered all the questions I could possible think of related to these two zoom lenses. I will get the 100-500. Subscribed.
Hello Jan. Nice video, thanks very much. The biggest investment for any bird pro/am photographer will be the Glass. But the new Canon F11 lenses IMO may be a real game changer with these bodies. Best regard, Thomas
Jan I have the R5 and have this week purchased the RF100-500 to replace my Prime EF 400 F/5.6L EF USM. The EF 400 was a very sharp lens that made my bird photography pictures pin sharp, but the new RF100-500 has amazed me with its versatility and sharpness also very fast auto focusing too. The RF 100-500 comes highly recommended from my self and has replaced both my EF70-200 and the EF 400 with no regrets from me.
The new 1.4 x Extender on the Nikon 70-200S Mirrorless is the first extender ever that is NOT a compromise Optically or AF Speed.No Image loss on the latest Nikon Tech >> You are of course correct on old Nikon setups and Current Canon offerings
Excellent review of these lenses Jan, I found exactly the same results albeit I couldn’t do a side by side comparison as I needed to sell the EF100-400ii to pay for the RF100-500
hi Jan , exzellent comparison . I sold my EF 100-400 || and got my RF 100-500 and i am very happy. All the pictures are much more crisp and the extra 100 mm are very often helpful . best regards Bernhard
I sold my 100-400mm and will buy the 100-500mm. I have committed to RF mount so I'm all in. The EF is heavier to start with, then you add the EF to R converter and 1.4 extender and the weight just keeps heading north.
I got my R5, and only after that did i start to consider to get into bird photography for the first time... luckily i got hold of a pristine second hand 100-400 ii for 850usd which i found an amazing deal to let pass. I use it now with a 1.4 ex iii and i am extremely happy with the whole setup. Thanks for another great video! Cheers
I am in the exact position you mentioned, a5dsr with 100-400 mk2 user wanting to upgrade to the R5. I don't like spending money but the 100-500 makes a lot more sense in the long run
I have owned the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM since it debuted. It is a wonderful lens however now I own an R6...the RF 100-500 is calling to me! For a while, I thought that I could just use a 2x converter and it won't be that bad...however watching this video, well I knew the conclusion all along. I am an enthusiast-level bird photographer (see: can't commit to the expense and burden of hauling around a huge prime). That extra 100mm of reach would really help! I shoot mainly in the woods - small, fast moving subjects so auto-focus response is nearly as important as IQ - an extender diminishes both. And I was pleased to see that Jan found the RF 2x converter (1000mm) to be acceptable so that is nice to have that option as well. The new problem - trying to actually buy an RF 100-500! The demand is so high, they sell out immediately so it will be a struggle!
Yes, I got lucky that my dealer had a few in stock! 2x on any zooms lens isn't great, but on the 100-500 it did a decent job at times on the 100-400 I didn't like it at all
As a fairly advanced amateur in South Africa, a wildlife heaven, I am glad to have come across your channel and this very interesting comparison. I own the 100-400 mkii and use it for anything - from macro to long shots - of Africa's birds, insects, wild animals and lanscape. I missed two things in your review: 1. Obviously the 100-500 is exclusively (I think) a full-frame lens for Canon's new range of mirrorless cameras, however, I use my 100-400 on a 90D and it gives me a focal length of 640 with great results from f5.6 to f8. We have harsh sunlight for 300 days of the year so stopping down to f11 is seldom necessary, Auto ISO does the trick and I hardly ever go beyond f8.I would like to hear your views on the crop sensor and the 1.6 add-on focal range. I also use the 5Div with the 1.4 extender with great results too at f8 in our conditions. 2. The other comparison I missed is the price difference, in our case of 33%, between the two lenses. Given the minor but clear qualitative differences as seen in your video and adding the cost of the 100-500 to the need of moving from high quality DSLR to a R5 or R6 and the 100-500, would you still do it? Your views will be appreciated.
Hey, I didn't focus on the price too much, because it varies so much between countries. All in all the 100-500 is more pricy. And yes it only works with the new mirrorless cameras. Crop sensor can be nice too add range and also come with drawbacks, like lesser IQ and more noise. I have moved from a 5DIV to an R5 and added a 100-500 as well. The difference is night and day compared to my Mark IV to be honest. So much so that I sold it and bought another R5.
@@jan_wegener thanks for the reply. That's my current predicament. Glad I'm not the only one who finds it tricky. But I think I agree the R6ii makes more sense. Invest in glass and on occasion use upscale if needed.
Thanks for these excellent videos Jan. They are extremely helpful and the information you give is thoughtful and very well presented. This is the best 'CRL', Complete Runaround Lens! I have other RF lenses but they have been lacking what I need - lightweight, extreme versatility and amazing optics - the AF with the EOS R5 is also terrific. Can't thank you enough.
Again another great video Jan. I own 7dmk2 with 100-400mk2. But that extra 100mm would be so welcome. I have to win the lottery first, but maybe once I will go for the to-be-realesed RF 600/4 and than this 100-500 would the best all round birding lens!
Hi Jan. Very interesting comparison. I have owned the 100-400 for a couple of years, and I have loved it. The speed, the clarity and quality, but recently getting my R5, I sold it and bought the 100-500, and despite the price, it outruns the former. Actually, I used a 1.4 extender to get that reach, and I experienced exactly that drop in sharpness. Besides the things mentioned in your video, I also enjoy, that the 100-500 does not feel that cold in the winter time because of the plastic materials. Good video again, Jan 🤗 Kind Regards, Jan
I might be wrong but it almost looks like the 100-400mm with the extenders is slightly backfocusing. There seemed to be slightly more details on other parts of the goose than on the eye. Once again, I could be wrong there and youtube compression doesn't help, just a thought I had when you showed the images. Thanks for the video!
With the R5 there shouldn't be any back or front focussing. It's possible that the AF sometimes missed a bit, but I always tried to pick the best images from the ones I took.
@@jan_wegener Oh right with the eye detect, I guess the camera picks what is the sharpest focus. My bad, didn't think of that. Thanks again for your videos
I have a 100-400 II and a 500m prime for shooting birds. When 100-500 first came out I decided to skip it especially because i just bought a RF70-200 not that long ago... but watching your vedio has made me rethink...
great video, I am looking for a larger telephotos lens as I have the old school EF 100-300mm 1:5.6 L which has served me well for $120 when I was learning but I am seeing it limitations in what I am doing.
Excellent topic Jan. I've used both and the 7.1 aperture was a deal breaker for me. Trying to photograph distant ducks on a lake the first 2-3 hours after sunrise was a real struggle.
Thank you. There will be many interesting thoughts on this topic. Did you compare it to the 100-400? I never felt the 2/3 of a stop made much of a difference, even when it was dark
You need to have a realistic expectation if you are looking for these kind of shots then you need to look for a prime lens, but this lens is exceptionally good in every way.
The RF 100-500 mm is at estimated f6.0 (when set to 1/3 Stop increments it is at f6.3) at 400mm, so it is just slightly darker than your 100-400 at f5.6. You are not convincing me with your arguments. If you are shooting in the evening/morning both lenses are not the right tools for this and you have to choose a Prime Lens instead.
I have the EF 100-400mkII, and unless it gets damaged, and will cost more than $1000 to have it repaired, I'm staying with it. I went on recent shoot where there were egrets and herons, and I got photos of them tossing small fish into the air and catching them. Images were clean, detail was fantastic. I do have the extenders but I use those with my EF 300 and 400 L IS primes. Fantastic images using those, also.
Thanks. Good catch about the image quality, most reviewers don't catch that. I agree with you on the IQ on the 100-400 II. And your comments, have helped me to make a upgrade decision. (Just have to save up a bit first.) (I bought the ef 100-400 II as a upgrade from the Tamron 150-600 G1, and it was a dessition I was happy with, but it's time to move on....) Edit: I have now upgraded to the 100-500 and I absolutely love that lens. Without the lens tripod collar it's approx 600g lighter that my old EF 100-400 II + 1.4x + RF EF adapter. I use this lens without teleconverter and the 7.1 is only from 470 to 500. So what's the fuss ?. Much better than the EF 100-400 II+ 1.4x in the 400-500mm range anyway. And at 500mm with the 100-400+1.4x you wil be at f/8.
