RF 100-500 compared to EF 100-400 1.4

[Bundu]

Can anyone please point me in the right direction? I want to compare the RF 100-500 at 500 f7.1 to the EF 100-400 1.4tc at 560 f5.6.
Your help will be much appreciated.

 

[AlanF]

Can anyone please point me in the right direction? I want to compare the RF 100-500 at 500 f7.1 to the EF 100-400 1.4tc at 560 f5.6.
Your help will be much appreciated.

Here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...s-ef-100-400mm-ii-vs-400mm-do-ii-on-r5.39813/

It's worthwhile doing a CR search of Titles.

 

[Bundu]

Here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...s-ef-100-400mm-ii-vs-400mm-do-ii-on-r5.39813/

It's worthwhile doing a CR search of Titles.

Thank you very much. Will search again. Think my keywords must have been too vague!!!

 

[AlanF]

I think you mean 100-400mm 1.4xTC at 560 f/8. In a nut shell, close up, 3-6m from target, the 100-500mm is noticeably sharper and resolves more than the 100-400mm II at 560mm f/8, despite the shorter focal length. At longer distances, say 15m upwards, the two lenses are closer. Put an RF 1.4xTC on the RF 100-500mm, and it is very signficantly better than the 100-400mm II + 2xTC at close distances and is still better at long distances.
If you are talking about the 100-400mm first version, the differences will be greater.

 

[Bundu]

Now I realise my error! I wrote 100-400 1.4. I meant 200-400 F4.0 with built in 1.4 tc at 560mm F5.6. My apologies!!!

 

[unfocused]

Comparison: $8,300 more expensive, twice the weight and just under a stop faster. If the cost and weight don't matter to you, then buy the 200-400. For most people, the cost and weight do matter.

 

[AlanF]

Now I realise my error! I wrote 100-400 1.4. I meant 200-400 F4.0 with built in 1.4 tc at 560mm F5.6. My apologies!!!

This is the only comparison I have seen. The 5DSR has very similar resolution to the R5 so it's a fair comparison. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
The 200-400 f/4 is way above the weight I can hand hold or carry, but I am an oldie. Even for a strong person 8lb 5oz or 3.78kg isn't easy without a monopod or tripod.
Edit, I see from another post by you that you shoot mainly from a vehicle, and that changes the weight concerns.

 

[Bundu]

Thank you Alanf. Looks to me that the 100-500 @500 holds up extremely well against the 200-400 @560. Only when you stop down the 200-400 that it is slightly better. Without the extender engaged it is very good. I expected a bigger difference. But then the faster aperture should make the bigger difference, especially morning and evening.

 

[Bundu]

Comparison: $8,300 more expensive, twice the weight and just under a stop faster. If the cost and weight don't matter to you, then buy the 200-400. For most people, the cost and weight do matter.

I do have a 100-500, but it is usually on my girlfriends camera! Think I will rent the 200-400 this weekend and compare for myself.

 

[AlanF]

I do have a 100-500, but it is usually on my girlfriends camera! Think I will rent the 200-400 this weekend and compare for myself.

With a girlfriend like World Champion Tatania, you could give her the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8.

 

[Fischer]

I do have a 100-500, but it is usually on my girlfriends camera! Think I will rent the 200-400 this weekend and compare for myself.

Remember to tell what you see afterwards. Have a nice one.

 

[Bundu]

Remember to tell what you see afterwards. Have a nice one.

Sold the 400 and 600 this week. And lost quite a bit of money. So decided that I am going to try and live with the Tamron 150-600 G2 as a stopgap till the rumored 200-500 f4(with tc?) is released, hopefully next year. That way I wont lose a lot of money again. I had a 400 F4.0 DO II that I sold to finance the 400 F2.8 III. I never should have done it, realised it was my favourite lens, but too late!!!!