Canon RF 100-500 Versus the Canon RF 100-400. "Which one would you let marry your daughter?" Review.

[@RogerZoul]

The only problem I have with your review is the modifier “a little bit”. The RF 100-400 is a great buy for the price ($150 net to me with a trade in of a lens I rarely use). It is so light on my r7. However, in no way is it truly competitive with the RF 100-500. If you don’t have money for the 100-500, get the 100-400 and be happy. But if you do, you won’t regret a minute of shooting with that lens. It is fast focusing, sure-focusing, and give beautiful images. The files from the 100-500 don’t really need sharping most of the time, where as those from the 100-400 always need sharpening. And the files lack contrast and depth. You can definitely help them out in editing but they need that help to yield winners. The 100-500 is not a heavy lens unless you are really weak, which does come with age to all of us, but the 100-500 is way lighter than my EF 400 mm F4 DO Mk 2 or my EF 500 mm F4L Mk 2 lens. And I mean way lighter. The 100-400 is super light, but it is also super cheap with no weather sealing and it made of low-grade parts, so if you bang it on a door it might get knocked so far out of whack that it can’t focus. Still, I like having and won’t give it up unless I find some young person who really wants to do photography and needs a boost to get started. This is a great starter lens for anyone from the very young to the very old (in fact, I suggest this lens along with a R50 to older folks who need to get out and walk in the park and do a little bird watching at the same time. Killer for such applications. Okay, back to my point, the RF 100-500 is a LOT better than the 100-400, not just a little bit. And it cost a LOT more, as a result. Maybe you don’t perceive sharpness as I do, but I pixel-peep my own images all the time, often editing at 200% so I see the pixels that come out and the 100-500 is simply on another level. And when you add in the other elements that go into image quality, there is really no comparison. I know professional photographers who mainly use the 100-500 because it is such a versatile lens. While the 100-400 hold even more versatility, it does so at lower image quality that it is easily and always ruled out by pros. But it is still a great value and a great tool for many people in various stages of life. So we largely agree on this lens and its value, just a little bit different view of how to describe that value. And I enjoyed your silliness in this video. :). Take care!

[@IsaiahMcAllisterImagery]

I agree that the 100-500 is the better lens overall. Especially after using it quite a bit now. But the flamingo photo I posted in the video is honestly one of my favorite photos and I took it with the 100-400. I think the 100-500 really outshines when cropping like I said. Which is most of the time in wildlife. But if you’re just shooting birds at your feeder or at the zoo where you’re able to get fairly close and have control over the light, I think the 100-400 is very serviceable. If you’re going out in the field and want a more reliable professional lens, the 100-500 is obviously the way to go.

[@TC_Conner]

I can't explain why I find your videos so da*n entertaining.....for the most part....until I saw the infant spit up on your sweatshirt in this one, at which point I gagged and clickded off.

[@badoyaucheng37]

The background music is kinda annoying while you’re talking indeed