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

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
173
106
Hi mate , yeah sorry when i tried to post them the first time i changed to jpeg to get smaller files but obviously couldn't upload jpegs to large even at 110kb hence the link but i forgot to go and grab the raws again my bad. no editing done on these I'm still a month or two away form making the video for my channel . stay tuned. Seagull was handheld stab on the rp turned on i think the others are tripod tho like waves and lighthouse as i did focus stack for the foreground in lighthouse for when i edit it , lighthouse was close to sunset so maybe 400-800 I'm guessing and waves also would be the rock in ocean would be 100 iso and handheld for that .
hope this helps.
if you want the raw files i can send you another link tonight when i get home form work just let me know happy to help
No problem, would be great to see the RAW images, please post them up when you have time. Thanks for the explanation, that's helpful. Looking forward to the video, let us all know when it's up! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigers media

SnowMiku

EOS 90D
Oct 4, 2020
107
77
It would be interesting to see how the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM compares to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM if anyone has both? I wonder if the L version cropped to 400mm would be as sharp?
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
It would be interesting to see how the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM compares to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM if anyone has both? I wonder if the L version cropped to 400mm would be as sharp?
The RF 100-400mm Is very close to the sharpness of the EF 100-400mm II. No way would the 300mm cropped be as sharp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LogicExtremist

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
514
497
It would be interesting to see how the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM compares to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM if anyone has both? I wonder if the L version cropped to 400mm would be as sharp?
If you look at 400 vs 420 (with extender), then I would say the crop will be close. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2 . The 70-300L is very sharp at 300, but awesome between 150 and 250. The new lens is more in the vein of the 70-300 IS II albeit the latter is a full stop faster at 300.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
If you look at 400 vs 420 (with extender), then I would say the crop will be close. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2 . The 70-300L is very sharp at 300, but awesome between 150 and 250. The new lens is more in the vein of the 70-300 IS II albeit the latter is a full stop faster at 300.
It can be very misleading trying to compare lenses on the TDP site. One example I have pointed out here many times is that he has the EF 100-400mm II sharper than the EF 400mm II on the 5DSR, which is nonsense. Miraculously, dial in the 7DII on the site, and the 400mm prime is sharper than the zoom. The only sites that are reliable are Lensrentals when it tests because it does many copies of each, or those that actually measure under controlled conditions, like opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc, but they only measure one copy and there can be considerable copy variation.
 
Last edited:

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
514
497
It can be very misleading trying to compare lenses on the TDP site. One example I have pointed out here many times is that he has the EF 100-400mm II sharper than the EF 400mm II on the 5DSR, which is nonsense. Miraculously, dial in the 7DII on the site, and the 400mm prime is sharper than the zoom. The only sites that are reliable are Lensrentals when it tests because it does many copies of each, or those that actually measure under controlled conditions, like opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc, but they only measure one copy and there can be considerable copy variation.
If you think the 100-400 looks sharper than the 400 in this comparison https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 , then possibly you should see an optometrist. Certainly the 400 is a bit sharper at f/4 than f/2.8 but it is always sharper than the 100-400 at 400. The downside of that comparison is that both lenses are good enough that the chart doesn't offer much differential information. The 7D2 test effective rescales the chart, so you can better see the differences even though the 5DSr and 7D2 have similar pixel pitch. The tests on TDP are clearly one copy tests, but if a copy appears bad, they often test a second copy for verification. Clearly not as rigorous as Roger's 10 lens runs, but still the best comparison over time of a wide group of lenses. Roger only tests high runners and sometimes lenses he fancies. TDP uses DPP to process canon raws and the biggest variable I have seen is the way DPP behaves with different bodies since it seems to try to emulate what the camera does internally and that varies substantially with different AA filters on different sensors. DPP often does not agree with ACR or DXO PhotoLab on sharpness. The difference is not huge, but certainly something to be aware of. This is one of the most noticeable examples https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1078&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3. The 80D and the M5 have essentially the same sensor, but the AAF is different and DPP does some weird stuff with the M5. The M5 is much sharper when processed through ACR. There is also the matter of sharpness vs focus distance. Roger's tests are effectively at infinity focus and TDP's tests are at the distance the chart fills the frame, so closer for wide lenses than for Tele lenses, but always much closer than infinity. I find the best approach is to read as many reviews as possible, because different reviewers tend to pick up on different pluses and minuses of lens behavior, such as field curvature, which can be a problem or used to advantage depending on your perspective. BTW, my comments on the 70-300L were not exclusive to TDP. I have the lens and it is one in a very short list that holds up to the sensor in the 90D.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,049
4,613
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
If you think the 100-400 looks sharper than the 400 in this comparison https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 , then possibly you should see an optometrist. Certainly the 400 is a bit sharper at f/4 than f/2.8 but it is always sharper than the 100-400 at 400. The downside of that comparison is that both lenses are good enough that the chart doesn't offer much differential information. The 7D2 test effective rescales the chart, so you can better see the differences even though the 5DSr and 7D2 have similar pixel pitch. The tests on TDP are clearly one copy tests, but if a copy appears bad, they often test a second copy for verification. Clearly not as rigorous as Roger's 10 lens runs, but still the best comparison over time of a wide group of lenses. Roger only tests high runners and sometimes lenses he fancies. TDP uses DPP to process canon raws and the biggest variable I have seen is the way DPP behaves with different bodies since it seems to try to emulate what the camera does internally and that varies substantially with different AA filters on different sensors. DPP often does not agree with ACR or DXO PhotoLab on sharpness. The difference is not huge, but certainly something to be aware of. This is one of the most noticeable examples https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1078&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3. The 80D and the M5 have essentially the same sensor, but the AAF is different and DPP does some weird stuff with the M5. The M5 is much sharper when processed through ACR. There is also the matter of sharpness vs focus distance. Roger's tests are effectively at infinity focus and TDP's tests are at the distance the chart fills the frame, so closer for wide lenses than for Tele lenses, but always much closer than infinity. I find the best approach is to read as many reviews as possible, because different reviewers tend to pick up on different pluses and minuses of lens behavior, such as field curvature, which can be a problem or used to advantage depending on your perspective. BTW, my comments on the 70-300L were not exclusive to TDP. I have the lens and it is one in a very short list that holds up to the sensor in the 90D.
There is no need for you to be rude, especially as you got it wrong. You are the one who needs to see see the optometrist. I wrote EF 100-400mm II, and you need to get some glasses through which you can see and resolve II, as neuro has just noted.
It can be very misleading trying to compare lenses on the TDP site. One example I have pointed out here many times is that he has the EF 100-400mm II sharper than the EF 400mm II on the 5DSR, which is nonsense. Miraculously, dial in the 7DII on the site, and the 400mm prime is sharper than the zoom. The only sites that are reliable are Lensrentals when it tests because it does many copies of each, or those that actually measure under controlled conditions, like opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc, but they only measure one copy and there can be considerable copy variation.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
514
497
From prior posts, @AlanF is talking about the 100-400 II vs the 400/4 DO II.
Pretty minor difference for a big fuss. Looks like the 400/4 DO II may have been ever so slightly OOF in the 5DSR shots as it cleans up nicely at f/5.6. When looking at TDP samples, I always look at all the cameras used as often the tests are done at different times with a different sample and certainly with a different attempt at optimizing manual focus. When the glass is as good as any of the lenses in this discussion, you are only going to notice any significant difference in the real world if you have a TC attached to the lens and that result is there to see as well and even then, the 100-400 holds up remarkably well. The 400/4 DO II clearly likes to be stopped down one click, which kind of negates the premium price. The 100-400 L II is a remarkable lens but it didn't have enough resolution with TCs added for some of my hummingbird shots, so I got an 800L and, yes, at 800 it is much sharper. It is even darn good at 1120, but just a bit soft at 1600, and that is to some degree the price of f/11 (i.e. diffraction). All else being equal, a large objective lens is beneficial, but rarely are things equal in lens land, so seeing is believing.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,049
4,613
…so seeing is believing.
Personally I am skeptical after seeing n=1 (that is @AlanF‘s main point), although some people are convinced by limited data or even no data.

If you’ve followed Roger Cicala’s blog (Lensrentals), he has clearly shown that copy variation is present even with high-end lenses. Bryan/TDP tests one copy. With one of the EF-M lenses, my results were significantly better than those on his ISO 12233-type chart – based on that, he tested a second copy of the lens that turned out to be much better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricN

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
514
497
Personally I am skeptical after seeing n=1 (that is @AlanF‘s main point), although some people are convinced by limited data or even no data.

