topic Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good in EF & RF Lenses

Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

stevety — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 14:40:55 GMT

I can not afford high priced lens i bought the new canon eos r7 want to take bird pictures

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

jrhoffman75 — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 17:51:46 GMT

Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Review (the-digital-picture.com)

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

FloridaDrafter — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 20:17:04 GMT

My wife uses it on her EOS R6 and really likes it. She shoots mostly birds, but really, anything that catches her eye. It will focus really close, for a tele, so it makes it versatile enough for her to use as a walkaround lens. I've used it on my EOS R5 and it holds up to my scrutiny when peeping. Not sure if this will help, but I've thrown in a few images. All have been edited in Canons free Digital Photo Professional 4 (DPP 4) then cropped.

Black and Red Paper Wasp @ 4 feet.Fish Crow @ 40 feet.Great Crested Flycatcher @ 30 feet.Magnolia Seed Pod @ 20 feet.

Newton

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

stevety — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 20:26:46 GMT

thanks for your help

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

stevety — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 20:31:49 GMT

thank you for your help

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

wq9nsc — Sun, 31 Jul 2022 15:07:13 GMT

Almost all of my lenses are Canon L series but I went a different direction when I decided to pick up something lightweight and versatile for hiking when I don't want to carry one or more of my Canon "great white" L series telephoto primes. I ordered a Sigma 150-600 "contemporary" to try to see if the tradeoff of quality (both image and build) vs weight and versatility was acceptable.

I was pleasantly surprised with the performance of the Sigma lens. It doesn't measure up to the quality of my Canon primes and it has a much narrower aperture than my 200, 300 and 400 primes but for the weight, cost, and versatility of a single lens for casual hiking I am very happy with it.

The first photo was taken with the Sigma 150-600 on a 1DX II body, the next two were with the Sigma on my 1DX III body, and for comparison the last photo was with Canon's excellent EF 800 f5.6 prime on my 1DX III. All of these were taken pretty casually while hand holding the combo and files sizes were reduced for the last three to fit forum posting requirements so better results are certainly possible.

Rodger

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

ebiggs1 — Sun, 31 Jul 2022 15:42:43 GMT

You are asking about the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Lens? I always or most always advise folks buy Canon if they can. Only if there is good reason not to, go to the aftermarket. This zoom FL has been a curious case. Canon didn't and doesn't see fit to produce a lens in the very popular super zoom lens like the 150-600mm offerings by Sigma and Tamron. I probably see more of them more often than any other tele or super tele than all the others combined. One exception in the pro sports world where Canon teles dominate.

The Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Lens is a very good lens at a very attractive price. This would make your choice, would 600mm vs 400mm be worth the extra money a 150-600mm super zoom cost? In my mind it is worth it. Bird photography needs all the native FL you can get as they say, you can never have too much FL.

Rodger asked me this question a little while ago. I recommended he try one. He bought the Sigma C version of the 150-600mm. He is very happy with it as you can see. He has a stable of very expensive Canon L super teles. He is also very talented and dedicated to photography (that helps 😊). However, if I were buying today I would have bought the Tamron version. The Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2. It has a slight edge over the Sigma C model. The Tammy is weather sealed. The Siggy is not. The Tamron G2 is also a tad bit better IQ wise. These will cost you more than the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Lens so you need to decide if they are worth it.

I can say this with some authority as I have owned or used every model of these super teles from the very beginning. Me personally I sold off all of them and kept the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens. My overriding reasons were far better weather sealing and built to professional standards as these are my greatest concerns in any lens. The negatives are very heavy and more expensive lens. However, as my retirement status has changed most all my photography requirements, I would opt for the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 in a heartbeat!

It's a beautiful lens.

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

ebiggs1 — Sun, 31 Jul 2022 15:55:09 GMT

BTW, while on the subject, these are good candidates to buy on the used market. You can sometimes find mint copies for a very reasonable price. Folks get excited to get a super tele and some quickly find they are not a pick it up and shoot type lens. They take a certain amount of learning to get photos like Rodger has shown above. With that thought if you are not willing to commit to that, you may want to reconsider buying a super tele.

A couple nice accessories to go along with a super tele is a Black Rapid shoulder strap and a monopod. As to the used market, I would rate your choices the Tamron G2 first, the Siggy C next, and lastly the first Tamron non G2 models. Sigma also made a 150-500mm which can be found really inexpensive but QC on them is problematic. Try before you buy!

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

jrhoffman75 — Sun, 31 Jul 2022 16:22:40 GMT

To the OP - I have neither the R7 or the Sigma 150-600, but I have a friend who has both. He cannot test the combination till later this month when his lens adapter arrives.

Do a YouTube and internet search on that combination. There are numerous reports of problems as well as statement that Sigma says lens is not compatible with AI Servo and eye tracking on the R7 (which would seem to be a primary use case for bird photography).

