RF 100-500mm vs EF 100-400mm II vs 400mm DO II on R5

[AlanF]

Iv'e done the crops, and they are interesting. First, close up at 5.8m from a £10 note. I have cropped the left hand side with Britannia and upscaled the 500 1.4x with Gigapixel (500mm x 1.4) and compared with the 100-500+ 1.4xTC (700mm). The analog upscaling with the extender does eke out a little more detail, but loses acutance (edge sharpness), and I am not sure I would recommend it.

 

[AlanF]

At longer distances, it's a different story, using that damn chart. At 19m with the R5 again. Top, 100-500mm bare; next upscaled 1.4x with Topaz Gigapixel; then 1.4xTC on the 100-500mm TC at 700mm; bottom, the 700mm upscaled 1.4x. The extender allows the 2.8 circles to be resolved and finer spaced lines to be resolved. The extender could be worth it an a number of circumstances. You'll need to download to compare properly.

 

[usern4cr]

At longer distances, it's a different story, using that damn chart. At 19m with the R5 again. Top, 100-500mm bare; next upscaled 1.4x with Gigigapixel; then 1.4xTC on the 100-500mm TC at 700mm; bottom, the 700mm upscaled 1.4x. The extender allows the 2.8 circles to be resolved and finer spaced lines to be resolved. The extender could be worth it an a number of circumstances. You'll need to download to compare properly.

View attachment 194558View attachment 194559View attachment 194560View attachment 194561

Thanks, AlanF. I was only able to download the bottom image, and not the top 3. I don't know why.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks, AlanF. I was only able to download the bottom image, and not the top 3. I don't know why.

Right click on the image on a Windows machine or Control click on a Mac and you should be able to download. If it doesn't work I'll PM you.

 

[usern4cr]

Right click on the image on a Windows machine or Control click on a Mac and you should be able to download. If it doesn't work I'll PM you.

Thanks - I got all 4 downloaded. It's pretty clear that the R5 & 100-500 at that distance doesn't have the pixels to resolve the smallest lines, and moire starts taking effect. Upsizing can't fix what's already gone moire. Adding the 1.4 TC gives it enough enlargement so moire doesn't happen much, and then the upsizing does a good job on it since it didn't moire out to start with.

So it looks like a very clear winner for using the RF 1.4X with the 100-500L lens over just cropping & upsizing. I guess I should consider a RF 1.4X TC now.

By the way, do you have a favorite Arca-Swiss adapter plate (with anti-rotation pin) for the 100-500K lens foot? I've been avoiding using the lens ring & foot, but with a 1.4X TC in line I think I'd be a lot safer using it. (It sure would have been nice if Canon had Arca-Swiss grooves in their lens foot like my Olympus 300mm f4 lens had)

 

[AlanF]

Thanks - I got all 4 downloaded. It's pretty clear that the R5 & 100-500 at that distance doesn't have the pixels to resolve the smallest lines, and moire starts taking effect. Upsizing can't fix what's already gone moire. Adding the 1.4 TC gives it enough enlargement so moire doesn't happen much, and then the upsizing does a good job on it since it didn't moire out to start with.

So it looks like a very clear winner for using the RF 1.4X with the 100-500L lens over just cropping & upsizing. I guess I should consider a RF 1.4X TC now.

By the way, do you have a favorite Arca-Swiss adapter plate (with anti-rotation pin) for the 100-500K lens foot? I've been avoiding using the lens ring & foot, but with a 1.4X TC in line I think I'd be a lot safer using it. (It sure would have been nice if Canon had Arca-Swiss grooves in their lens foot like my Olympus 300mm f4 lens had)

Sorry, I rarely use a tripod and carry my cameras on a BlackRapid strap with hooks into the camera base and tripod foot sockets.

 

[YuengLinger]

By the way, do you have a favorite Arca-Swiss adapter plate (with anti-rotation pin) for the 100-500K lens foot? I've been avoiding using the lens ring & foot, but with a 1.4X TC in line I think I'd be a lot safer using it. (It sure would have been nice if Canon had Arca-Swiss grooves in their lens foot like my Olympus 300mm f4 lens had)

Kirk has one, but maybe not with a pin: https://www.kirkphoto.com/rf-100-500mm-f-4-5-7-1-l-is-usm.html

I wonder if that front raised part, the stopping block, would interfere with using the lens photo as a handle.

 

[usern4cr]

Kirk has one, but maybe not with a pin: https://www.kirkphoto.com/rf-100-500mm-f-4-5-7-1-l-is-usm.html

Thanks, YuengLinger. The only one I know with a proper anti-rotate pin is the RRS B26, for $49. I'm really surprised that more of this type haven't been made.

 

[YuengLinger]

Thanks, YuengLinger. The only one I know with a proper anti-rotate pin is the RRS B26, for $49. I'm really surprised that more of this type haven't been made.

I never saw that one. Is the anti-rotation pin a standard distance from the bolt? Is that how you know it will fit?

On my 100-400, I used the B82. It has a ridge that helps prevent twisting. And I am using the same on my 70-200.

Do you know if the 100-500 has the same shape and size as the 70-200?