I tested the 100-500L and RF 800 F11 as the first telephoto lenses at all, never had any glass that big on a camera before! Yes, the 100-500L is IMPRESSING! Especially on R7 its a "lightweight" beast of a telezoom/wildlife video/photo lens. But just the price made me think..... 3000$ for an air pump?! For less than 3000$ i bought recently (in total around 2400$ 2nd hand!): - RF 800 F11.... tested it at the same time as i had the 100-500L (w and wo 2x TC) in my hands.... as much the 100-500L impressed me (sharpness, size, af, zoom range,....), the price of the RF 800 F11 impressed me more. On full frame i prefer the 800 F11 much more over the 100-500, especially with 2x TC on the 1-5L its performing "poor" (when it comes to wildlife!) - Sigma 150-600C.... in fact i would prefer the Sigma over the Canon 100-500L if i am NOT (!!!) interested in video because its impossible to make usable handhand video footage on the wobbly sigma lens, its biggest disadvantage. Also, as david endless reminds us in his video - 100mm more are a charme! And same argument goes for the Sigma 150-600 vs RF 100-500L! On APS-C the 960mm effectively are often just enough. I dont want to imagine losing nearly 160mm with the 100-500L. - so i bought the 100-400 II as i saw it for a "too good to be true" price.... Its especially on the EOS R7 a "better" 100-500L (if 1-5L is used on FF!) As much david tries to deny that the F5.6 are not much better than F7.1.....ITS NOT TRUE, i didnt see F7.1 hurting me much on full frame yet (RF 800 F11 owners are hardened anyways...), but god, i would be upset at the 100-500L with its F7.1 at my R7.... ISO 16000 vs 12800 is a huge difference in noise already and i know that because i use the sigma often at F7.1 and F8 where the 100-400 II is still sharp at F5.6
The RF 100-500L is a very nice lens, but its ridicilously priced Im wondering, especially since they have already good options up to 200mm from beginner to professional... why they just didnt copy the Sony 200-600 and did their own stabilizer and DO optics magic on the lens?! Thats btw another point.... for wildlife dedicated usecases, the Sony 200-600 GM is more versatile than the Canon 100-500, for the canon lens extenders and/or APS-C and/or additional crop are a must have. I would only love the 100-500L lens for sports, hiking etc because its really small and light for 100-500mm, but as soon you can live with heavier/older gear, there are so much more interesting and/or better alternatives, in the canon world, as well 3rd party (Sigmas tele primes are for example STUNNING GOOD also work perfect on mirrorless canons) and other manufactureres. if Sony would finally up their game in animal eye autofocus and release affordable cameras as well lenses... i would have definately switched from canon to sony. Sadly im stuck in the canon system yet, especially since only canon deliver usable wildlife features for an affordable price at the cost of a locked RF lens system full of barely usable glass for the most people, especially APS-C owners.
I’m sticking with my 100-400 for the time. Maybe I upgrade in the future but my hope is for Sigma n Tamron to produce r mount equivalents to their EF 150-600 so that I can move to them at a fraction of the price and even more reach and simply sidestep the canon 100-500.
I have a Tamron 150-600. It's decent and much cheaper, but it weighs a ton by comparison and isn't fun to shoot with; and it isn't as sharp as that Canon. As soon as the 100-500 comes back in stock, I'm trading the Tamron for the Canon without looking back. Canon doesn't open their mount for third parties, so they have to reverse engineer RF mount versions. No one has produced a third party RF lens with AF and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one, especially a super telephoto zoom.
@@jan_wegener Samyang does two MFs and one AF. I suspect the legacy third parties like tamron and sigma take their time because they want to improve their lens designs.
Third Party lens manufacturers have not struggled. Canon is suing anyone who tries to reverse engineer the RF mount, unless they have permission. And Canon has not given permission. Samsung has been forced to remove its reversed RF’s from their line up.
What might have been interesting is to shoot the 100-500 lens using the R5, and then shooting the 100-400 lens using the R7, to see then how the two lenses compare in overall sharpness & performance without having to use the 1.4X converter 🤔. Good video and interesting to listen to 👍
This has just opened my eyes. I loved my 100-400 II, which I sold when I was moving to an R5 body. I have debated the RF 100-500 but £2700-2900 cost for 'just' the lens, is hard to swallow for enthusiast like me. So I have considered reacquiring the 100-400 II (loved the build, speed, size) and the suggestion of the R7! 160-640 equivalent! Interesting to say the least.
Thank you Jan. Another excellent video. I own the 100-400 and a 1.4x iii. For now at least, I plan to stick with them, but I found your comparison to be very enlightening. I was debating whether to buy a 2x iii. I think I'll take your advice instead and try to get closer to my subjects. I also have a 500mm f/4 prime, so I still have some options. The idea of the 100-400, the 1.4 and the 2x was very attractive as a versatile kit for carrying on longer forays away from our vehicle, but I think I'd be disappointed with the performance of the 2x.
@@alcosound I'm using the R7 myself. I've used it with the 100-400 and the 1.4x III tc quite a bit. Other than being a bit slow (f8), the results have been very good. Being a zoom, it would probably be perfect for air shows - zoom out to locate the subject and zoom in to take the shot(s).
@@steve.hamlin.artist Since I own already the 100-400L II and the 1.4 TC II, I may go for the R7 (but the body is too small for my large palms - is there some grip available?). What about the speed and accuracy of focusing? My 80D is shooting fine with the 100-400L II alone, but the 1.4TC II limits this body to the center focus point only, if I remember correctly. And I want more reach, to tell the truth (looking at the RF200-800 with interest, I have to admit)
@@alcosound The gen II 1.4 TC works fine too. There's a slight difference in sharpness with the gen III. I'd recommend upgrading to it if you plan to stick with the 100-400 IS II, but you should get very good results with the gear you have. SmallRig makes a cage for the R7, but I don't have it. I've seen some RUclips videos where people have mounted old battery grips to get the extra grip size, The battery part is nonfunctional. I have fairly large hands (wear size large gloves) and I find the R7 to be perfectly comfortable as is. I have an M6 Mk II which I found uncomfortably small. I did mount a SmallRig cage on that. The AF on the R7 is very good, but a little unpredictable. There are a lot of really good RUclipss that discuss the strengths and weaknesses, including at least one by Jan. The AF area is virtually the entire screen - much larger than on any DSLR. Mounting the 100-400, with or without the TC has no effect on it. The only lenses that do that I know of are the f11 600 and 800mm. Even they have roughly the same size AF area as a typical DSLR at its best. The advantages of a mirrorless go far beyond the AF area. I think you'll really enjoy the R7. Check out factory refurbs from Canon. You can get a camera that has been more thoroughly checked than a new one at a significant savings. Jan - I apologize for hijacking your comment section. I hope you don't mind. I also hope you'll correct anything that I might have gotten wrong.
@@steve.hamlin.artist thanks for the information. I will wait for more impressions from the air shows scene next year of the RF200-800mm as well, which has piqued my interest as you can imagine... I have concluded that this combination with the R7, plus an RF-EF adaptor would set me back about four thousand EUR, which is not for the faint of heart, so the 100-400L II and 1.4TC II might be a good interim solution in the quest for more reach...
Hi Jan. An extremely well made video review. Ample samples, detailed coverage of all aspects that one can think of or need to know for the buyer. Thanks. As a person who is deciding to upgrade to mirrorless setup, the Sony a7r4 + 200-600mm looks a lot more tempting. Really wish you would make a comparison review on these, to make the decision easier and well informed.
Hey, yes, I will need to get my hands on that set up at some point. In saying that, for birds, knowing that the Canon Eye AF is class leading, I find it very hard to look past and R5 and 100-500 atm.
@@jan_wegener I agree. The smaller sensor can be a problem if they de idę to add to much pixel. 17mpix out of R5 is enough. I didnt like too much the images from 7d or 7d2. Especially when comparing them with ff sensor.
Interesting comparison. I wonder how would both lenses fare using the Canon R7? (I own the 100-400L II and the 1.4x II extender, so it would be a nice upgrade for reach on air shows, almost as the newly announced 200-800 R mount lens...
I own the 100-500, never shot with the 100-400 but both have their weaknesses and their strengths it seems to me. The 7.1 aperture isn't to much of a big deal, the 100-500 stops down to 6.3 around 365mm and goes to 7.1 at around 472mm. So you lose a 1/3 of a stop at 400mm compared to the 100-400 but you gain an extra 100mm at the long end. Sure I would have liked a 5.6.at 500mm but you got to pay for it somehow, ie price and weight. The extender isn't a big issue for me, I put an extender on and use it for the long end 99.999% of the time. I'll switch to my second camera body with my 70-200 2.8 on it if subjects get real close. Both of these lenses are great lenses!
I currently have an R5 and a Sigma 150-600 C. The bargain price and specs of the sigma and also tamron 3rd party lenses has kept me from trying out the RF 100-500. Even at a longer focal length of 600mm, the Sigma has a wider aperture than the Canon 100-500. Would be nice to see a comparison if you ever get the opportunity.
Since i got the R5 i was really disappointed with the Sigma 150-600 (which was acceptable on the RP) so i ordered the 100-500 yesterday. After seeing this test i'm happy to have done so, as i also considered a used 100-400 with 1.4 TC as it would have been half the price. The aperture advantage of the Sigma quickly goes away as you need to stop it down to F8 (at least on my copy) to get somewhat decent results. My Sigma gives me similiar results to those shown with the 100-400 with 2x TC, so for me the 100-500 will be a big upgrade. In the end, sadly it still seems that you get what you pay for with lenses.
The Sigmas sharpness and focusing abilities stop you getting the best out of your R5. I wish the Canon didn't drop to 7.1 but it still absolutely kills the Sigma.
Unfortunately I've come to the same conclusion, the 150-600C lack that crisp sharpness on the R6. Was fine on the 80D. Both kidneys are already sold, might try to sell a few toes to be able to afford it.
@@markrigg6623 That's right. I realized that nearly at the first use. The focus is probably the biggest issue as 95% or more of the shots aren't exactly focused... On the rare occasions it really nails the focus, the iq isn't that bad (can be achieved easier with flowers or a closeup of tree bark where I got good results, which simulates lab test conditions). The narrower aperture is to be expected, for one to keep size and weight down but also to avoid it competing with the 200-400 F4 with integrated extender that costs 4 times as much and is 560 5.6 at the longest setting. I think with the R5 7.1 isn't that much of an issue. Will be interesting to see how it behaves on the RP that I didn't sell yet.
