Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Review

[Exploreshootshare]

Oh also as I mentioned, Canon consumer lenses shine if you use DLO.

I couldn't agree more. I´m starting to fall in love with Canon consumer lenses more and more. I bought my EOS R in March 2019 and along with it I got the 35mm F1.8. I loved this lens from the very beginning and still do! Some of my favorite pics were taken with it.

Later, I tested the 24-240mm which I didn't quite like and I bought the 16mm F2.8. My first impression was not good (maybe a bad copy?) but I repurchased it because of two more or less intense hiking trips. That's when I really started to like this lens as well. So this time I kept it and it is always in my bag when I don´t take the 14-35mm F4. I even got a CPL and ND filters for it.

The RF 100-400mm performs extraordinary considering size, weight and prize imho, I'll repurchase it soon. My next consumer lens will be the 200-800mm somewhere in 2024 and 2025 when discounts start coming in. Last on my list is the 28mm which I´d only purchase if I find a really good deal. I´d also love to see a 20mm F1.8 built and prized like the 35mm F1.8.

Edit: Just remembered I had the 50mm F1.8 which seems to be the mother of all consumer lenses. I didn't like it, so I sold ist. Instead I bought the 85mm F2 which I love

 

[HeavyPiper]

I got my RF 100-400mm because I wanted it for travel and so far it has performed great. I still have my EF 100-400mm and plan on keeping it, but it's heavy so it doesn't get carried far from my car.

 

[Bonich]

The 100-400 has amazing talents. I never used a better lens when it comes to shooting all the small live at the edge of ponds its (dragonflies, butterflies, Reps&Amphs, ...): Very good shooting distance with high magnification ("longer" than the 100-500 in close distance shooting), ultra light and decent IS. The more than attractive price doesn't hurt.
I use the 100-400 beside the 100-500.
Is the 100-400 on par with the RF28 Pancake as the best RF consumer lens option so far?

 

[Del Paso]

That review is 2 years late! Here is our review of over two year ago: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/canon-rf-100-400mm-f-5-6-8-is-usm-first-impressions.40938/

Now for opticallimits own data. The RF 100-500mm has resolution in the centre of 4003 at 100mm, 3679 at 350mm and 3583 lw/ph at 500mm on the 30 Mpx R at 30mm and gets a 4* rating for being impressively sharp throughout the range. The RF 100-400mm gets 4758 at 100mm and 4370 lw/ph at 400mm on the R5 at 45 mpx R5. Downsize the 100-400 results to 30 Mpx gives 3880 at 100mm and 3568 lw/ph at 400mm. The edges are not as good but its the centre that counts for telephotos, and the RF 100-400mm at the centre is very close to the 100-500mm! The RF 100-400mm gets 3*.

I find and have posted many images here showing that the 100-400mm at 400mm on the R7 gives about the same resolution as the RF 100-500 at 500mm on the R5. I have no axe to grind as both are go-to lenses for me.

Compare all that with the final comment by opticallimits: "Overall, the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM is a good lens for the money, especially for those with a lower-megapixel camera body. If you want more ... well ... the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 USM L IS will cost you 5x this much." The RF 100-400mm works very well on a high resolution sensor, and it is better at the mfd because it has less focus breathing than the 100-500mm.

Let me please partly disagree.
I often use telezooms for landscapes, and hate soft edges. The RF 100-400 may be excellent for birding, dragonflies, even macros, but far less for cities or landscapes than the RF100-500 or EF100-400 IS L II.
If my main focus was BIF or wildlife, I'd get the RF 100-400, but this is presently not the case.

 

[Del Paso]

If you want to have realy good Tests, go to Uncle Rog.
More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments

Good tests? OK, but mostly valid for the maximum aperture.
But not much use for macro, architecture or landscapes. Even though a lens, excellent wide open, won't disappoint with diaphragm closed. But I'd far prefer wide-open & f5,6 or 8 testing.´.
Some lenses have 2 faces.

 

[AlanF]

Let me please partly disagree.
I often use telezooms for landscapes, and hate soft edges. The RF 100-400 may be excellent for birding, dragonflies, even macros, but far less for cities or landscapes than the RF100-500 or EF100-400 IS L II.
If my main focus was BIF or wildlife, I'd get the RF 100-400, but this is presently not the case.

Here are Canon's MTFs for the EF 100-400mm II and the RF 100-400mm, and Opticallimits charts. Remember the EF is on a 21 Mpx sensor and the RF on the much more demanding 45 Mpx sensor for opticallimits. It's not night and day between them in the centre or at the edges.