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

ebiggs1 — Sun, 31 Jul 2022 16:13:31 GMT

"The first photo was taken with the Sigma 150-600 on a 1DX II body, the next two were with the Sigma on my 1DX III body, and for comparison the last photo was with Canon's excellent EF 800 f5.6 prime on my 1DX III. All of these were taken pretty casually while hand holding the combo and files sizes were reduced for the last three to fit forum posting requirements so better results are certainly possible."

Again very nice shots. Some of your photos are nothing short of amazing for sure. However it isn't a fair or a good example to compare lenses when the subject, distance, camera or conditions are not exactly the same. One would also expect a $10,000 lens vs a $1,000 to produce a higher IQ photo.

This is a 100% crop and a good example why you never have too much FL.

It was with the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens. It was hand held and I was a few years younger! A 100% crop is pretty extreme and will really show up any faults quickly. The bird is a Ring Billed Gull. They are gregarious birds and will readily come to a few piece of bread tossed out on the ground or in the water.

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

wq9nsc — Sun, 31 Jul 2022 17:44:16 GMT

Ernie,

My point in comparison is that the Sigma 150-600 does an amazingly good job when compared to a lens that is so expensive that just the replacement carbon fiber lens hood for the Canon EF-800 is almost as expensive as the entire Sigma 150-600 contemporary lens. And it weighs over 5 pounds less than the EF 800 so I am definitely not criticizing the 150-600 in any way. Sigma is producing some incredibly good products these days. And I agree that you can never have too much FL with wildlife.

A couple of days ago, I shot a crop dusting helicopter for a friend. I showed up with three camera bodies along with Canon EF 70-200 f2.8, EF 800 f5.6, and the Sigma 150-600 glass (the Sigma was on a 1DX II body). Most of the photos were taken with the Sigma, it is incredibly versatile and focuses rapidly. The Canon primes are certainly somewhat better but trying to juggle camera bodies and lenses to switch focal lengths with a rapidly approaching or leaving subject will cause you to miss a lot of opportunities and this is where the Sigma zoom earns its keep.

The Sigma works well across its FL range, examples: the first photo was at 226mm, the second at 374mm, the third at 531mm and the fourth at the minimum 150mm focal length. The lenses and Canon bodies worked fabulously, my body would have worked better if there hadn't been a last second time change so I showed up without my normal morning caffeine content 🙂

Now if Canon actually made a 150-600, I would likely have been drawn to it primarily for the Canon brand name 🙂 But I have been using the Sigma far more than I expected and I am glad that I gave it a chance.

Rodger

226mm374mm531mm150mm

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

Tronhard — Tue, 02 Aug 2022 03:12:17 GMT

Given that you have not actually defined even a rough budget: "I can not afford high priced lens" covers a lot of territory. However, the following options are available to you:

Get a good, used Sigma 150-600c lens and use it with a Canon EF-RF adapter.
Pro's: It is a great lens, as many posts have indicated: relatively sharp, versatile, light and great zoom range
Con's: Being an EF lens it requires an adapter, and Sigma have issued a statement the lens is not designed to work with Canon's R7's bird eye tracking and servo autofocus. However, if you want a practical experiment with the Sigma 150-600c on the R7, then watch this video: HERE . Duade Paton is respected Australia bird photography specialist and has a very down-to-earth and no-nonsense approach to his videos - If you are keen on bird photography, I recommend you follow his posts.
If you watch the video you will see, and I confirmed that with him, that the autofocus pulsing really only happened as the lens approached its minimum focus distance.

If you decided to stick to an native RF mount zoom lens, then the most economical, with any decent reach, is the Canon RF100-400. It means you don't need an adapter, which saves a bit. Duade also produced a comprehensive review of the RF100-400 lens HERE - it's very in-depth. You may be able to pick one up from Canon's Refurbished Lens site HERE - keep an eye on the site as the offerings change.

Pro's: Native RF lens, makes use of R-series stabilization, focus tracking, combining lens stabilization with body stabilization features

Con's: not the same reach as the Sigma

Much depends on the conditions under which you shoot and, very significantly, what you intend to produce. The demands for producing images for the web or digital displays are much less than producing large, detailed, fine Art prints.

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

ebiggs1 — Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:40:16 GMT

Disclaimer.................

I can only report on how well they work on a DSLR as I do not and don't intend on buying a mirrorless rig. There is some hope for the reported eye detect feature failure as both the Sigma C and Tamron G2 are user FW upgradable, Apparently they both work on mirrorless but eye detect is only hit and miss at best. If you don't use the eye detect technology they seem to do quite well.

Re: Canon RF 100-400mm is these lens any good

mrlynam69 — Sat, 28 Jun 2025 16:02:17 GMT

I've recently bought this lense for.my r7,its done my head in,won't focus at 400 mm,and when tracking a bird the bird constantly disappears and comes back,then goes again ,it does this every time till its above me then it stops doing it,I've always had canon and this is the only problem I've had( I'm not keen on them r7 either its mega complicated) I've had a eos550d for ten years no issues ,then bought eos750d this one is better for moving birds than my new r7,well I think so,spent 2500 quid and still taking my old one out just in case