@@peterh7176 I believe the focusing system of DSLR's works a bit differently / better with 3rd party lenses (found some indications of that on the web). I had the Sigma 100-400 on the 80D and it worked quite well, didn't test it that much on the RP but after the fact I think it was the better lens but too short for full frame... Sigma stated on their website that firmware 2.0 or higher is needed on the lens for good operation with the R5 or R6, all tough there are still some limitations... For now we'll probably be limited to Canon lenses on R series cameras.
Thank you for an Excellent and objective review. I am an amateur and have been shooting Canon for over 10 years and own a large assortment of EF-L lenses Including 600ll /f4 300ll f2.8 as well as the 100-400 ll. I purchased an R-5 body in March past and I am very pleased as it makes my birds in flight photography much easier. Also all my EF lenses perform well on the R5. I enjoy all genres of photography, for the moment I do not feel compelled to start a transition to RF lenses. Thank you, Jean-Louis 😊
Thanks for another great comparison. After watching your video I am more inclined to replace my beloved 100-400 with the 100-500. Decisions, decisions, decisions.
@@jan_wegener Well, I bought the RF100-500 and it is a great lens. I used it first with some macro shots using Extension Tubes and got great results. I just posted a RUclips video on my channel Pablo GE Foto. In a couple of weeks I will be at White Sands National Park in Southern New Mexico USA. Can not wait to try it there. Thanks again for your excellent videos.
Thank you for the great video. I am the owner of a 100-400 mm Version 1 for many years now. I decided to change to 100-500 mm. Time for a change: new technology, the extra 100 mm and the much lighter lens are important to me. I already have the Canon R5 (fantastic body - I was still using the canon 60D ...) but I am very frustrated since the 100-500 mm lens is not available in Europe for the moment. Very, very frustrating.
Great video! Thanx! I bought the 100-400 a few months ago. I love it. Using it quite a lot with 1.4 ext. I forget to stop down all the time. Will try that tomorrow :-) I'm still on EF camera 6DII. So no need to think about buying the 100-500. But it's great to see all these nice lenses Canon is making.
Great review, as usual in this chanel. Any opinion on the 800f11 vs the 100-400II+2xTC in IQ? Already have the 100-400II and thinking on jump into mirrorless.
while I haven't gotten my hands on a 100-500 yet to test it, I was able to test a Sony 200-600 today and boy was that sharp and nice to use (tested on A1). A bit of a bummer for us Canon shooters, that Sony lens is only 1700€ vs. the Canon 100-500 is >3000€. The Canon is the harder to pull off from an engineering standpoint, but the Sony has 600mm reach. I'm not switching or anything, that's for sure, but I really hope Canon's RF lens prices will be adjusted rather sooner than later.
As my only big lens, the Sony would be a nice choice, because of the reach. As a secondary lens like I use it, the 200-600 would be much too large for me and I value the versatility the 100-500 brings to the table. Both lenses are great, really. The pricing on the RF stuff is certainly very aggressive
Excellent review as always. Your review will be a reference for those who are deciding on either the 100-400 or the 100-500. I will share your video. I think it is a no brainer to get the 100-500 if your own either the R5 or R6. I totally agree with your review. I have both lens. But since I have the RF version, the EF 100-400 is collecting dust. I would say go for the 100-500 if you are after ultimate image quality.
I have the 100-400 EF is II. I'd love to have the RF100-500 but I have the R6 mk ii as well as the 90D DSLR. So I'll keep my EF lens and use an RF/EF adaptor so I will still be capable of using both cameras. Also have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 and I'd also like to switch to the RF version, but again can't use with both cameras, which I do frequently. I did purchase the RF 24-70 which I love.
Well done! Just what I wanted to know. Any difference between phase AF and contrast AF with the 100-400? Contrast is supposed to be the slowest, but most accurate AF. It will negate any adjustment issues which might impact phase AF. For most of what I do, the 100-400 will do just fine. Anything too far away will be 600mm country. The 100-500 is likely to have more problems in bad light. That is Winter in Norway or a dark jungle according to Jeff Cable. Every stop or half stop counts.
Thank you, Jan, an excellent comparison between these two lenses. I do own the 100-400mm II / Thinking ,, Sell my 100-400mm then that would offset the cost of the 100-500mm by $1100 ish
The most in depth and rich samples comparison on RUclips for these two lenses. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed the video
Thanks Jan. I recently upgraded from my 100-400 II to the 100-500 on my R5. As a direct comparison (both with the 1.4x extender), I found that I no longer need to run the images through Topaz sharpen, based on my first few shots of ships on the horizon a few miles away, cropped.
The 100-400 II is such an exceptional lens, it was an easy choice for me to grab that one over the 100-500, which was twice as expensive.
Yes, depending on where you live, the price difference can be as huge factor
same, I picked up a 100-400 II for 2k whereas the 100-500 would set me back 4k
I've used both, and in the end went back and repurchased a well-used 100-400 II just to cost-balance my overall kit. The 100-500 is exceptional, but now that you can find the EF lens for
The 100 - 500 is a massive rip off.
@@momo_the_great6969 I wouldn't say it's a ripoff, as there's definitely benefits and the price is a little lower now. But price to value is not as good as the 100-400
I have an R7 and I bought 100-400 it used in perfect condition for half the price of RF 100-500. And with the R7 you get 640mm with a very nice light
I currently use the 100-400 with an R7 which gives me an equivalent 640mm. However, one thing that was not mentioned in this video, is the fact that the 100-400 is 2 aperture stops brighter at the long end. So when taking pictures of owls in a dark forest, the wider opening does help a lot. Especially with a crop sensor. However, I won't deny the fact that the 100-500 does have a sharpness advantage and the extra 100mm is a noticeable benefit (800mm on the R7!!!). However, the sharpness advantage is mostly noticed with higher resolving (high megapixel) cameras which may expose the lens limitations. So, it's a tough one for me personally as the 100-500 is a lot more expensive here in Canada. I really like watching your videos, they are really well done.
Same here.
The R7 is my "1,6x extender", so i saved a lot money with the EF 100-400 II.
In fact i have a interesting choice with these 3 lenses for less money than a single RF 100-500 would cost:
- Sigma 150-600C (good zoom range, just bad stabilized so no handheld video)
- RF 800 F11 (super light for hiking etc and the reach!)
- EF 100-400 II (universal, good in anything, especially since i dont use a teleconverter at all)
- EF 70-200 2.8 III, rarely used for wildlife in my case since the 100-400 II is often macro enough and because its just not "the wildlife" lens to go for mostly. More like the cheaper RF 70-200 2.8 for casual, sports and landscape stuff.
often i just pick the sigma or 100-400 depending if i also plan for video or if i want the most reach and little bit universality with one lens, or in some cases the 100-400 on R7 and RF 800 on R6 (its still sharper than the 100-400 could get with 2x TC and better stabilized as well as lighter)
The RF 800 give me what the 100-400 or even the sigma with 600mm is not capable of, especially for handholding while hiking for always being ready the RF 800 is awesome in the woods (and the AF is faster and more precise than the sigma is also in low light, on R6 as well on R7)
Thanks for the detailed review. I prefer the look of the EF 100-400 over the RF 100-500, even at 800mm with the 2x extender. It renders smoother and accentuates noise less, just looks nicer and less of a "digital look". Where the EF 100-400 lens really shines though, is in the 200-350mm range, where it outperforms my RF 70-200 f2.8 on the R5 photographing portraits, given the subject size is equal.
I decided to go all in mirrorless because of the quality of the camera and lenses. So I sold my 100-400 mm and bought the 100-500mm. It’s so much lighter. Incredible lens. Thanks Jan for your insight. I love your videos!!!
Good stuff!
I had the 100-400 II and compared it to the RF 100-500, both on the R5. For me, the RF 100-500 is quite a bit better. The extra 100mm makes a lot of difference in my photography, since i almost always shoot at maximum focal length. Plus the extra portion of sharpness, which is not insignificantly noticeable when cropping.
Subjectively, I find the autofocus a lot faster and more accurate.
Plus features like lower weight, not a main reason, but of course nice that it comes on top.
Agree with your assessment! Side by side it's easy to pick the winner
Just bought the RF 100-500 having used the EF 100-400 on 7D2 and for last year R7 mostly for birding-type record photography. I have not yet been able to test the sharpness and definition - which I am hoping will be better than EF lens - but immediately noticeable are two surprising differences. Firstly the rig takes longer to start up from sleep. I carry the rig on a sling where it often lies unused for long periods but normally switched on at the main on off switch. The RF lens takes several seconds to light up with an initial solid black screen - so you cannot locate a bird until it wakes up. The 100-400 does not have this few 'dead' seconds which can be critical for finding an overflying bird. Secondly, and again for BIF; when tracking an bird in flight with the AF tracker on it will freeze on a single frame making it impossible to continue tracking. Major disadvantage over the EF 100-400mm which never does this. Both issues are surprising as I would have supposed the RF lens would communicate with the camera more effectively, but in practise it seems to take longer to establish contact and to maintain comms.
the wake up time depends on the camera. do you have a large card in the R7?
