Here is the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,176
882
Davidson, NC
In late 2019 I was on a cruise ship leaving Venice as it got dark. I stood on my stateroom’s balcony and shot pictures with my G5X II. Most shots were taken at ISO 3200, as I recall, maybe some at 6400. The results were amazing. Small camera, moving ship, mostly in the dark, high ISO, what could go wrong?

Of course the inky sky was noisy. But there was no detail in the sky, so noise reduction was not a problem: just apply enough so it wasn’t annoying, but not enough that it looked artificial. For the 13” x 19” prints I made, it probably didn’t matter, since the sky was in gamut territory with very little subtlety on that printer. The lighted parts of the scene, Doge’s Palace, St. Mark’s, tower, etc., looked tack sharp.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
In late 2019 I was on a cruise ship leaving Venice as it got dark. I stood on my stateroom’s balcony and shot pictures with my G5X II. Most shots were taken at ISO 3200, as I recall, maybe some at 6400. The results were amazing. Small camera, moving ship, mostly in the dark, high ISO, what could go wrong?

Of course the inky sky was noisy. But there was no detail in the sky, so noise reduction was not a problem: just apply enough so it wasn’t annoying, but not enough that it looked artificial. For the 13” x 19” prints I made, it probably didn’t matter, since the sky was in gamut territory with very little subtlety on that printer. The lighted parts of the scene, Doge’s Palace, St. Mark’s, tower, etc., looked tack sharp.
I use a 1" sensor camera occasionally for general purpose and for travel when I can't take a DSLR or FF ILC. At the long end, it has a 220mm f/4 lens. That is equivalent to a 400mm f/7.3 lens so it should perform in terms in noise, dof etc as about a 0.25 stop wider than the 400 f/8.;)
 

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
759
177
I guess I'm a bit late to the party. Anyhoo...
I wonder if we'll see this lens as a kit lens bundled with a camera, like the 75-300 of yesteryear. Say the RP plus 24-105/4-7.1 plus 100-400/5.6-8 combo deal. If so, wonder how much of extra you'll pay. Should be less than 649 USD?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricN

SnowMiku

EOS 90D
Oct 4, 2020
107
77
f/5.6@100mm seems a bit slow when the old EF 70-300 IS II is f/4.5@100mm. But it is good to finally see a consumer 400mm, I wish they released a consumer zoom 400mm on EF.
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
857
708
Frankfurt, Germany
As you are a physicist, you might be interested in that I calculated the MTF values of the different slow lenses based on the Airy diffraction and the sensor MTFs and posted here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...of-f-5-6-f-7-1-and-f-11-lenses-and-tcs.39118/ (I didn't allow for lens aberrations or the Bayer filter).
It's true that you see more advantage with lower resolution sensors of increasing focal length at expense of f-number. I found from actual measurements of putting the 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm and R5 that the resolution increased by ~40% on going from 500mm f/7.1 to 1000mm f/14.
Sorry for my delayed reply (I had to work on quantum simulation topics as a journalist). Very interesting, I missed your diffraction blur related threads. I love geek threads, if they are connected with optics and sensor tech. Thank you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

xwxw

EOS M50
Nov 3, 2020
32
47
I did a size comparison to the latest 70-300 EF. It's probably 1-2cm longer than the EF. I think we could expect similar optical performance.

My guess was right. It's 19mm longer than the 70-300 II and about 10% lighter.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
An RF 100-400mm appeared on the website of my favourite on-line dealer. It is now registering as being dispatched to me. Watch this space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricN and dcm

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,049
4,613
An RF 100-400mm appeared on the website of my favourite on-line dealer. It is now registering as being dispatched to me. Watch this space.
Curious about when you'd use the 100-400 over the 100-500L.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
Curious about when you'd use the 100-400 over the 100-500L.
It's primarily going to be for my wife who finds the 100-400mm II too heavy, and I'll get her an R body so we can travel with two R bodies and two telephoto lenses for mutual back up in case any one fails. In addition, I might take it out on hikes to carry less weight if the IQ is good enough. I'll test it when it arrives st the end of the week and report back as usual. The older I get, the more I need lenses to be light.
 

Nemorino

EOS R5
Aug 29, 2020
253
482
I'll test it when it arrives st the end of the week and report back as usual.
I am looking forward to Your test as You are one of the most trustworthy user on this forum.
I don't use tele lenses a lot but this lens with it's low price is very intersting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColorBlindBat

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
173
106
Performance of the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens looks quite disappointing when compared to the older EF mount Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens.

Price is fairly similar, Sigma lens quality much higher, and does not use molded plastic aspherical lens element like the Canon lens.

The website www.the-digital-picture.com has added the Rf 100-400mm lens to its lens image comparison tool, and the Sigma is clearly sharper wide open at f/6.3 than the RF Canon lens wide open at f/8, see comparison here.

It would be great to see someone do side by side image comparisons of real world subject matter such as birds, to see how these differences play out in the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowMiku

SnowMiku

EOS 90D
Oct 4, 2020
107
77
Performance of the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens looks quite disappointing when compared to the older EF mount Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens.

Price is fairly similar, Sigma lens quality much higher, and does not use molded plastic aspherical lens element like the Canon lens.

The website www.the-digital-picture.com has added the Rf 100-400mm lens to its lens image comparison tool, and the Sigma is clearly sharper wide open at f/6.3 than the RF Canon lens wide open at f/8, see comparison here.

It would be great to see someone do side by side image comparisons of real world subject matter such as birds, to see how these differences play out in the field.
To be fair the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM weighs only 635g compared to the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C which is 1160g. I agree it would be interesting to see real world comparisons.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
173
106
To be fair the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM weighs only 635g compared to the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C which is 1160g. I agree it would be interesting to see real world comparisons.
That's a fair point, the weight with lens hood would be a bit heavier, for a like-for-like comparison, I think it's 680g with a lens hood, but 480g is still quite a decent weight saving.

This is one Canon lens I really want to like, as it would be very easy to carry around! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowMiku

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
173
106
That's really soft, slightly out of focus or both!
The tests are done with lenses in sharp focus, so what you're seeing is softness.

I tried comparing it to the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens which gives an equivalent of 400mm f/9 and it looks a bit sharper then the APSC lens, see here

Guessing it's the full frame RF version of that popular APSC lens, with a bit more brightness f/8 vs f/9, otherwise pretty similar, you're not really getting much more optically, but way overpriced at double the price! :(