EF vs RF: Comparing 100-400/500mm Telephoto Lenses on Canon’s R Series Cameras

[@michaelkokot6349]

Dang, a lot of work was put into this video and I just want you to know I appreciated it. Thanks!

[@hotdogdog4740]

Most underrated channel ever

[@Shariff-j8h]

Thats hell lot of work. Really appreicate this. Subscribed.

[@selkiemaine]

Truly excellent work. Thank you. I have the RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 - a local vendor had a sale going, and I got a used one for $400 US. 'nuff said. I also find the size/weight shockingly good. The one time I've had an issue was shooting an osprey at the limit of the lens's range wide open on an R7. There was enough "glow" that I didn't care for any of the shots. Later testing showed me that stopping down from f/8 to f/11 gave me razor clarity - and in bright sunlight, that was OK. That issue was not apparent at all with the less dense sensor on the EOS-R I used to use the lens with. At that price, I have less than nothing to complain about! At some point, I might go for one of the more expensive options, but whenever I think I'm going to pull the trigger on that, I keep coming back to that light weight and small size. So far, I'm still using it.

[@-DawnZero]

Holy hell, give this man his Play Button already KZbin! Add some music and you're going to give Christopher Frost a run for his money.

[@andrewclack6599]

😂

[@bricenoh]

Thanks very well done scientific review. If I had to nitpick, I would onlybadd to include the distance to subjects on the video, I think you mentioned in audio. I find distance is very important, as many lenses will do fine at 5m, but less so at 10m or 20m (reality when shooting birds, not always close). Lastly, for your flare test, I imagine they were done without hood, since the audio says the hood can fix this (though nice if written on video), which is nice since I am lazy to carry/put hood though I think often improves quality. Regardless, thanks again for very thourough comparison!. For my next wish, I would like to learn more about the 800mm f11 less as this could be the "long hike" lens compromise (If one owned the 100-500, the 600 would be less of an advantage)

[@Postosuchus]

Thank you! These tests (aside from the "real world" and flaring which WAS done without a hood) were indeed done between 5-7 meters and in hindsight i would've also done a second round of long distance image quality tests outside on an overcast day for even lighting, but at the time I was worried about heat/atmospheric distortion interference. Regarding the primes, I don't own them as the insanely long minimum focus distance is incompatible with my style of birding, but I'd be happy to do the tests if someone were to supply the lenses for me! You listening, Canon?

[@guillmunoz7474]

Wow - this is an exceptional review of these lenses, the best of all the others I have ever reviewed. It is an excellent guide to anyone seeking to buy any of these lenses. I own the RF 100-400, it was a good way to start BIF, but I ultimately bough the EF100-400 MK II for the fabulous build quality, AF and lens stabilization. The inability to use and travel with the RF100-500 using extenders was unacceptable. It would be a painful daily hassle to constantly having to mount and remove extenders when needed. The EF 100-400 MK II has no such problem, and you can leave the extenders mounted during travel. Thank you for the wonderful work, I have clicked LIKE and Subscribe because you have done such an excellent job.

[@Postosuchus]

Thank you for the thoughtful comment and glad this video was helpful! I had wished there was a 4-way comparison like this when I was researching telephoto options, so glad to hear it’s proving useful to others in a similar situation.

[@wonderingartist]

Do you miss the RF 100-400 for any reason when you are using the EF lens? I am considering making the same switch and would love yo know

[@kupol887]

I have R7, I changed RF 100-400 to EF 100-400 II. And I will say this - I'm a bit disappointed with the autofocus speed. In my opinion, in RF lenses (even budget ones like RF 100-400), the detection of eyes in animals works much better. So I will probably get rid of it and buy the RF 100-500. Surprisingly, the budget RF is also much more accurate than its more expensive and older brother. You can simply see that these RF systems are dedicated to each other.

[@Postosuchus]

I never had a problem with the focus speed of the EF 100-400ii, but did indeed notice it focus hunted more than both RF lenses, which of course isn’t ideal for active subjects! That RF 100-400 is quite a great lens for its cost.

[@anandanayak7373]

Superb Bro! Well explained, completely with putting too much of time and effort to produce such a good information to viewers. Good Job bro keep the good work.