@@jan_wegener Hi Jan - using a 256GB SDXC V90 card. Yes I agree I was not expecting the lens to make any difference to this sort of thing... I have my first full day out in the field with it tomorrow so will report back.
Hello Jan. Thank you for the speedy delivery of this promised video. Watching your videos is an expensive experience for me! I had convinced myself to wait for Canon to produce an R7, when your R5 review seduced me. I saved up my bikkies and bought it last week, rationalising that using my 100-400 ii plus 1.4 extender would be more than sufficient. Now you’ve blown that idea out of the water! All this before I graduate to lusting after a 600mm f4!
Cheers.... Chris
It has been expensive for my as well to play with all this gear! I do think the 100-400 is sufficient, but the 100-500 is better imo
Another great review mate, it really is a tough choice if you already own the 100-400 that is for sure. I enjoyed using both, but I will be getting the 100-500 as it is such a good lens. Cheers, Duade
Thanks mate! So many choices these days! I would also lean towards 100-500
Thank you, Jan, an excellent comparison between these two lenses. I do own the 100-400mm II since 2015 (bought it in Australia during a world trip) and I thought to keep it with my R5/R6 equipment.
But recently I decided to go for the 100-500 and shell out the money, because:
a) More reach without a teleconverter
b) The quality of the 100-400mm with a teleconverter could not convince me.
c) Better quality at the same focal length
d)Shorter and lighter, especially when considering that the 100-400mm needs an adapter and a teleconverter to get to 500mm
e) The selling value of the 100-400mm will probably decline even more, in the near future.
For men it's always easy to find arguments to buy new stuff :-)
I agree with all your points :D
Well put; you nailed it! Mine should be arriving tomorrow (I sold my 100-400 mm II (EF) to get the RF, actually). My only mirrorless is the R6 Mk II, and I finally decided I wanted one lens to put on that body without the adapter. This means my 7D Mk II will generally be using my 24-105, which is a really versatile lens, and my 1DX Mk III will use my Sigma 100-600 Sport.
@@adude394 👍
Already own the EF 100-400 and a 1.4x TC. Probably going to stay with that as I also still have 2 other DSLR bodies
I sold my 1-400 mk II. It was never sharp on all of the dslrs i have owned: 70D, 6D, 80D, 7DM2, 5DM4, 5DSR, and 90D. Thur the OVF, of course. i love that 1-500 and don’t regret buying it for a minute. You didn’t mention how great it is for handheld video, but imagine being in 4k crop mode and 800mm effective, and rock steady. i agree 100% that the extra 100mm in the field, super sharp with no extender, is a big deal even though many people think otherwise. i don’t care what folks think though, its my money I’m spend. i think the r5 deserves the best optics you can put on it (i have a 500 mm f4 II IS USM as well). thanks for the video!
I did talk a lot about video in my review of the 100-500, so didn't want to mention it here too much, but I could also hand hold some video pretty well with the 100-400.
I agree with you that a cam like the R5 should get the bets optics for max IQ.
I rented the 100-500 this week to go with the R6 that I rented too. Wanted to test both out and I guarantee you I'm buying both! The lens is incredible!
Good choice! It's maybe the best zoom lens ever made
It’s really nice to see you and Wade working together! It be nice to see more in the future. 😊💕
More to come!
Great review. I borrowed the 100-500 to use on my R6 and was quite impressed. I also have the 5D4 and the 100-400. Not gonna make the switch to the 100-500. I like having the option of using the 100-400 on both camera bodies and didn’t find the extra 100mm and marginal image quality improvement worth the $1500 hit I’d have to take to make the switch.
Yes, buying the 100-500 now also forces me to get another R5. Yes, outside the US the switch can be a bit pricy
I like my Canon 100-400mm II. It gives me great sharp images. When I upgrade to the R5 eventually I will be using this lens without an extender.
Yes, both of these are great lenses
Agree it is exceptionally sharp
I use the 100-400 with 1.4 extender on my R and it is a great combination. Birds in flight, dark days, it simply works well on mirrorless. I won't be bothering with the 100-500, too expensive for the ROI I would be getting, but I am just a hobbyist.
I purchased the Canon R5 earlier this year. I have been shooting with the Tamron Contemporary 150-600mm G2, but have been planning to upgrade to one of the lenses you compared here. However, I have gone back and forth and back again on which one to buy. I am hung up on the limitations of using the 100-500mm with an extender which has been my primary reason not to buy it. When shooting air shows, I often have to pull back into the 100-300mm range so this issue poses a problem for me. However, watching your demonstration on how the picture quality suffers when using the 100-400mm an the extender is very helpful - even three years after you made this video. The Tamron lens I've been using is heavier and longer than both of these lenses, so the dimensions and weight of these two Canon lenses in inconsequential to me. While I don't relish the idea if stacking an RF converter AND an extender on the 100-400mm in order to compete with the focal length the 100-500mm offers, I also hate the limitations caused by the extender on the RF model. I have been seriously considering buying the EF lens, but your comparison has shown me that maybe I don't really need to buy an RF extender. Thank you so much for this informative video! I am thankful to have discovered your channel.
Great post as usual, Jan! Like at least one other person below, I'm going with the 100-500 for my R6 Mk II. I'd been using my EF glass with an adapter, but finally decided I wanted an RF lens specifically for that camera. I'd been waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting some more for Canon to release more of the 200-800 RF, but I got tired of waiting, and also of Canon's complete lack of communication regarding when that would be available, so this is the next best thing for me.
Excellent video as always.
I have the 100-400 version II and it would have been nice to crop the images to match 500mm for comparison.
For now, I rather crop and take advantage of the brighter aperture.
Did you crop and compare the images?
cropping from 400 to 500, isn't that much of a deal, the bigger question is what happens and how does IQ get affected if you can;t get close enough and need to crop more than you want, in those cases more focal length has the biggest advantage
I've got the 100-400 II, and I'm really on the fence about going with the 100-500, primarily because of the wonky teleconverter issue. Thanks for the great info, it's helping me decide.
Great to hear! It's a tricky decision when owning the 100-400 already. The TC issue potentially will show up less for you, since you don't need to use the TC to get to the 500mm range
I got the 100-400 II. It is packed in my camera bag with a 1.4X III + ring adapter. Those 2 NEVER come off this lens. And I always shoot wide open, never stop it down. I use this on an R5. I do agree with Jan's review. But I would add this: when you post process these images with Topaz DenoiseAI the difference in sharpness and detail as shown on the video are reduced dramatically. And Topaz DenoiseAI can now process CR3 files. No conversion required to Adobe DNG.
I would love to have the 100-500, but because of the weight savings. Once you add the adapter and teleconverter it is a lot heavier setup..
I’d say keep the 100-400. I did at least. The extra reach wasn’t worth the cost and giving up the teleconverter ability.
I will keep my 100-400. Losing two stops of light at the long end with a 1.4 tc kind of negates any benefits to my mind. I shoot a lot of early morning and dusk, so it might make a difference. Caveat, I've never used the 100-500 though. Would I buy it it if I had lots of money to throw around? of course! 😁 ButI would upgrade to more MPX for wildlife before getting the 1-500.
Thanks for your review! I have a 100-400 ii with extenders 1.4x iii and 2x ii (EOS R) and I don't think it is worth upgrading just because the newer model is slightly better. In terms of sharpness, there's a lot that one can do in post. In most cases, good light makes more of a difference than pure sharpness levels. For new buyers, the RF is possibly a better bet.
Yes, both are great lenses. I tried to be pretty neutral in the review and sharing my observations. The 100-500 is slightly better, but not but an insane amount that everyone has to upgrade straight away. The main difference for me is the extra 100mm that can come in handy
@@jan_wegener Yes, I agree, those 100mm make a noticeable difference. Your review is very well balanced and honest, thank you for sharing.
@@cmeluzzi thank you!
Sharpness with the 100-400mm mii is as good as the rf100-500mm. The fact you can't add Tele extenders unless you're at 300mm or higher restricting your range.
Plus the cheap plastic of the 100-500mm. Stabilization is about equal but the 100- 400mm mii can be found at cheaper cost add the ef/rf adaptor and you have a solid metal constructed workhorse heavier but built solid. And will.out range the rf. The choice is clear for me for I use Canon pro dslr's so using the 100- 400mm II on my Canon R3 is going to be a great choice for me.
Very very helpful comparison, I was looking for quite a while... Thank you.❤️ from Kolkata, India.
Glad it was helpful!
The Intro was sleek. Good job
Glad you liked it. I didn't even try to line it up when I was shooting it in the field, but I stood in exactly the same spot naturally :D
@@jan_wegener uh John a we my high oh J J no J
Great review, I'm new to your channel and you got me sold on the newer 100 - 500mm. Thank u
Thanks, glad you liked it!
You're killing me:) My 100 - 500 has been on order for 4plus months. Can't wait to receive it.
Thx Jan, great videos as always
Oh no, they need to hurry up!
Hi Jan. recently discovered your channel and planning to improve my photography skills. Switched up to R7 I. Spring from90d but kept my 100-400Lii (economics) seriously tempted to move to RF 100-500, it loses the converter and interesting it’s not so good with 1.4xiii - I guess things are cheeper for a reason. Love your images - has kind of sold it to me. Off to watch more of your channel.
