Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM: First Impressions

Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
Now I have had the lens for 3 weeks, I think every one should have one! I've worked my way through an EF 100-400mm, EF 100-400mm II, Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3 (and tried out the Sigma version), Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, RF 100-500mm and now the RF 100-400mm. The best is the 100-500mm. The most fun is the RF 100-400mm, and it beats into the ground the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mms for AF, and it's pretty close to the 100-400mm II in the centre for IQ. It's a steal.
Thanks Alan for all your comments and posts on this lens. I received mine yesterday and though haven't had much chance to use it yet, my initial impression is that this is indeed a great lens to have. Lenses like the EF 100-400 II and the RF 100-500 are a bit beyond my budget, so a while ago I bought the Sigma contemporary 100-400mm. I tried two copies of that lens actually and sold them both as they seemed quite soft at 400mm. This new Canon lens is sharper, considerably lighter and cheaper. Maybe I just had bad copies of the Sigma, but even if the IQ was equal, the weight difference makes the Canon the far better choice in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
Nice review today:
There's a glut of EF 100-400mm II on the used market here: MPB have 87 and WEX 22. The EF has a slight edge over the RF in IQ, which is imperceptible in real use, and takes extenders better. But, I think the RF 100-400mm will severely hurt the sales of the EF for RF users.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,098
12,863
Nice review today:
There's a glut of EF 100-400mm II on the used market here: MPB have 87 and WEX 22. The EF has a slight edge over the RF in IQ, which is imperceptible in real use, and takes extenders better. But, I think the RF 100-400mm will severely hurt the sales of the EF for RF users.
I wonder how many people buy used EF lenses to mount on a mirrorless body, versus buying them to mount on an older DSLR that they already have or have bought used? I recently sold three EF lenses locally on Craigslist (70-200/2.8 II, 70-300L, and 40/2.8), all of them to DSLR shooters, one of whom had just purchased a used 7DII and another who had just purchased a used 6D.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
I wonder how many people buy used EF lenses to mount on a mirrorless body, versus buying them to mount on an older DSLR that they already have or have bought used? I recently sold three EF lenses locally on Craigslist (70-200/2.8 II, 70-300L, and 40/2.8), all of them to DSLR shooters, one of whom had just purchased a used 7DII and another who had just purchased a used 6D.
Until a couple of weeks ago, I suspect that because of the unavailability of the RF 100-500mm and the high price if you could get it, some RF5 owners were buying used 100-400nm IIs. Now, with the 100-500mm gardually coming on to the market at the top end and the RF 100-400 at the cheap end, the buyer base will drift to the DSLR users. Probably a good time to buy a used 7DII and EF lenses. Also WEX have suddenly on sale several EF 400mm f/2.8 IIs and a few 500mm f/4, and there has hardly been a big white on sale there for a while.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
I wonder how many people buy used EF lenses to mount on a mirrorless body, versus buying them to mount on an older DSLR that they already have or have bought used? I recently sold three EF lenses locally on Craigslist (70-200/2.8 II, 70-300L, and 40/2.8), all of them to DSLR shooters, one of whom had just purchased a used 7DII and another who had just purchased a used 6D.
After a brief flirtation with Nikon - I came back to Canon for the Canon colors - and bought the EF 16-35 f/4, the EF 24-70 f/4 and the EF 80-200 f/2.8 for my R6. Considering the price of used, I would think there are more folks like me who are buying EF for mirrorless. My only RF lens so far is the new RF 100-400.
 
Upvote 0

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
325
227
Australia
Now I have had the lens for 3 weeks, I think every one should have one! I've worked my way through an EF 100-400mm, EF 100-400mm II, Tamron 100-400mm f/6.3 (and tried out the Sigma version), Tamron 150-600mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, RF 100-500mm and now the RF 100-400mm. The best is the 100-500mm. The most fun is the RF 100-400mm, and it beats into the ground the Tamron and Sigma 100-400mms for AF, and it's pretty close to the 100-400mm II in the centre for IQ. It's a steal.
How did you find the IQ compared to the Tamron, especially at 400mm?
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
How did you find the IQ compared to the Tamron, especially at 400mm?
Dustin Abbott had written glowingly about it. But, I didn't find the copy of the Tamron 100-400mm I had sharp enough, and I sold it at a loss after a couple of months. The AF was hopeless and couldn't track a bird in flight using the 5DIV. The RF 100-400mm I find to be very sharp and excellent AF with the R5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
325
227
Australia
Dustin Abbott had written glowingly about it. But, I didn't find the copy of the Tamron 100-400mm I had sharp enough, and I sold it at a loss after a couple of months. The AF was hopeless and couldn't track a bird in flight using the 5DIV. The RF 100-400mm I find to be very sharp and excellent AF with the R5.
Yeah I’ve seen some people using it on Flickr and I’d consider their copies to be way stronger than mine at 400mm. From what I’m seeing from on forums and Flickr the RF 100-400mm it blows my Tamron away at 400mm. Thanks for your insights!
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
R5 vs R6 at 20m with RF 100-400mm at f/8 vs f/11, unsharpened files