[@hpwan2]

Great info! I think as a newbie hobbyist to DSLR, 100-400 gen 1 should be good enough.

[@mvp_kryptonite]

Great review and all fair points. The one you undersold was the weight of the RF100-400. It deserved a section too. I went for the 100-400 II L as the mounting options were great with extenders and mounts not to mention the deals one gets on the used market. £800 for a mint if you are patient otherwise it’s £1k.

[@truthseeker6804]

i have the RF 100-400, just saw the ef 100-400 v2 used for 600usd. i don't do much wildlife and i like portability. tough sell but nice aperture range .

[@Postosuchus]

It really is a great lens, but so heavy especially in comparison to the RF 100-400! Not nearly as portable either, so hopefully you’re not suffering too much “grass is greener” syndrome!

[@GerhardBothaWFF]

I have the R7 and used my trusty EF 400mm F5.6 L. Mostly for birds. It works great except that you dont get the full 30 FPS. I then got a used EF 100-400 L ii. Very impressed, even with 1.4x iii. I got both for $1000. I will sell both for the RF 100-500 soon I think. But in no hurry

[@Postosuchus]

Thanks for sharing! I didn’t think to test the shots per second at the time but just did now, and both the R7’s high speed continuous + and focus bracketing actually work on the ef 100-400 mark 1, despite being a design from 1998 and not being listed as compatible with those features in the R7’s manual! I guess your 400mm was a bit too much older?

[@fernandodelgiovo]

How works the camera stabilization? I learn the 400mm is the sharpeness of old lens, but no IS. Could the mirroless body “fixes” the lack stabilization of the lens?

[@Postosuchus]

@@fernandodelgiovo my understanding is the Camera body’s stabilization “IBIS” is less effective the longer the focal length, so I wouldn’t expect it to help much or at all with a 400mm prime. It could possibly even make it worse (I have an ancient ef Tokina 300mm that the R7’s IBIS makes even shakier).

[@fernandodelgiovo]

@@Postosuchus good to know!! Thanks again!!

[@mvp_kryptonite]

I have the same setup and have no difference in FPS. Also I have the Canon 0.71x for the 100-400 ii L and it’s great for when I want to tone down the focal length a tad on the R7

[@ChannelCreator]

Great info, well-organized! Thank you!

[@wellingtoncrescent2480]

For birding, I love my R7 with RF 100-500 zoom. While I can't speak to the Canon EF lenses, I experienced "focus pulsing" with the EF 100-400 Vi DC from Tamron and the 150-600C from Sigma, and others have described similar with some older Canon lenses, perhaps because the AF has trouble keeping up? In any case, I am thrillred with my setup for birds and wildlife: the dual focus motors are fast and accurate, the OIS works well with the R7 IBIS, the minimum focus distance (MFD) is less than 1m at all focus lengths, and the image quality is simply spectacular. In my experience, the 1.4x TC doesn't compromise AF, image quality, or MFD, and the weather resistance is a comfort. If you can manage the price, I am sure you will be pleased,

[@jakecook716]

Awesome detailed review. Surprised to learn that the IS on the ef100-400 ii out performs the rf100-500. I use the ef100-400 ii with my Canon r3, and one of my complaints is the IS often is a second or two too slow to settle. I'm torn about upgrading to the 100-500, the f7.1 aperture doesn't have me excited. Based on other reviews I was under the impression the IS on the rf100-500 was rock solid.

[@Postosuchus]

I could have a lesser copy of the 100-500, or perhaps the stabilizer isn't calibrated properly for APS-C bodies? Could also be weight distribution or the way I handhold lenses, there's a lot a factors but after 4.5 months with the 100-500 now the IS is still worse than the 100-400 II for me; even on a tripod that mark II would soften camera panning movements in a way the 100-500 doesn't. All the lenses here had the latest firmware possible I neglected to mention. I was a bit worried about the darker aperture at first too but the loss of 1/3 of a stop along their shared focal ranges really made hardly any difference, in fact the 100-500 seems to focus hunt less in the same scenes despite the lost light. It's much better than the 100-400 ii with a 1.4x converter too.

[@annebuchanan1501]

Fantastic review. Thank you so much! Excellent in every way.