Initially, I decided I would keep the 100-400. After watching your first review of the 100-500, I became more intrigued about the lighter weight, extra reach and faster AI. Also, not having to use the EF converter would be a plus. So now I own both, but I'm contemplating selling my 100-400 and 1.4x EF teleconverter. I do find that the 100-500 performs better. As an intermediate-skilled hobbyist it's a lot of money to spend, but I enjoy bird photography and having more keepers with less effort is worth it to me.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I am glad you are enjoying your new lens. It's a great piece of glass
I went through the same experience but kept my teleconvertors to use with my EF300 f4 prime lens, and have sold the EF100-400 before the selling price drops further. However it will give someone the chance of buying a superb lens if they can't afford the 100-500 mm.
Canon 100-400 vs rf 100-500 vs 400 DO mk2 + 1.4 extender.
Thanks Jan for a very informative video comparison. I am doubling down on my bird photography in preparation for a trip to Africa next year and find myself agonising over my new R5 kit. I have the 100 to 400 Zoom, which works extremely well , and I recently bought the 100 to 500 RF lens which is an even bigger pleasure to use. The extra hundred millimetres is certainly noticeable in the field.
My question relates to a 2 camera setup: given that weight will be a major issue on an African Safari And that with advancing years I really don’t think I’m up for a 500 mm or 600 mm prime, I’m thinking of 2 alternate set ups to give me maximum versatility including low light shooting.
The first is to keep the 100 to 400 for its native range, probably on an R6 mk2 body and pair it with a 100 to 500 mm with a 1.4 extender to give me an active range of 100 mm to 700 mm, using the 100-500 + Ex as a fixed 420 to 700 mm lens.
The wild card is the idea of getting an EF 400 mm, DO mk2 and using that with my EF 1.4 converter to give me a 5.6 prime of 560 mm as my premium set up and keep the 100 to 500 as a native set up on the other camera.
Have you tried that lens, which seems to offer big white versatility and quality with relatively small size and weight? It should also help with low light shooting at Dawn and dusk, which are of course premium times for African and most other forms of wildlife.
I really appreciate your thoughts, since I have been unable to find anything that directly covers my question. Many thanks for your excellent videos, which I’m thoroughly enjoying while recuperating in hospital for a procedure. I’ve just booked myself into your master class, because if I can get bird shots that are a fraction as good as yours I’ll be a happy chappy. Keep up the good work.
Great job on this video comparison, Jan. You hit the ground running, didn't waste your viewers' time (Thank You!), and backed up your analysis with image comparisons. The Canon design/firmware limitation on using the 100-500mm in using an extender only at 300mm+ is a What The...? moment for me, but it is what it is.
My takeaway is that the 100-500mm is just a bit better in several ways than the 100-400mm, which we would hope for with newer hardware, but at a cost increase that may not match the gain in image quality and usability. So for those with deep pockets, upgrading to a 100-500mm if they already own the 100-400mm plus a mirrorless body and lens adapter could be a no-brainer. But those with tighter budgets, and those who do bird and other wildlife photography and need large prints only rarely, might hold off on upgrading.
One less expensive workaround: post-processing software is getting better at improving sharpness with a minimal hit to noise. What you gained going to the 100-500mm, I think people may be able to get with the 100-400mm PLUS Topaz AI Sharpness and/or Topaz AI DeNoise, at a significantly lower cost. Of course that workflow is slower, so one would only go that way with keeper images, a good desktop PC/Mac than can handle the Topaz apps efficiently, and more time than money for lens upgrades.
I have been using the 100-500 a lot lately and it's a pretty amazing lens. I have hardly any OOF images.
But I agree that it comes down to budget, especially if you already own a 100-400.
The lack of the 100 extra mm is the key thing missing from the 100-400 and that cannot really be compensated for.
I recently took delivery on athe Rf 100-500.. I was using the RF 100-400 before. I -love- the results from the 100-500. I am shooting with the 1.4 just like I did with the 100-400. The only negative (minor) to the 100-500 is the physical size and weight - manageable.
I have the EF 100-400 II and EF 1.4x III, but I'm gonna make the switch to the RF 100-500. It looks like the RF lens has about the same reach as the 100-400 + 1.4x. This means an extender is not necessary on RF, and you get the benefit of better image quality by not having to use one. This is the main selling point for me. And lighter and smaller package overall when considering the size/weight of the extender (and also the EF-RF adapter) is icing on the cake.
Really helpful plain English video thanks. Exactly the dilemma I am facing, so you've helped lean me in the direction of the 100-500 and also saves buying the converter ring too of course.
Glad it helped!
Hi Jan I really enjoy your videos. These days we have less and less tutorial videos like yours. Most of your videos help us to improve our skills. Sadly, these days youtubers want us to buy the latest and the greatest most of the time. Some videos you did like Shooting Manual, Exposure, 20,000$ vs 2,000$ were excellent. In this video, you ask us to share our thoughts on 100-400 II vs 100-500. My opinion is to keep what I have (5D IV + 100-400II) as long as possible. As an intermediate++ hobbyist, I can't justify the cost for switching systems these days. Money does not grow on trees. I am convinced that a R5 + 100-500 is a better combo than 5D IV + 100-400 II but I get most of the shots I want. By the way, I am impressed by the beautiful birds you have in your country even in your backyard. In which part of the Australia do you live ?
Thank you! :)
I am in the Melbourne area for now.
The 100-400 II is an excellent lens.
Thank you so much for this review, it answered all my questions! Love the depth of your technical data and the quality of your video production! 💕
Glad it was helpful! :)
As always - great video and thank you! Have both. For all the reasons you outlined, the 100-400 has sadly been gathering dust.
Yes, If I had both, I would also usually grab the 100-500
I've just gone completely mirrorless upgrading from EOS5d Mk4's to an R6 and now an R7. I've had the EF100-400 but greatly appreciated the light RF100-400 as I do most of my wildlife photography hand held and on foot. I have just traded in my EF100-400 and ordered the RF100-500 because of the better reach and lighter weight. I will also use the new lenses at air shows where the greater reach and general sharpness will be much appreciated. I've enjoyed your RUclips videos.
Thanks for sharing
Liked & subscribed immediately after that transition change between lens changes!
Awesome, thanks! I wonder how many people would even notice, since they look quite similar :)
Thank you I for the review, just what I needed to see.
Have ordered the R6 and the 100-500 mm in the sales, now patiently waiting for a delivery date. Think I’ll be extremely happy
Awesome! Congrats
Great video, great information.
Thank you for sharing this, imma switch from 400mm prime to the 100-500mm.
Thanks this answered my question. Another awesome review Jan. I am keeping my 100-400mm mark II and paired with my R6 and it really produces a sharp image.
It is an exceptional lens
Glad to help!
Both lenses are great, I like your review because you were not biased towards any of them 🤣👌 thanks jan
I tried to stay neutral. They're both good, although I prefer the 100-500
Really detailed review with all aspects I want to learn. Thank you very much!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I've always been a prime shooter until I got my R6 and the 100-500. I really love the versatility of this lens, it's super sharp and the close focus distance is just killer. I also have the RF 800 F11 prime and while it's nice to have the reach, the slow aperture and long minimum focus distance is very limiting. Excellent comparison video Jan, thanks for putting it together.
Thank you! Yes, it's a great combo you got
Heath I am curious.. Since you have the 100-500 and the 800 what would you do in my situation. I run my 70-200II f2.8 with a 2x and I find it just as sharp as my 400mm 5.6 and also why i never bought a 100-400. So I was thinking 140-400 is close to the 100-500 and I should just get the 800 f11. Since you have been able to play with both, in my situation knowing what you do now.. would you get the 100-500 OR the 800. you can only have one in your decision and you cannot buy the 1.4x
@@MaddManzz00 I find when I'm moving around I tend to use the 100-500 much more than the 800. The slow F11 aperture can means high .isos in low light and very long minimum focus has made me miss shots where the subject was just too close. I only moved to mirrorless last year so I still have a lot of EF lenses, I also have the 400 F5.6L and it's a great prime. If I had to choose between the 100-500 or an 800 I think I'd still save up and get the 100-500 as it's just so versatile. It's minimum focus is really close and since the mount is RF you don't have to use an adaptor which would make a 100-400 even longer and heavier. The one thing I have not tried yet though is tele convertors, I have an EF 1.4x II but I have not purchased any RF tele convertors. The other downside to the 800 is that the autofocus points are limited more towards the middle of the frame so you can't use the whole viewfinder to autofocus. Things I do like about the 800 though are that it is sharp for a non L lens, the image stabilization works well, and 800mm is nice when you need that extra reach. The price is big factor for the 100-500, it's a really expensive lens and I had to sell other gear and save to purchase it.
I used to have both lenses at the same time but now only RF 100-500L is the keeper. Just love the range and overall performance. I also do more landscape than birds, so f/7.1 does not really bother me as much.
Nice choice, yes, doesn't really bother me either
I made the switch and i have not regretted it. You see a lot more Details and you can crop much more and have more Details and better Image Quality.
Yes, it's a great lens!