 

[usern4cr]

I never saw that one. Is the anti-rotation pin a standard distance from the bolt? Is that how you know it will fit?

On my 100-400, I used the B82. It has a ridge that helps prevent twisting. And I am using the same on my 70-200.

Do you know if the 100-500 has the same shape and size as the 70-200?

The RF 70-200L & and DO 800mm f11 have the same pin distance.
The RF 100-500L made it 1 mm longer to the pin for some unknown reason! - DOH!
I wouldn't have believed this if you hadn't asked, and I measured them with a micrometer.
Friggin' Canon - what were you thinking?!
I had assumed the RRS B26 would fit all 3, but now I know it can't and would have to ask for exact measurements before buying anything.

(and my previous Olympus 300mm f4 pro lens has the Arca-Swiss grooves on the tripod foot bottom and is just laughing at me now!)

 

[YuengLinger]

The RF 70-200L & and DO 800mm f11 have the same pin distance.
The RF 100-500L made it 1 mm longer to the pin for some unknown reason! - DOH!
I wouldn't have believed this if you hadn't asked, and I measured them with a micrometer.
Friggin' Canon - what were you thinking?!
I had assumed the RRS B26 would fit all 3, but now I know it can't and would have to ask for exact measurements before buying anything.

(and my previous Olympus 300mm f4 pro lens has the Arca-Swiss grooves on the tripod foot bottom and is just laughing at me now!)

Just to let you know, I am using the RRS B-82 plate on the rf 100-500mm. It feels very secure on the foot. I'm glad, because that plate was just sitting in a drawer since I sold my 100-400mm last year.

 

[usern4cr]

Just to let you know, I am using the RRS B-82 plate on the rf 100-500mm. It feels very secure on the foot. I'm glad, because that plate was just sitting in a drawer since I sold my 100-400mm last year.

Thanks for letting me know, YuengLinger!

 

[BadBird]

I did get the Kirk LP-71 for my RF 100-500, and the raised portion is curved around the toe of the foot so rotation is impossible. It works fine for me as a carrying handle and shooting grip when mounted (I have large hands), with the added benefit of a QD socket for a mil-spec sling. I did not get the Lens Support Bracket that mounts on the raised portion - seemed like overkill on such a light lens, and would foul the sleeve on my LensCoat. Thanks for the link.

 

[usern4cr]

I did get the Kirk LP-71 for my RF 100-500, and the raised portion is curved around the toe of the foot so rotation is impossible. It works fine for me as a carrying handle and shooting grip when mounted (I have large hands), with the added benefit of a QD socket for a mil-spec sling. I did not get the Lens Support Bracket that mounts on the raised portion - seemed like overkill on such a light lens, and would foul the sleeve on my LensCoat. Thanks for the link.

THANK YOU for the post, BadBird! I've been wanting to get a AS adapter for my 100-500, and now I can!
Question: What is the "lens support bracket" you're talking about?

 

[usern4cr]

I did get the Kirk LP-71 for my RF 100-500, and the raised portion is curved around the toe of the foot so rotation is impossible. It works fine for me as a carrying handle and shooting grip when mounted (I have large hands), with the added benefit of a QD socket for a mil-spec sling. I did not get the Lens Support Bracket that mounts on the raised portion - seemed like overkill on such a light lens, and would foul the sleeve on my LensCoat. Thanks for the link.

Do you know of a similar (cut to fit, or stop rotation somehow) AS adapter for the RF 800mm f11? I need to get one for it, too.

 

[BadBird]

Follow the link YuengLinger posted on 15 Dec and there is an "ad" for the Lens Support Bracket on the bottom of the page for the LP-71.

I don't have a great solution for the RF 800 yet; it really needs a mount with a rotation stop pin that will also provide a little bit of height. The mounting surface is hidden under the LensCoat section that protects the switches, and I want to keep all of the components of that on since the 800 isn't weather sealed. I just punched a hole in the neoprene over the screw hole and put a generic plate on it using loctite on the screw. It provides very low, but adequate support on a ball mount on my LensSack Pro. It works better on a Wimberley WH-200 where you can adjust height.

 

[usern4cr]

Follow the link YuengLinger posted on 15 Dec and there is an "ad" for the Lens Support Bracket on the bottom of the page for the LP-71.

I don't have a great solution for the RF 800 yet; it really needs a mount with a rotation stop pin that will also provide a little bit of height. The mounting surface is hidden under the LensCoat section that protects the switches, and I want to keep all of the components of that on since the 800 isn't weather sealed. I just punched a hole in the neoprene over the screw hole and put a generic plate on it using loctite on the screw. It provides very low, but adequate support on a ball mount on my LensSack Pro. It works better on a Wimberley WH-200 where you can adjust height.

I found out that there is a Kirk KLP-210 & 310 A.S. plate that will fit the RF 800 f11. I ordered the longer 310 one at B&H. I just wanted to let you all know about if if you have a RF 800 f11.