[@Postosuchus]

Thank you for the praise! It was a lot of work but answered a lot of burning questions I had, very glad to see others are finding their own answers from this as well.

[@korkutdemirbas]

Nice review. On Canon R10 body, 100-400mm L ii is front heavy and a bit of a problem for handholding for long periods of time. Any noticeable difference with 100-500mm. I don't know if they carry some of the lens elements back with the new design. Thanks.

[@Postosuchus]

I can try the 100-500 on the R10 when I have access in a few days, but on the R7 at least it feels well balanced, though overall not that much lighter than the 100-400ii. You can also hold it by the tripod collar for even better balance, and the 100-500’s collar IS a good bit lighter than its predecessor’s.

[@korkutdemirbas]

​@@PostosuchusThank you for your reply. As you mentioned, the tripod collar helps with hand-holding, although it adds extra weight. If you have additional experience with R10, I would be pleased if you share it. Greetings.

[@Postosuchus]

Finally got a chance to try the 100-500 on the R10 again, and the body is so light I was essentially just holding the lens the whole time; it feels most comfortable holding the lens on its zoom ring, but that also disrupts the stabilization. When mounted on a tripod by the lens’s stand however, it can be very easily balanced.

[@korkutdemirbas]

@@Postosuchus That's similiar to what I have experienced with 100-400mm L II lens. I guess I will stick with 100-400mm till I have a chance to try 100-500mm myself and see any considerable improvement. Many thanks.

[@OlteniaRecording]

Very useful information, and well documented. Can't an extender be used with the "RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM" model? Can only crop mode be used on a Cano R as a way of expansion?

[@Postosuchus]

Glad it was useful! I understand the RF 100-400 can indeed be used with extenders, and doesn’t suffer from the extension flaw of the 100-500, but between the degraded image quality and further darkened maximum aperture I personally wouldn’t want to use that combo on APS-C! As for “crop mode” on the EOS R as long as you’re fine with 12mp or less resolution photos don’t see why you can’t do that! I understand you’ll be giving up all the light and noise advantages of full frame when you do that, though.

[@OlteniaRecording]

@@Postosuchus Thanks for the reply! Yes.., I understand, without compromise you cannot have "advantages".., if you want a bigger zoom you compromise the quality of the image. All the best and good light!

[@WINDSHEAR-STUDIO]

Excellent work. My take, if you have a R7 or similar and are on a budget, get the RF100-400. If you have loads of dough, get the RF 100-500. The end. And thank you for doing this!

[@Postosuchus]

Good take! Though I admit the EF 100-400 mark I fared way better than I thought it could for a film-era lens. Glad I held off on selling my old lenses long enough to do a comparison like this.

[@Windsurfingaddict]

Just came across you whilst browsing 100-400 lens reviews. Excellent review and very much enjoyed how well presented with detailed analysis. I read on here that you can no longer get the parts from canon regards 100-400 Mk 1. The newer lighter very cheap brand new 100-400 is temping as seen some great deals on this lens but the 100-400 Mk 2 if found at the right price is also temping 🥳🥳

[@Postosuchus]

Thank for the comment, glad you enjoyed and hope you’re able to find a good deal! Sad to hear about the mark I parts; the lens overall is still built like a tank, but the ball bearings in the zoom mechanism can get loose and “jam” the barrel, and also easily spill out should the zoom tightener ring be removed. As I found out when trying to see if I could loosen a sticky manual focus ring before resale…

[@RogerZoul]

Very nice review. I’m sure you did this, but I wish you had mentioned that you updated all firmware on both bodies and lenses before testing. I recall that the RF 1-5 had firmware updates that specifically addressed IS behaviors.

[@Postosuchus]

Thanks! And yeah I did forget to mention all lenses and bodies were fully updated. My 100-500 was a new copy and came already updated to the latest firmware… to my disappointment when I checked!

[@cjoe6908]

Thanks for this well balanced review. I was struggling between the used copy of EF100-400 II and RF100-500, and I already have the RF100-400 which I enjoy using for birds around my living quarters. The problem with the RF100-400 is that when it rains, I don't dare to bring it out as it lacks the water sealing, and that the other two has a small advantage of letting in a little more light, besides a lot better built wiith weather protection. With your review, I am more inclined to get the EF100-400 II

[@Postosuchus]

Glad to hear this was helpful! I really wished there had been a 4-way comparison like this back when I first got my R7, could have saved a lot of money, but at least the experience is helping others going forward.