If you’ve followed Roger Cicala’s blog (Lensrentals), he has clearly shown that copy variation is present even with high-end lenses. Bryan/TDP tests one copy. With one of the EF-M lenses, my results were significantly better than those on his ISO 12233-type chart – based on that, he tested a second copy of the lens that turned out to be much better.
Yes, I pointed out in my initial response that TDP is showing one copy tests and if Bryan sees something fishy, he will try to test another copy. By "seeing is believing" I was not referring to looking at charts, but rather looking at the results you are able to achieve. All of the lenses in this discussion are excellent and even a mediocre copy will produce awesome images in the right hands.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
Yes, I pointed out in my initial response that TDP is showing one copy tests and if Bryan sees something fishy, he will try to test another copy. By "seeing is believing" I was not referring to looking at charts, but rather looking at the results you are able to achieve. All of the lenses in this discussion are excellent and even a mediocre copy will produce awesome images in the right hands.
These telephoto lenses are used by birders for distant birds and birds in flight, which usually require cropping the images. A mediocre lens gives lousy images under heavy cropping. I once had a poor copy of the original EF 100-400mm, which never gave me a sufficiently sharp cropped image, but was passable when the subject filled the frame. That all changed when I got first a decent prime, then the 100-400mm II, and now the RF 100-500 and RF 100-400mm. And my hands didn't suddenly become right after offloading the original EF 100-400mm. A lens that is really sharp in the centre makes all the difference to what you can do.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
The 400/4 DO II clearly likes to be stopped down one click, which kind of negates the premium price. The 100-400 L II is a remarkable lens but it didn't have enough resolution with TCs added for some of my hummingbird shots, so I got an 800L and, yes, at 800 it is much sharper. It is even darn good at 1120, but just a bit soft at 1600, and that is to some degree the price of f/11 (i.e. diffraction). All else being equal, a large objective lens is beneficial, but rarely are things equal in lens land, so seeing is believing.
Why didn't you get the EF 600mm II instead? TDP shows it to be sharper at 840mm with the 1.4xTC at f/5.6 than the native EF 800mm, and it's cheaper and lighter.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,049
4,613
Why didn't you get the EF 600mm II instead? TDP shows it to be sharper at 840mm with the 1.4xTC at f/5.6 than the native EF 800mm, and it's cheaper and lighter.
I’ve been very pleased with that combo.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
514
497
Why didn't you get the EF 600mm II instead? TDP shows it to be sharper at 840mm with the 1.4xTC at f/5.6 than the native EF 800mm, and it's cheaper and lighter.
A half stop fixes the minor difference at 800/840 and at 1120/1200 the two are a push and then the 800 will go to 1600 which is remarkably sharp at f/14-f/16. In the end, I found a good price on a mint 800 and that sealed the deal. Hummingbirds need all the magnification you can get wen they live in a tree about 60 ft from where you can plant the camera . Here is a 100% crop at 1600mm f/13 from a 90D. Bear in mind that is an 85 MP FF equivalent sensor. The bird is about 35 feet from the camera.


IMG_2757-Edit.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SnowMiku

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,843
12,088
A half stop fixes the minor difference at 800/840 and at 1120/1200 the two are a push and then the 800 will go to 1600 which is remarkably sharp at f/14-f/16. In the end, I found a good deal on a mint 800 and that sealed the deal. Hummingbirds need all the magnification you can get wen they live in a tree about 60 ft from where you can plant the camera . Here is a 100% crop at 1600mm f/13 from a 90D. Bear in mind that is an 85 MP FF equivalent sensor. The bird is about 35 feet from the camera.


View attachment 201209
Not bad at all. Better still, you could trade in the 800/5.6 for a 1200/5.6.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Dragon and EricN

PCM-madison

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Dec 9, 2013
140
129
I ordered the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM to use with my RP for travel/hiking/backpacking. I was a little worried about initial reports of poor autofocus for this combination, and I have not yet had time for extensive testing. However, with a challenging subject, our black cat Roy under indoor lighting at night, autofocus worked great at 100mm and 200mm (the interior space does not allow for testing 400mm). I will report back when I used it under more varied conditions. Roy - 100mm, F5.6, 1/50, iso 12800 (image is cropped and compressed to allow upload to this site)
Roy pillow Lsc.jpg
 

PCM-madison

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Dec 9, 2013
140
129
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I recently purchased the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM to use with my RP for travel/hiking/backpacking. When size and weight are less of a concern, my go-to wildlife set up is a 5Ds R + EF 400mm F4 DO ii. Today I decided to shoot them side-by-side at 400mm to see what I am getting and/or giving up when using the RP + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM. It was an overcast day so light was definitely limiting. Smaller size and lower weight are obviously a big plus for the RP combo as are the added flexibility of 100-399mm being available. Shooting fixed subjects, I also found the RP + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM to be a full stop more hand-holdable for me with sharp results at 1/60 sec and soft but acceptable results at 1/30 sec vs. needing 1/125 sec for sharp results with the 5Ds R + EF 400mm F4 DO ii. When cropping for distant subjects, the 5Ds R + EF 400mm F4 DO ii has the edge in detail from both higher resolution and ability to use lower iso. The background blur difference was also noticeable for F4 vs F8, but some real world situations call for F8. In the example showing Canada geese, focus is on the front goose and the second goose is out of focus at F4 not F8 so if my goal were to actually photograph the pair of geese, I would have used F8 with either lens. The 5Ds R + EF 400mm F4 DO ii also had faster autofocus than the RP + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM. That being said, the RP + RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM autofocus was plenty good enough for shooting wildlife including birds in flight. Photos are pairs of similar crops of distant subjects from today.
IMG_2023.jpg
112621 geese composite.jpg
112621 hawk composite.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricN and SnowMiku