RF 100-400 or RF 100-500
- Thread starter ronbyram
- Start date
I have the RF 100-500 mm, but I do not have the 100-400 mm. The 100-500 mm for me is an excellent travel lens for wildlife photography especially on a R5 or R5 Mk2 where you can crop in a bit more due to the higher resolution sensor.
Upvote
0
I use the RF 100-500 for everything, everywhere. Before, I did the same with the EF 100-400.
I once tested the RF 100-400, but found out the 100-500 was a better lens for landscapes. Side and corner sharpness is visibly better when compared to the RF 100-400's.
For birds or other smaller critters, the RF 100-400 is an excellent option, lightweight + high central sharpness.
I once tested the RF 100-400, but found out the 100-500 was a better lens for landscapes. Side and corner sharpness is visibly better when compared to the RF 100-400's.
For birds or other smaller critters, the RF 100-400 is an excellent option, lightweight + high central sharpness.
Upvote
0
My R8+RF100-400 fits into the outside pocket of my winter parka, so it's really nice to bring along on walks. But most of the time I bring a shoulderbag with the RF100-500. This is mostly because I don't want to 'waste' the 100-500, the RF100-400 would be good enough, I generally don't care about corner sharpness when I use these focal lengths.
Upvote
0
It's not as simple for me for travel vs local use. If I wish to travel lightweight on a trip where my prime purpose is not bird photography, the RF 100-400mm is excellent, especially on the R7, because it is light, small and inconspicuous. I'll also take it on local hikes when light weight is of real concern and to be honest, on the R7 it is not far behind the RF 100-500mm on the R5. However, if it's a serious birding trip, I'll take the RF 100-500mm, especially as that lens works well with the RF 2xTC (the RF 100-400mm is really not up to use with TCs) and it's sharp corner to corner with very fast AF for BIF. I use the RF 200-800 a lot as well for serious bird photography.
Upvote
0