[@cjoe6908]

@@Postosuchus It was helpful. You probably have saved me $1000, the difference of price in the used market.

[@rj66600]

I’m on a serious budget right now and have a m50 and a r50. Use the r50 mostly. With the 100-400 RF. The price jump is holding me back to the 500. But the lack of tripod collar is probably slightly messing with my tracking mount for Astro photos. Really useful video. Thanks again such a detailed analysis.

[@Postosuchus]

Glad it was helpful! I’d read the EF 100-400 mark 1 was good for astro use, as was the EF 400 f/5.6 prime for potentially less.

[@nexx0n775]

Great comparison! As a football photographer, I’m currently using the RF 100-400mm, but I’m really struggling with the f/8 aperture, especially in lower light conditions. I’m considering upgrading to the EF 100-400mm Mark II for its better aperture. Do you think it’s worth making the switch? I would sell the RF lens to fund the EF. Any advice would be much appreciated!

[@Postosuchus]

When you mean “struggling”, are you referring to landing autofocus? The brighter aperture of the 100-400ii would certainly improve visual fidelity, both through lower ISO and the sharper glass, but in my anecdotal experience is still focus hunted more at f/5.6 than the RF 100-400 at f/8 in similar lighting conditions. The EF lenses do have focus limiters though, which could help you a lot if the players don’t ever get closer than 3 meters. If you haven’t already you might want to try disabling “lens drive when AF impossible” to limit wandering and/or dedicating a button to autofocus in one shot so you can get in the ballpark before servo-ing. KZbinr Lets_Go_Birding has guides of how to set that up on several different R series bodies.

[@heartourism]

thank you, you did a great job in this video

[@brucektrain1]

You got a Link or What's the product called for the Wind Cover on top of camera microphone?

[@Postosuchus]

The one shown in this video, I made myself using some double sided tape and a chunk of frost king air conditioner weather seal. I later bought one of those Chinese wind muffs and compared it to the DIY option and made a video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZC3YahuaN9_oqMsi=8Jd_1Ynz5sgS5apT

[@sewerynw9931]

Fast question for Canon R8 RF100-400 or EF100-400 Mark 1? Footbal and 1-2 times in year airshow.

[@Postosuchus]

Personally I'd go RF 100-400 for much better AF speed and less focus hunting. It's much easier to handhold too which would be a big boon for the airshow.

[@fernandodelgiovo]

Congratulation! I look for this kind comparation so much! Do you have any news about of use 300mmf4IS in mirroless cameras? I have my, most of time with 1,4sigma extender. I”d consider chance my 7D for R7, but keep my okd lens.

[@Postosuchus]

I don’t have any experience with that lens sorry, but being an official Canon lens from 1997 (?) it probably works as well as 1998’s 100-400 mark 1 I would imagine.

[@fernandodelgiovo]

@@Postosuchus thank you!!

[@fredlar9421]

You may have a soft version of EF100-400 II even it's late production.

[@Postosuchus]

I had not heard that the mark II suffered from “soft versions”, my understanding was that by around that time Canon’s new manufacturing methods had reduced copy variation. Regardless, I had no complaints about this copy’s sharpness, at least without the extender.

[@fredlar9421]

@Postosuchus It does have. Sharp version of 100-400II is as sharp as a prime.

[@luismanuelmendoza789]

Can you compare them with the sigma ef 150-600???

[@Postosuchus]

I don’t have that lens to test, sorry. I understand the Contemporary version has focus pulsing issues on Canon’s numbered R series (except maybe R100) so that alone would be a big factor.

[@molybdnum]

Much appreciate the group test here, very useful and particularly thorough. Do you have any experience with the Sigma 100-400 f/5.6-6.3?

[@Postosuchus]

I haven't used that lens, but considering the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary's well-documented focus pulsing issues on the numbered Canon R series bodies, I'd be wary of that lens suffering from it as well.