I own a R5 since a month. I also have the 100-400ii + 1.4X Extender, up to recently used with my 7D2. My thought was that the 100-400 + 1.4X in combination with the 800/11 would provide me with what I need. However, after this month I found several reason to upgrade to the 100-500: - Weight! With the 100-400 I need a RF Mount adapter and the EF 1.4X . Also the 100-400 is somewhat heavier, altogether I get more than 400 g added weight. - Stabilisation, in the best of worlds 6X, compared to 4X with 100-400, provides new opportunities like handheld video. - The combination 100-500 + RF 1.4X extender, will mean I can have the extender in my pocket until needed, as compared to the need of wearing a backpack for the 800/11. The combination is also weatherproof, and give me a minimum focusing distance 1.2m, as compared to 6m with 800/11. Finally, and most important, Sharpness! I feel the need to always have my 1.4X extender mounted on the 100-400 to avoid extensive cropping, to be compared with 100-500 on its own. Also when needed, the combination 100-500 + 1.4X (=700mm) is at least as sharp as the 800/11.
Sounds like a good decision. The 100-500 will serve you well
Thank you for this video. This is the first I have seen from you and will certainly watch others. I am currently behind the technology curve and shoot with a Canon G3 X.
I will be upgrading to the R5 and this video answered all the questions I could possible think of related to these two zoom lenses. I will get the 100-500.
Subscribed.
Awesome! Glad I could help
Hello Jan. Nice video, thanks very much. The biggest investment for any bird pro/am photographer will be the Glass. But the new Canon F11 lenses IMO may be a real game changer with these bodies. Best regard, Thomas
Yes, the F11 lenses offer very good value for money
Jan
I have the R5 and have this week purchased the RF100-500 to replace my Prime EF 400 F/5.6L EF USM. The EF 400 was a very sharp lens that made my bird photography pictures pin sharp, but the new RF100-500 has amazed me with its versatility and sharpness also very fast auto focusing too. The RF 100-500 comes highly recommended from my self and has replaced both my EF70-200 and the EF 400 with no regrets from me.
Yes, the 5.6/400 was nice, but I think the 100-500, as you say, is an amazing replacement for it.
Thanks for the excellent review. I am about buying new canon r6 and already got 100-400mm lens.
Have fun!
Great review bro... 👌
May be i will stick to the 100-400 mk ii for now.... 😊
you can't really go wrong either way :)
Absolutely bro 😊👍🏼
The new 1.4 x Extender on the Nikon 70-200S Mirrorless is the first extender ever that is NOT a compromise Optically or AF Speed.No Image loss on the latest Nikon Tech >> You are of course correct on old Nikon setups and Current Canon offerings
Excellent review of these lenses Jan, I found exactly the same results albeit I couldn’t do a side by side comparison as I needed to sell the EF100-400ii to pay for the RF100-500
Great to hear! Thanks for sharing :)
hi Jan , exzellent comparison . I sold my EF 100-400 || and got my RF 100-500 and i am very happy.
All the pictures are much more crisp and the extra 100 mm are very often helpful .
best regards
Bernhard
Thanks for sharing, great to hear you can see a big improvement
I sold my 100-400mm and will buy the 100-500mm. I have committed to RF mount so I'm all in. The EF is heavier to start with, then you add the EF to R converter and 1.4 extender and the weight just keeps heading north.
yep!
I got my R5, and only after that did i start to consider to get into bird photography for the first time... luckily i got hold of a pristine second hand 100-400 ii for 850usd which i found an amazing deal to let pass. I use it now with a 1.4 ex iii and i am extremely happy with the whole setup.
Thanks for another great video! Cheers
That's a great deal. That lens will certainly be a great best bang for the buck lens for a long time
I am in the exact position you mentioned, a5dsr with 100-400 mk2 user wanting to upgrade to the R5. I don't like spending money but the 100-500 makes a lot more sense in the long run
I would have to agree with your assessment
I have owned the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM since it debuted. It is a wonderful lens however now I own an R6...the RF 100-500 is calling to me! For a while, I thought that I could just use a 2x converter and it won't be that bad...however watching this video, well I knew the conclusion all along. I am an enthusiast-level bird photographer (see: can't commit to the expense and burden of hauling around a huge prime). That extra 100mm of reach would really help! I shoot mainly in the woods - small, fast moving subjects so auto-focus response is nearly as important as IQ - an extender diminishes both. And I was pleased to see that Jan found the RF 2x converter (1000mm) to be acceptable so that is nice to have that option as well.
The new problem - trying to actually buy an RF 100-500! The demand is so high, they sell out immediately so it will be a struggle!
Yes, I got lucky that my dealer had a few in stock!
2x on any zooms lens isn't great, but on the 100-500 it did a decent job at times on the 100-400 I didn't like it at all
As a fairly advanced amateur in South Africa, a wildlife heaven, I am glad to have come across your channel and this very interesting comparison. I own the 100-400 mkii and use it for anything - from macro to long shots - of Africa's birds, insects, wild animals and lanscape.
I missed two things in your review:
1. Obviously the 100-500 is exclusively (I think) a full-frame lens for Canon's new range of mirrorless cameras, however, I use my 100-400 on a 90D and it gives me a focal length of 640 with great results from f5.6 to f8. We have harsh sunlight for 300 days of the year so stopping down to f11 is seldom necessary, Auto ISO does the trick and I hardly ever go beyond f8.I would like to hear your views on the crop sensor and the 1.6 add-on focal range.
I also use the 5Div with the 1.4 extender with great results too at f8 in our conditions.
2. The other comparison I missed is the price difference, in our case of 33%, between the two lenses. Given the minor but clear qualitative differences as seen in your video and adding the cost of the 100-500 to the need of moving from high quality DSLR to a R5 or R6 and the 100-500, would you still do it?
Your views will be appreciated.
Hey,
I didn't focus on the price too much, because it varies so much between countries. All in all the 100-500 is more pricy.
And yes it only works with the new mirrorless cameras.
Crop sensor can be nice too add range and also come with drawbacks, like lesser IQ and more noise.
I have moved from a 5DIV to an R5 and added a 100-500 as well. The difference is night and day compared to my Mark IV to be honest. So much so that I sold it and bought another R5.
Hi Jan. Great content. If you had to choose one combo....
-R6 with RF100-500
-R5 with RF100-400. (not the Ef in this video)
That’s a tough one. The R6 II combo probably makes more sense
@@jan_wegener thanks for the reply. That's my current predicament. Glad I'm not the only one who finds it tricky. But I think I agree the R6ii makes more sense. Invest in glass and on occasion use upscale if needed.
Thanks for these excellent videos Jan. They are extremely helpful and the information you give is thoughtful and very well presented. This is the best 'CRL', Complete Runaround Lens! I have other RF lenses but they have been lacking what I need - lightweight, extreme versatility and amazing optics - the AF with the EOS R5 is also terrific. Can't thank you enough.
You are so welcome! I agree, the 100-500 is amazing for walking around
Hi from the UK! Great analysis and confirms my suspicions! Traded in my 1--=400 and purchased the 100-500mmR!
Thank you. I am sure you will be happy with your choice!
Going to have to stay with my almost new 100-400 & 1.4. If only I knew I was going to buy the R5 in late 2019! I will keep dreaming a bit longer.
Yes, the R5 hit us all as a bit of a surprise and so did the 100-500 I suppose
Thanks, great comparison 👏👏👏
Thanks for watching!
I have a R and want to have a tele-zoom. And now I'm thinking about the RF 100-500 or the EF 100-400mm and your video helps me a lot. Thanky you. :)
Glad I could help!
Again another great video Jan. I own 7dmk2 with 100-400mk2. But that extra 100mm would be so welcome. I have to win the lottery first, but maybe once I will go for the to-be-realesed RF 600/4 and than this 100-500 would the best all round birding lens!
Yes, atm the 4/600 + 100-500 combo seems ideal and is what I am using
Hi Jan. Very interesting comparison. I have owned the 100-400 for a couple of years, and I have loved it. The speed, the clarity and quality, but recently getting my R5, I sold it and bought the 100-500, and despite the price, it outruns the former. Actually, I used a 1.4 extender to get that reach, and I experienced exactly that drop in sharpness.
Besides the things mentioned in your video, I also enjoy, that the 100-500 does not feel that cold in the winter time because of the plastic materials.
Good video again, Jan 🤗
Kind Regards, Jan
Ha, that's an interesting point I have not been able to test out yet in Australia :)
Glad you are enjoying your new lens
I might be wrong but it almost looks like the 100-400mm with the extenders is slightly backfocusing. There seemed to be slightly more details on other parts of the goose than on the eye.
Once again, I could be wrong there and youtube compression doesn't help, just a thought I had when you showed the images. Thanks for the video!
With the R5 there shouldn't be any back or front focussing. It's possible that the AF sometimes missed a bit, but I always tried to pick the best images from the ones I took.
@@jan_wegener Oh right with the eye detect, I guess the camera picks what is the sharpest focus. My bad, didn't think of that.
Thanks again for your videos
@@HawkwardSolo a mirrorless sensor should negate any back or front focussing problems.
I have a 100-400 II and a 500m prime for shooting birds. When 100-500 first came out I decided to skip it especially because i just bought a RF70-200 not that long ago... but watching your vedio has made me rethink...
It will double up a bit more with your prime, but it sure is a great lens
great video, I am looking for a larger telephotos lens as I have the old school EF 100-300mm 1:5.6 L which has served me well for $120 when I was learning but I am seeing it limitations in what I am doing.
Excellent topic Jan. I've used both and the 7.1 aperture was a deal breaker for me. Trying to photograph distant ducks on a lake the first 2-3 hours after sunrise was a real struggle.