 

[EricN]

Let me please partly disagree.
I often use telezooms for landscapes, and hate soft edges. The RF 100-400 may be excellent for birding, dragonflies, even macros, but far less for cities or landscapes than the RF100-500 or EF100-400 IS L II.
If my main focus was BIF or wildlife, I'd get the RF 100-400, but this is presently not the case.

It's a good point and also, some people don't want to have the subject centered. Of course, we can try to combine multiple frames with photoshop or whatever in order to overcome that.

 

[shadowsports]

I got mine in Oct 2022. First non L RF lens. Considering what you get the IQ is very good for such an inexpensive lens. Its a great crowd pleaser with decent reach and perfect for daytime outings. I use it more than I thought I would.

 

[DhlcadR6]

The 100-400 has amazing talents. I never used a better lens when it comes to shooting all the small live at the edge of ponds its (dragonflies, butterflies, Reps&Amphs, ...): Very good shooting distance with high magnification ("longer" than the 100-500 in close distance shooting), ultra light and decent IS. The more than attractive price doesn't hurt.
I use the 100-400 beside the 100-500.
Is the 100-400 on par with the RF28 Pancake as the best RF consumer lens option so far?

RF16 RF28 RF100-400 in my book. All three can be versatile and use them daily.

 

[EricN]

RF16 RF28 RF100-400 in my book. All three can be versatile and use them daily.

what about the 50 and 85 stms?

 

[DhlcadR6]

what about the 50 and 85 stms?

Personally I'm not a fan of 50/ Nifty-fifthties. And I prefer the still on-sale Yongnuo 85 f1.8R over 85STM. Sacrifice macro for a smaller form factor&faster AF motor is ok.(And I use R6 that has IBIS)

 

[koenkooi]

Personally I'm not a fan of 50/ Nifty-fifthties. And I prefer the still on-sale Yongnuo 85 f1.8R over 85STM. Sacrifice macro for a smaller form factor&faster AF motor is ok.(And I use R6 that has IBIS)

Strangely enough I get much sharper images out of the RF50STM on my R8 than on the R5, even after Canon fixed the IBIS twitch issue when using primes.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Strangely enough I get much sharper images out of the RF50STM on my R8 than on the R5, even after Canon fixed the IBIS twitch issue when using primes.

Maybe the DLO on R8 works even stronger?

Or could be just the thinner AA filter on R8/R6ii

 

[koenkooi]

Maybe the DLO on R8 works even stronger?

Or could be just the thinner AA filter on R8/R6ii

DLO isn’t active on RAW images, so that isn’t a factor.

 

[AlanF]

Strangely enough I get much sharper images out of the RF50STM on my R8 than on the R5, even after Canon fixed the IBIS twitch issue when using primes.

What do you mean by sharper? Better resolution or acutance?

 

[koenkooi]

What do you mean by sharper? Better resolution or acutance?

Mostly less blur in very similar situations using the same shutter speed, regardless of shutter mode, which is mainly ES.
Before the IBIS twitch was fixed, I had very few non-blurry pictures using the RF50, after the fix that improved dramatically, but it still happened.

My working theory is that IBIS isn’t always helpful on the RF50 when using 1/200s and combined with the bigger pixels and supposedly weaker OLPF, the R8 pictures looks ‘sharper’.

This could very well be a combination of user error and wishful thinking, since I’m not seeing any difference between the R5 and R8 when using the RF16 and RF28.

 

[EricN]

Mostly less blur in very similar situations using the same shutter speed, regardless of shutter mode, which is mainly ES.
Before the IBIS twitch was fixed, I had very few non-blurry pictures using the RF50, after the fix that improved dramatically, but it still happened.

My working theory is that IBIS isn’t always helpful on the RF50 when using 1/200s and combined with the bigger pixels and supposedly weaker OLPF, the R8 pictures looks ‘sharper’.

This could very well be a combination of user error and wishful thinking, since I’m not seeing any difference between the R5 and R8 when using the RF16 and RF28.

It's interesting, have you tried turning off the ibis and comparing those shots, too?

 

[koenkooi]

It's interesting, have you tried turning off the ibis and comparing those shots, too?

I sadly have not and I sold my R5 a few weeks ago. I’m still enjoying the 50STM on the R8 though

 

[danfaz]

Strangely enough I get much sharper images out of the RF50STM on my R8 than on the R5

Could that be because the RF50STM can't "handle" a 45mp sensor?
That's a theory Christopher Frost has proposed with the 28-70 he re-reviewed. He's saying the images are sharper on the R than they are on the R5.

 

[AlanF]

Could that be because the RF50STM can't "handle" a 45mp sensor?
That's a theory Christopher Frost has proposed with the 28-70 he re-reviewed. He's saying the images are sharper on the R than they are on the R5.

No. All things being equal the 45 Mpx sensor has to give a sharper image. Some thing else has to be happening.