I posted this in another thread but for completeness here I'll post here. I tested the RF 100-400mm at f/8 vs f/11 and distance of 20mm,

Edge sharpness measured using Focal
R5 f/8 1970; f/11 1886
R6 f/8 2076; f/11 2043
Chart resolution (arbitrary units)
R5 f/8 2.2; f/11 2.0
R6 f/8 1.8; f/11 1.8

So, with the high resolution sensor of the R5 where f/11 moves further into diffraction limitation (DLA = f/7.1), f/11 is slightly worse for both acutance and resolution.
For the low resolution R6 (DLA =f/10.6); f/8 ~ f/11. So, for my copy of the lens, it is best wide open.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Feb 28, 2013
1,612
272
70
It takes the same lenshood as well, the ET-74B. It has an outrageous price of £76 in the UK. Fortunately, as the 70-300mm II has been around a few years, there are plenty of knock-off ones at £10-12. As a matter of principle, I am not spending £76 on a piece of black plastic that will likely need to be repalced after a few knocks.
I just bought the JJC LH-74B and it doesn't reverse fit on the RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 so its going back to Amazon and our buy the Canon one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
I just bought the JJC LH-74B and it doesn't reverse fit on the RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 so its going back to Amazon and our buy the Canon one.
On mine it reverses when no filter is attached. ColorBlindBat just now reported that the hood fits over a B+W filter. I've stopped using filters on my telephotos when I have hoods. But, I've just checked and fits and reverses over a Marumi DHG. Do you have a filter over yours? Maybe you have a bad one.
 
Upvote 0

reefroamer

CR Pro
Jun 21, 2014
145
211
I put the RF 100-400 on my wife's RP and weighed the combo on my scale at 2.66lbs. My R6+adapter+EF 100-400 II weighed in at 5.62lbs, more than twice the RP combo and nearly 3lbs more. That’s quite a difference. The RP combo is an especially portable solution for many situations. I’m a bit envious.
After a few weeks, I cracked and purchased another RF 100-400 for my own use on my R6. My plan now is to sell the EF 100-400 II/1.4x combo and use the proceeds for either the RF 100-500 or RF 800 RF. The RF 100-400 is just so light/portable and good enough in most situations that keeping the EF 100-400 doesn’t make the sense it once did. The RF 100-500 is still attractive, though, especially with the 1.4/2x teleconverters. My wife is a still huge fan of her very light RP+RF 100-400 combo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,529
After a few weeks, I cracked and purchased another RF 100-400 for my own use on my R6. My plan now is to sell the EF 100-400 II/1.4x combo and use the proceeds for either the RF 100-500 or RF 800 RF. The RF 100-400 is just so light/portable and good enough in most situations that keeping the EF 100-400 doesn’t make the sense it once did. The RF 100-500 is still attractive, though, especially with the 1.4/2x teleconverters. My wife is a still huge fan of her very light RP+RF 100-400 combo.
These narrower lenses pair particularly well with the R6 as they are wider than its diffraction-limited aperture. My wife had stopped taking a camera with her on our hikes but now she takes the R6+RF100-400mm.
 
Upvote 0

Rockskipper

Somewhere skipping rocks and taking photos
Apr 20, 2017
68
15
I just bought an R6 with the 100-500. I'm returning the 100-500 today (ready to go) and have ordered an RF100-400. Why go down in quality? I like what I see posted for 100-400 results, but basically, it all comes down to weight. I can barely carry around the RF100-500, and it doesn't make me want to take my camera anywhere. I also have an EF 100-400L II that I've kept only out of optimism that I'll get stronger, but I think I'm going to sell it or just keep it for exceptional times when I have my tripod (national parks type stuff). I broke my back a few years ago and just can't carry anything heavy. BUt the little bit I did use the RF100-500 I found it to be exceptional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0