Thank you. There will be many interesting thoughts on this topic. Did you compare it to the 100-400? I never felt the 2/3 of a stop made much of a difference, even when it was dark
You need to have a realistic expectation if you are looking for these kind of shots then you need to look for a prime lens, but this lens is exceptionally good in every way.
@@jan_wegener yes. Both lenses have great IQ. No question there.
The RF 100-500 mm is at estimated f6.0 (when set to 1/3 Stop increments it is at f6.3) at 400mm, so it is just slightly darker than your 100-400 at f5.6. You are not convincing me with your arguments. If you are shooting in the evening/morning both lenses are not the right tools for this and you have to choose a Prime Lens instead.
@@airb1976 $2900.00 for a 7.1 is awful on canons side. Can’t argue now. Sony has great value 200-600mm g lens
I have the EF 100-400mkII, and unless it gets damaged, and will cost more than $1000 to have it repaired, I'm staying with it. I went on recent shoot where there were egrets and herons, and I got photos of them tossing small fish into the air and catching them. Images were clean, detail was fantastic. I do have the extenders but I use those with my EF 300 and 400 L IS primes. Fantastic images using those, also.
Yes, that's definitely the reasonable thing to do.
Thanks.
Good catch about the image quality, most reviewers don't catch that. I agree with you on the IQ on the 100-400 II. And your comments, have helped me to make a upgrade decision. (Just have to save up a bit first.)
(I bought the ef 100-400 II as a upgrade from the Tamron 150-600 G1, and it was a dessition I was happy with, but it's time to move on....)
Edit: I have now upgraded to the 100-500 and I absolutely love that lens.
Without the lens tripod collar it's approx 600g lighter that my old EF 100-400 II + 1.4x + RF EF adapter.
I use this lens without teleconverter and the 7.1 is only from 470 to 500. So what's the fuss ?. Much better than the EF 100-400 II+ 1.4x in the 400-500mm range anyway. And at 500mm with the 100-400+1.4x you wil be at f/8.
I tested the 100-500L and RF 800 F11 as the first telephoto lenses at all, never had any glass that big on a camera before!
Yes, the 100-500L is IMPRESSING! Especially on R7 its a "lightweight" beast of a telezoom/wildlife video/photo lens.
But just the price made me think..... 3000$ for an air pump?!
For less than 3000$ i bought recently (in total around 2400$ 2nd hand!):
- RF 800 F11.... tested it at the same time as i had the 100-500L (w and wo 2x TC) in my hands.... as much the 100-500L impressed me (sharpness, size, af, zoom range,....), the price of the RF 800 F11 impressed me more. On full frame i prefer the 800 F11 much more over the 100-500, especially with 2x TC on the 1-5L its performing "poor" (when it comes to wildlife!)
- Sigma 150-600C.... in fact i would prefer the Sigma over the Canon 100-500L if i am NOT (!!!) interested in video because its impossible to make usable handhand video footage on the wobbly sigma lens, its biggest disadvantage.
Also, as david endless reminds us in his video - 100mm more are a charme! And same argument goes for the Sigma 150-600 vs RF 100-500L! On APS-C the 960mm effectively are often just enough. I dont want to imagine losing nearly 160mm with the 100-500L.
- so i bought the 100-400 II as i saw it for a "too good to be true" price.... Its especially on the EOS R7 a "better" 100-500L (if 1-5L is used on FF!) As much david tries to deny that the F5.6 are not much better than F7.1.....ITS NOT TRUE, i didnt see F7.1 hurting me much on full frame yet (RF 800 F11 owners are hardened anyways...), but god, i would be upset at the 100-500L with its F7.1 at my R7.... ISO 16000 vs 12800 is a huge difference in noise already and i know that because i use the sigma often at F7.1 and F8 where the 100-400 II is still sharp at F5.6
The RF 100-500L is a very nice lens, but its ridicilously priced
Im wondering, especially since they have already good options up to 200mm from beginner to professional... why they just didnt copy the Sony 200-600 and did their own stabilizer and DO optics magic on the lens?!
Thats btw another point.... for wildlife dedicated usecases, the Sony 200-600 GM is more versatile than the Canon 100-500, for the canon lens extenders and/or APS-C and/or additional crop are a must have.
I would only love the 100-500L lens for sports, hiking etc because its really small and light for 100-500mm, but as soon you can live with heavier/older gear, there are so much more interesting and/or better alternatives, in the canon world, as well 3rd party (Sigmas tele primes are for example STUNNING GOOD also work perfect on mirrorless canons) and other manufactureres.
if Sony would finally up their game in animal eye autofocus and release affordable cameras as well lenses... i would have definately switched from canon to sony. Sadly im stuck in the canon system yet, especially since only canon deliver usable wildlife features for an affordable price at the cost of a locked RF lens system full of barely usable glass for the most people, especially APS-C owners.
I’m sticking with my 100-400 for the time. Maybe I upgrade in the future but my hope is for Sigma n Tamron to produce r mount equivalents to their EF 150-600 so that I can move to them at a fraction of the price and even more reach and simply sidestep the canon 100-500.
I have a Tamron 150-600. It's decent and much cheaper, but it weighs a ton by comparison and isn't fun to shoot with; and it isn't as sharp as that Canon. As soon as the 100-500 comes back in stock, I'm trading the Tamron for the Canon without looking back.
Canon doesn't open their mount for third parties, so they have to reverse engineer RF mount versions. No one has produced a third party RF lens with AF and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one, especially a super telephoto zoom.
@@JohnDrummondPhoto Wise decision. The 3rd party options just don't cut it.
Yes, it's interesting third parties have struggled to make any RF lenses just yet
@@jan_wegener Samyang does two MFs and one AF. I suspect the legacy third parties like tamron and sigma take their time because they want to improve their lens designs.
Third Party lens manufacturers have not struggled. Canon is suing anyone who tries to reverse engineer the RF mount, unless they have permission. And Canon has not given permission. Samsung has been forced to remove its reversed RF’s from their line up.
What might have been interesting is to shoot the 100-500 lens using the R5, and then shooting the 100-400 lens using the R7, to see then how the two lenses compare in overall sharpness & performance without having to use the 1.4X converter 🤔. Good video and interesting to listen to 👍
No R7 back then 😀
This has just opened my eyes. I loved my 100-400 II, which I sold when I was moving to an R5 body. I have debated the RF 100-500 but £2700-2900 cost for 'just' the lens, is hard to swallow for enthusiast like me.
So I have considered reacquiring the 100-400 II (loved the build, speed, size) and the suggestion of the R7! 160-640 equivalent! Interesting to say the least.
Thank you Jan. Another excellent video. I own the 100-400 and a 1.4x iii. For now at least, I plan to stick with them, but I found your comparison to be very enlightening. I was debating whether to buy a 2x iii. I think I'll take your advice instead and try to get closer to my subjects. I also have a 500mm f/4 prime, so I still have some options. The idea of the 100-400, the 1.4 and the 2x was very attractive as a versatile kit for carrying on longer forays away from our vehicle, but I think I'd be disappointed with the performance of the 2x.
which camera body are you using? I am tempted by the idea of using the R7 and the 1.4x TC on my 100-400L II for extra reach on air shows...
@@alcosound I'm using the R7 myself. I've used it with the 100-400 and the 1.4x III tc quite a bit. Other than being a bit slow (f8), the results have been very good. Being a zoom, it would probably be perfect for air shows - zoom out to locate the subject and zoom in to take the shot(s).
@@steve.hamlin.artist Since I own already the 100-400L II and the 1.4 TC II, I may go for the R7 (but the body is too small for my large palms - is there some grip available?). What about the speed and accuracy of focusing?
My 80D is shooting fine with the 100-400L II alone, but the 1.4TC II limits this body to the center focus point only, if I remember correctly. And I want more reach, to tell the truth (looking at the RF200-800 with interest, I have to admit)
@@alcosound The gen II 1.4 TC works fine too. There's a slight difference in sharpness with the gen III. I'd recommend upgrading to it if you plan to stick with the 100-400 IS II, but you should get very good results with the gear you have. SmallRig makes a cage for the R7, but I don't have it. I've seen some RUclips videos where people have mounted old battery grips to get the extra grip size, The battery part is nonfunctional. I have fairly large hands (wear size large gloves) and I find the R7 to be perfectly comfortable as is. I have an M6 Mk II which I found uncomfortably small. I did mount a SmallRig cage on that. The AF on the R7 is very good, but a little unpredictable. There are a lot of really good RUclipss that discuss the strengths and weaknesses, including at least one by Jan. The AF area is virtually the entire screen - much larger than on any DSLR. Mounting the 100-400, with or without the TC has no effect on it. The only lenses that do that I know of are the f11 600 and 800mm. Even they have roughly the same size AF area as a typical DSLR at its best. The advantages of a mirrorless go far beyond the AF area. I think you'll really enjoy the R7. Check out factory refurbs from Canon. You can get a camera that has been more thoroughly checked than a new one at a significant savings.
Jan - I apologize for hijacking your comment section. I hope you don't mind. I also hope you'll correct anything that I might have gotten wrong.
@@steve.hamlin.artist thanks for the information. I will wait for more impressions from the air shows scene next year of the RF200-800mm as well, which has piqued my interest as you can imagine...