 

[scaffrey]

One of the questions asked about the RF 100-500mm is whether it’s worth upgrading to it from an EF 100-400mm II plus adapter. The consensus so far is that if you are starting from scratch, then it makes sense to buy into the RF system but if you already have the excellent EF lens then there is not that much to be gained by discarding the excellent 100-400mm II. Although the RF is back-ordered everywhere in the UK, some copies appeared on the European Canon site and I couldn’t resist one. The 100-500mm arrived Thursday afternoon and I managed to get some preliminary analysis when it hasn’t been raining from the point of view of someone who likes a lightweight lens for hiking and taking photos of birds, perched and in flight, close up and distant, and dragonflies and butterflies close up.

I have compared it on the R5 with the EF 100-400mm II f/5.6 and 400mm DO II f/4 with and without a 1.4xTCIII, in particular. In general, all three are spectacular for AF, both for latching on to fast flying birds and the eyes of closer ones. As for IS, I don’t see much of an R improvement in my hands when looking for pixel level sharpness and I needed to get down to 1/160s for 50% absolutely tack sharp at the pixel level at 20m.

The websites that report on lens sharpness usually do so at just one undefined distance. I want to know how sharp a lens is close up, mid distances and further away. So, I have done some tests using a UK £10 note at 3 and 6m, and black and white resolution charts at 12 and 20m. The RF 1.4xTC is arriving next week and I’ll report on the lens at 700mm then.

Hi Alan or others,

Thanks for the great posts.

I am not primarily a wildlife photographer, I mostly do travel and weddings. However, I am starting to get more into wildlife and bird photography.

I am debating between the following:
- Canon RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1 or
- Canon EF 400 F4 DO II (with a 1.4x)

I have a Canon R5 and several lenses including a 70-200 2.8.

If you assume that neither size nor price is an issue (I can get a reasonably priced used 400 DO II), what would you recommend? Would you take the flexibility of the zoom or the faster aperture of the prime?

With my background in travel and weddings, I appreciate the ability of a fast lens to separate the subject from the background and to stop motion, but I have also read that with a longer lens you need to stop down when shooting birds to get most of their bodies in focus.

Any recommendations?

Thanks,
Sean

 

[AlanF]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the great posts.

I am not primarily a wildlife photographer, I mostly do travel and weddings. However, I am starting to get more into wildlife and bird photography.

I am debating between the following:
- Canon RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1 or
- Canon EF 400 F4 DO II (with a 1.4x)

If you assume that neither size nor price is an issue (I can get a reasonably priced used 400 DO II), what would you recommend? Would you take the flexibility of the zoom or the faster aperture of the prime?

With my background in travel and weddings, I appreciate the ability of a fast lens to separate the subject from the background and to stop motion, but I have also read that with a longer lens you need to stop down when shooting birds to get most of their bodies in focus.

Thanks,
Sean

Sean
It's horses for courses. Remember that I am an opportunistic photographer who doesn't use a tripod and I carry a camera while walking around as well as less frequently sitting in a hide.

First the advantages of the prime. At 400mm and f/4 it resolves as well as the zoom at 500mm with 1.66 stop advantage. With the 1.4xTC at 560mm f/5.6, it is very sharp. With the 2xTC at f/8, it is distinctly better than the zoom at 700mm with the 1.4xTC. Nevertheless, the zoom is impressively sharp at 500mm. It's rare I use a telephoto at less than wide open.
The advantage of the zoom is that it is a zoom, and zooming out is on some occasions essential, and it focusses down to about a metre as opposed to the 3.3m of the prime. I do photo butterflies and dragonflies and need to get close, but 3.3m away at 560mm is usually good enough
Another factor is weight. The 400mm DO II + Hood + 1.4xTC weighs 2.5 kg, that is 0.9 kg or 2 lb more than the zoom. I notice the difference and find the prime more difficult to hold steady and more of a strain hiking with it on a BlackRapid strap over my shoulder. However, even at my advanced age I can manage it but try and rest it on something convenient if possible.

I am happy to go out for a days shooting with either. For our last three serious birding trips before covid, Galapagos/Ecuador, trip all around Florida in a rental car (we live in the UK) and a superb group bird tour in a minivan around Israel in the migration season, both my wife and I took 100-400mm IIs on our DSLRs and left the 400mm DO II at home, with no regrets. If I had to have just one lens, it would be the 100-500mm because of greater versatility and far easier weight for travel. But, if I was going somewhere like in rain forests that are gloomy or where birds are mainly far away, I'd take the prime. In the Galapagos, the zoom was essential because the birds are so close. In Ecuador, the prime would have been better, but the 100-400mm II did a good enough job. On safari in Tanzania, I had taken the prime with TCs and it was great, shooting from the Jeep. On a later birding trip to Portugal, I did take a lightweight monopod.

 

[scaffrey]

Thanks Alan,

I picked up the 400 DO II and a 1.4x III. I am having an issue with focus consistency. When the bare lens or the lens with the 1.4x hits focus it is sharp, unfortunately, the hit rate is very low (especially with the 1.4x). Even with large stationary targets like a parked car's licence plate. Greater than 50% are slightly out of focus, even with good lite conditions.

I use servo focus with back button focus with eye-tracking or single spot.

Could this be an issue with the IS? Any ideas?

My R5 has amazing focus consistency with the rest of my lenses including the F 1.2 lenses.