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?

[justadude]

It's the original version of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L from 1996 - the old heavy boat anchor version.  I won't give this one up until it dies.  Such a great lens!

I haven't been around Detroit in probably 10 years - and that was just in the downtown area (which I like).  I tend to mostly stick to the west side of our state, or the upper peninsula if I'm traveling around on day or weekend trips.  We are fortunate to have the beautiful area of the state.

[justadude]

Marc, it was mostly your feedback and sample images that helped me make the final decision.  I purchased the lens from our local camera store on Saturday, went on a couple of hikes to do some initial testing, and I am very impressed with the image quality at this price point.  The weight was pretty surprising as well.  I mean, I knew it was light, but to walk around with this for five miles in the snow, it really felt feather light on the R6m2 at the end of the hike.  I was concerned at first about the lack of a tripod foot, but this is balanced so nicely that I can see why it doesn't need one.

My only gripe is the lack of a lens hood (which I knew in advance).  Just about every manufacturer out there gives you a lens hood with the purchase of the lens.  I would be happier paying the added cost of the hood being in the box with the lens, instead of the inconvenience of buying one separately.  The camera store had these on back order, so I had to order the hood from B&H, and now I wait a week.

Anyway, it wasn't a great place to shoot on either of these hikes, but I simply wanted fresh air and exercise, and take some quick test shots to see what the lens could do.  Three random images attached.

[March411]

Great frames Gary, all three have excellent color and sharpness but I really like the last one of the pods. Excellent composition and real nice bokeh with a lens some scoff at for wildlife.

On the R6MkII it's so nicely balanced and the IS/IBIS will allow you to hand hold at some incredibly slow shutter speeds. 

The whole Canon lens hood is so odd, why they don't add one is so weird. I've bought a couple lenses from BH Photo and they come with a hood and case. 

Really glad it worked out!

[Cantrell]

Gary,

Great shots.

Reese

[justadude]

Thanks, Marc!  

I was pleasantly surprised at the bokeh on the last one considering it was at f/8.  Actually, same with the Cardinal considering how close the other branches were.  I think this lens will get a lot of use.

I think the only Canon lenses that I've ever bought that come with hoods are the L series lenses.  With my Pentax gear, even the inexpensive lenses come with hoods.  I've heard the same from my Sony and Nikon friends.  I've also noticed the same for the third party lenses I buy for Canon cameras.  It seems like such a little thing to keep customers happy.

[justadude]

Thank you, Reese!