I have concluded that this combination with the R7, plus an RF-EF adaptor would set me back about four thousand EUR, which is not for the faint of heart, so the 100-400L II and 1.4TC II might be a good interim solution in the quest for more reach...
Hi Jan. An extremely well made video review. Ample samples, detailed coverage of all aspects that one can think of or need to know for the buyer. Thanks. As a person who is deciding to upgrade to mirrorless setup, the Sony a7r4 + 200-600mm looks a lot more tempting. Really wish you would make a comparison review on these, to make the decision easier and well informed.
Hey,
yes, I will need to get my hands on that set up at some point. In saying that, for birds, knowing that the Canon Eye AF is class leading, I find it very hard to look past and R5 and 100-500 atm.
Totally agree about extenders on zoom lenses and find tighter cropping the better choice.
:)
Think about the 100-500 if the Canon R7D crop sensor comes out will turn the 100-500 into an amazing set up!
If we ever get that camera it would be a great combo for sure, as long as you can still use high enough ISO.
@@jan_wegener I agree. The smaller sensor can be a problem if they de idę to add to much pixel. 17mpix out of R5 is enough. I didnt like too much the images from 7d or 7d2. Especially when comparing them with ff sensor.
Thanks for this great comparison. Could you please make the same with R7? That will help decide exactly.
Great vidéo what do you think about thé New Lens rf 100/400. I have a R7 whitch is better on apsc? Thanks you .
I think it's a pretty good lens for the price. I made video about it a while ago
Interesting comparison. I wonder how would both lenses fare using the Canon R7?
(I own the 100-400L II and the 1.4x II extender, so it would be a nice upgrade for reach on air shows, almost as the newly announced 200-800 R mount lens...
I own the 100-500, never shot with the 100-400 but both have their weaknesses and their strengths it seems to me. The 7.1 aperture isn't to much of a big deal, the 100-500 stops down to 6.3 around 365mm and goes to 7.1 at around 472mm. So you lose a 1/3 of a stop at 400mm compared to the 100-400 but you gain an extra 100mm at the long end. Sure I would have liked a 5.6.at 500mm but you got to pay for it somehow, ie price and weight. The extender isn't a big issue for me, I put an extender on and use it for the long end 99.999% of the time. I'll switch to my second camera body with my 70-200 2.8 on it if subjects get real close. Both of these lenses are great lenses!
I agree, both of them are very good!
I currently have an R5 and a Sigma 150-600 C. The bargain price and specs of the sigma and also tamron 3rd party lenses has kept me from trying out the RF 100-500. Even at a longer focal length of 600mm, the Sigma has a wider aperture than the Canon 100-500. Would be nice to see a comparison if you ever get the opportunity.
Since i got the R5 i was really disappointed with the Sigma 150-600 (which was acceptable on the RP) so i ordered the 100-500 yesterday. After seeing this test i'm happy to have done so, as i also considered a used 100-400 with 1.4 TC as it would have been half the price. The aperture advantage of the Sigma quickly goes away as you need to stop it down to F8 (at least on my copy) to get somewhat decent results.
My Sigma gives me similiar results to those shown with the 100-400 with 2x TC, so for me the 100-500 will be a big upgrade.
In the end, sadly it still seems that you get what you pay for with lenses.
The Sigmas sharpness and focusing abilities stop you getting the best out of your R5. I wish the Canon didn't drop to 7.1 but it still absolutely kills the Sigma.
Unfortunately I've come to the same conclusion, the 150-600C lack that crisp sharpness on the R6. Was fine on the 80D. Both kidneys are already sold, might try to sell a few toes to be able to afford it.
@@markrigg6623 That's right. I realized that nearly at the first use. The focus is probably the biggest issue as 95% or more of the shots aren't exactly focused... On the rare occasions it really nails the focus, the iq isn't that bad (can be achieved easier with flowers or a closeup of tree bark where I got good results, which simulates lab test conditions).
The narrower aperture is to be expected, for one to keep size and weight down but also to avoid it competing with the 200-400 F4 with integrated extender that costs 4 times as much and is 560 5.6 at the longest setting.
I think with the R5 7.1 isn't that much of an issue. Will be interesting to see how it behaves on the RP that I didn't sell yet.
@@peterh7176 I believe the focusing system of DSLR's works a bit differently / better with 3rd party lenses (found some indications of that on the web). I had the Sigma 100-400 on the 80D and it worked quite well, didn't test it that much on the RP but after the fact I think it was the better lens but too short for full frame...
Sigma stated on their website that firmware 2.0 or higher is needed on the lens for good operation with the R5 or R6, all tough there are still some limitations...
For now we'll probably be limited to Canon lenses on R series cameras.
Thank you for an Excellent and objective review. I am an amateur and have been shooting Canon for over 10 years and own a large assortment of EF-L lenses Including 600ll /f4 300ll f2.8 as well as the 100-400 ll. I purchased an R-5 body in March past and I am very pleased as it makes my birds in flight photography much easier. Also all my EF lenses perform well on the R5. I enjoy all genres of photography, for the moment I do not feel compelled to start a transition to RF lenses. Thank you, Jean-Louis 😊
Yes, the EF lenses still work very well on the R5
Thanks for another great comparison. After watching your video I am more inclined to replace my beloved 100-400 with the 100-500. Decisions, decisions, decisions.
Thanks. Yes, that's a tricky one!
@@jan_wegener Well, I bought the RF100-500 and it is a great lens. I used it first with some macro shots using Extension Tubes and got great results. I just posted a RUclips video on my channel Pablo GE Foto. In a couple of weeks I will be at White Sands National Park in Southern New Mexico USA. Can not wait to try it there. Thanks again for your excellent videos.
Thank you for the great video. I am the owner of a 100-400 mm Version 1 for many years now. I decided to change to 100-500 mm. Time for a change: new technology, the extra 100 mm and the much lighter lens are important to me. I already have the Canon R5 (fantastic body - I was still using the canon 60D ...) but I am very frustrated since the 100-500 mm lens is not available in Europe for the moment. Very, very frustrating.
Ha, that's annoying! I was lucky to get mine quick down here
Does your 100-400mm IS I work well with Canon R5+2X extender, I want upgrade my Canon 5D IV to mirrorless . Could you please give me some advice?
Appreciate the info Jan. That is a chunk of change for the 100x500, so must be certain. Thank You.
Glad it was helpful! Yes, it's pretty pricy outside the US
Great video! Thanx! I bought the 100-400 a few months ago. I love it. Using it quite a lot with 1.4 ext. I forget to stop down all the time. Will try that tomorrow :-) I'm still on EF camera 6DII. So no need to think about buying the 100-500. But it's great to see all these nice lenses Canon is making.
Yes, some great glass coming out for the mirrorless cameras
Great review, as usual in this chanel. Any opinion on the 800f11 vs the 100-400II+2xTC in IQ? Already have the 100-400II and thinking on jump into mirrorless.
The 800 has the overall better IQ I'd say.
Great informative video Jan! Thanks! That 100-500 is really great!
Thanks, yes it's very good.
while I haven't gotten my hands on a 100-500 yet to test it, I was able to test a Sony 200-600 today and boy was that sharp and nice to use (tested on A1).
A bit of a bummer for us Canon shooters, that Sony lens is only 1700€ vs. the Canon 100-500 is >3000€. The Canon is the harder to pull off from an engineering standpoint, but the Sony has 600mm reach. I'm not switching or anything, that's for sure, but I really hope Canon's RF lens prices will be adjusted rather sooner than later.
As my only big lens, the Sony would be a nice choice, because of the reach. As a secondary lens like I use it, the 200-600 would be much too large for me and I value the versatility the 100-500 brings to the table.
Both lenses are great, really. The pricing on the RF stuff is certainly very aggressive
Excellent review as always. Your review will be a reference for those who are deciding on either the 100-400 or the 100-500. I will share your video. I think it is a no brainer to get the 100-500 if your own either the R5 or R6. I totally agree with your review. I have both lens. But since I have the RF version, the EF 100-400 is collecting dust. I would say go for the 100-500 if you are after ultimate image quality.
Thank you! Agree with everything you said
Just the review I was looking for. Thanks, Jan!
You are so welcome!
I have the 100-400 EF is II. I'd love to have the RF100-500 but I have the R6 mk ii as well as the 90D DSLR. So I'll keep my EF lens and use an RF/EF adaptor so I will still be capable of using both cameras. Also have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 and I'd also like to switch to the RF version, but again can't use with both cameras, which I do frequently. I did purchase the RF 24-70 which I love.
I bought my EF 100 - 400 II and loving it.
great!
Well done! Just what I wanted to know.
Any difference between phase AF and contrast AF with the 100-400?
Contrast is supposed to be the slowest, but most accurate AF. It will negate any adjustment issues which might impact phase AF.
For most of what I do, the 100-400 will do just fine. Anything too far away will be 600mm country.
The 100-500 is likely to have more problems in bad light. That is Winter in Norway or a dark jungle according to Jeff Cable. Every stop or half stop counts.
Yes, in a dark jungle I would always want to have a fast prime lens. There's no zoom lens that can compete really
Thank you, Jan, an excellent comparison between these two lenses. I do own the 100-400mm II / Thinking ,, Sell my 100-400mm then that would offset the cost of the 100-500mm by $1100 ish