Thoughts on RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM?

[justadude]

Hey guys, this question goes out to anyone that owns, or has used the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM lens.  

For the first time in my roughly 50 years of photography, I am playing around with a bit of wildlife photography.  Currently using the EF 70-200mm f/2.8, which is ok for unclose, but I'd like a bit more reach.  At the same time, I'm not sure how much I will like doing this after six months, so I want to go for inexpensive for now.  I don't think it's a boredom passing fad thing for me, but who knows.

What I would like to know is just opinions from actual users of this lens on the image quality.  I'm fine with the aperture, and know I need plenty of light, and higher ISO - so IQ is my only concern.  While I don't expect the IQ to be up there with the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L, on the other hand I'm hoping it's not down there with cheap EF era kit lenses.

So what can you tell me?

[March411 · Accepted solution]

Gary, I can say that some will disagree but I use my RF100-400 frequently for wildlife and overall I'm real pleased with the results. It does struggle with low light but when that becomes a challenge I mount it on my R6 MkII. The focus is fast and the hit rate high unless you are in very low light @400mm, f8 can be a kick in the butt. 

This lens is an easily an all day carry; small and light weight, great for hiking. I'm waiting for the R7 MkII to hit the shelves and once I have one the RF100-400mm has probably found a long term home. For the price it can't be beat.

All that being said, it will at times make you angry because it doesn't have the range, especially for birds in flight. You may have seen these before but they are worth posting again. Some are SOOC and others have a crop and some denoise but overall worth the price. 

 

[justadude]

That is pretty impressive image quality at this price point!  This is what I was hoping to see.  

I have shot with longer lenses (many years back) so I am aware that 400mm isn’t often enough of a focal length for wildlife, but since I’m not really sure if I will continue with this type of photography, I thought it would be a good focal length (and price) to start.  Besides, a majority of my work is between 15mm to 50mm (other than sports with my 70-200mm), so using a lens between 100-400mm is going to be an adjustment where I will often feel too close.  

Thank you for the feedback, Marc.  

[SignifDigits]

I will second what Marc said.  I bought mine in January 2022, and owned it until this year.  I liked it and think it's a great value. And it's only gone up $100 over the past 4 years. 

When I could afford it I switched to the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM and like it a lot, but it's over double the price even refurbished (as I got mine).   I think the image quality and reach are a bargain at that price, though.

I do not recommend pairing the 100-400mm, as I tried, with a 2x extender.  I hear people have better results with the 1.4x extender, but I cannot speak to that.  Perhaps others here have had a good experience with that, but I would personally only use it without an extender.  I'm mentioning that in case a 2x extender might be something you are considering.

I think Marc could use a pinhole camera and get great photos because he has great photography skills.

[Cantrell]

justadude,

When I bought my R10 the first lens I purchase was the RF100-400mm. I have used for taking pictures of birds flying and it did find. Also, took pictures of eagles in Alaska. 

I sold my R10 and purchased a R6M2 in July 25. Used the RF 100-400mm with that camera. It has done well. Used this lens with the 1.4 extender and I was happy with the result.

Reese

[justadude]

Thank you for the feedback!  I did look at a few of the better lenses (RF 200-800mm, RF 100-500mm, and the excellent Sigma 150-600mm) but before I lay down that much cash I want to give it a year with something a bit more budget friendly... so it's good hearing about your experience with it.  

As for the extenders, I've never been impressed with any extender over the past five decades, and after all this time, I don't see that changing.

Marc does some very nice photography!

[justadude]

Thank you Reese!  It's nice hearing more positive opinions from people who have owned this lens.  

That's what I like about this forum.  Honest replies, and none of the BS that we see in the Facebook Canon groups where too many people spout off often false advice about gear they never used.

[Cantrell]

Justadude,

I had the RF100-500mm for a short period time. It is heavier than the RF100-400MM, but it has a much longer reach. I used for about 20 shots and did not feel that I had a need for that much reach and weight. If I need that much reach I will put the Canon 1.4 extender on with the RF100-400mm. Happy with that combo.

The money that I got for selling the RF100-500mm went to purchasing a used RF15-35mm and a 50mm lens. Gives two lenses that I can use more often.

Reese

[justadude]

If I do enjoy wildlife photography with the RF 100-400mm for roughly a year, I'm pretty certain that I will trade in the 100-400mm and move up to the RF 100-500mm.  Sure, it's heavier, but it's actually lighter than my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 plus the adapter by about a half pound... and I am very used to hauling that EF lens around for sometimes 10 hours at some events.  Then again, the RF 200-800mm looks tempting as well - lol.

Personally, I've never been a fan of extenders.  I know many people love them, and that's fine.  They are just not for me.

I do see your point for you selling the 100-500mm for the other two since you bought the 100-400mm.  I'd be lost without lenses in those focal lengths.  I use my 15mm, 35mm, 50mm, 17-40mm (favorite, and most used), and 24-105mm lenses far more often than my 70-200mm... but it's just recently that 200mm is not enough for what I'm trying to do.  

[Cantrell]

Gary,

Which EF lenses do you own? Is the 70-200mm an EF? I have cousins that live in the Detroit area. Best wishes on your search.

Reese