[@34laye]

Good work. Thanks for the job

[@aiofilms]

What’s the point of testing lenses made for full frame cameras on an APS-C sensor, specially when want to find out image quality differences?

[@Postosuchus]

Those 4 lenses are/were popular with wildlife photographers (400mm is a great birding length on APS-C and there are no R/EF-S lenses approaching that focal length to my knowledge), and those pixel-dense crop sensors like the m6ii/90D/R7 really challenge the central IQ. I also don’t own any Full Frame cameras so can’t test what I don’t have.

[@aiofilms]

@@Postosuchus Thanks for the reply. Good work.

[@gordonyoung1970]

I have both the 100/400 Mk 2 and the new RF 100/400. and its really all about 2 things weight and price. Ive been using a 5D mk 4 and an 80D for the crop factor. Now Ive gone mirrorless and have an R8. and the crop sensor R100. The ONLY reason for me changing was the weight, im no 76 bad arthritis in both hands. The new RF combo against the old EF is H U G E , its half the weight and half the price. Now along with the MK2 70/200 f2.8 the 2 EF lenses are almost unbeatable by any other lens system. I have the ef/RF converters, but that defeats the weight problem as both lenses are heavy. Both the R8 and R100 are unbeleivably small, looking like toys by comparison, but the R8 packs in a huge amount of modern tech, Im not so worried about the R100 as basically i only use it for the crop factor increase with the 100/400. The weight diffference does make a difference in how often i will use it , its so easy to hand hold and can be used for much longer ( for me ). I did worry about the different aperture ranges and so far its not been a real factor , but im sure it will happen. The image stabilisation is great, more so on the new RF version. The real difference is chromatic abberation, which frankly on the new RF version is Terrible as is the shorter 24/105 version, even with lightroom i cant get rid of all of it. Image quality is excellent almost unbeatable with the EF version, even with the mk 3 1.4 converter fitted . Unfortunately it cant be used on the RF version, you need to buy that specific version ( expensive !) I went on a safari , a small group of 7 , 2 of which had the Canon mk 1 version 100-400, cant compete with the mk 2 and there is a huge improvement with the 1.4 converters between the mk 2. and. mk 3. I do do believe the mk 3 converter was designed with both the 70/200 f2.8 and the 100/400 mk 2 in mind. I cant tell the difference with it fitted or not. The newer RF 10-400 has more than acceptable quality , but is not comparible to the older EF version, which is staggering. At twice the price it should be. If your fit and weight is no problem there is no choice, Go for the EF .I found having to add the converter to the old EF lenses a bit unwieldly and wont fit attached in most camera bags. Now i have a few camera bags so yes it will fit in say my Lowpro 400, but i dont want that on a daily hike preferring the 300 version. The larger bags i use for getting to my destination, then transfer what i need to a smaller bag on a daily basis.

[@Postosuchus]

Thanks for sharing! The weight and size reduction of the RF 100-400 really can't be understated, it's light and compact enough that it's able to be brought along in some situations where the EF100-400s or RF 100-500 have to stay home. And as they say, the best camera/lens is the one you have with you...

[@David_Quinn1995]

8:20 Thank you for shortening the names for the sake of your voice and our sanity and it looks like I am buying the Mark 1 its sharp enough for my use and that price is do able.

[@Postosuchus]

Thank you, I was surprised by how well the mark 1 did in these tests and In hindsight could have saved a lot of money just sticking with it instead of buying the whole chain. I took it for one last birding hike recently though and going back to it after experiencing its descendants is rough to say the least.

[@svensk69]

Hej det 😅

[@svensk69]

😢t ja😮ointresserad 😮😮😮 än

[@brendohf]

Great video! Thank you

[@lukasvandewiel860]

Pity though that the RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 is now selling for 3349 euro, of the equivalent of about 3650 US$. It is a great little machine, but not sure of they are *that* great. They are even becoming gradually more expensive with time. No fun anymore.

[@Postosuchus]

Ouch! I’d heard Canon prices in Europe had a bad markup but that’s horrendous! That lens was overpriced at $2600, let alone $1000 more. It really is a near-flawless lens though, the more I use it the more I appreciate its IQ/weight. The worsened stabilization and teleconverter flaw are inexcusable for the price though.