Your experience with RF 100-400?

[pzphotomama]

HI I recently injured my knee so weight is now a big factor for me for certain things. I currently have the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6l is i and it is a great lens. I am wondering if I should possibly look at the RF 100-400 non L so f stop is higher - but merely for the lower weight? I tested my RF 24-240mm this weekend on my R7 at f8 and in beautiful daylight it was perfect - is it worth spending $ to get more of a light weight reach? Id love to hear from anyone who does have the RF 100-400 please 🙂 

I shoot with my R6MII as my main, R7 and also have an RP. 

[March411]

I moved from the EF to the RF a couple years ago and never looked back. The RF100-400mm is lighter, less bulky and overall just an easier lens to carry all day. The image quality is pretty darn nice for a lens not in the L series and the AF with the Nano USM is fast and accurate but will sometime struggles in low light.

I also carry the RF24-240mm and for travel, when I go light weight I carry this lens and the RF100-400mm.

These are with the RF version mounted on my R5

3044_Local Village.jpg3295_Burg Brohleck.jpg 

[ebiggs1]

"... but merely for the lower weight? ... - is it worth spending $ ..."

Here's the deal, any lens you have is better than any lens you don't or can't use for whatever reason. So if lighter means you will use it more often then that is the overriding issue.

[pzphotomama]

Marc thank you for sharing your experience, those are sharp images - thank you for sharing! 

I was initially looking at the RF 70-200 f4L, honestly mainly for the L as I love the quality of those lenses, however the more I am thinking about it, I DO have the reach with my 24-240 - which I heavily tested with my R7 last weekend at our cottage. Which got me thinking to maybe have a lighter travel option with the RF 100-400 non L 😉 

[shadowsports]

@March411 ,

Looks like the Rhine.  Am I right?

Wonderful place for photos, I have many also.  

@pzphotomama ,

I bought the RF100 400 while I was waiting for the RF100-500 to go on sale. It did and I have both.  

The RF100 400 is a great lightweight travel lens, and is also good for daytime outings when you don't want to carry a heavier lens.  It can be used for backyard Wildlife, on hikes, or in small parks. 

It looks like Marc took advantage of it's reach shooting ship to shore.  As you can see the lens is sharp.  

The only real challenge you could run into is if you're shooting at dusk or in a heavily shaded area zoomed.  You can bump ISO and EV to compensate with excellent results.  

Another bonus, you can use a TC with this lens throughout its entire FL. 100>400 (with a loss of 1 to 2 stops). If you zoom all the way out with a TC AF is limited to the center of the frame, slightly expanded.  This doesnt have any negative effect on AF however.  

I have no regrets owning this lens and yes it's very light.  1.4 lbs.

[pzphotomama]

Thanks, this is the push pull I am in... take the chance with what I have - knowing its much heavier or spend $ 😉 

[pzphotomama]

Rick thank you! This might be a good option for me as I know I need a lighter option - even though having the same length in a heavier lens. The 100-500 is on my wish list - I keep going back and forth between it and the  200-800 - however travel, I do need lighter... Appreciate your response! 

[Cantrell]

pzphotomama,

I have used the RF 100-400mm with a R10 and now with a R6M2. I have used it at the beach, taking picture of birds, my grandchildren, my dogs, and my granddaughter playing soccer. It is a good lens and I enjoy shooting with it. I have the RF 24-240mm lens and it feels heavier than the RF100-400mm.

Cantrell 

[jrhoffman75]

In addition to being lighter by itself you also lose the weight of theRF-EF adapter. Plus you move the center of grcloser to the body for better balance. The image quality of the RF lens is quite good. A lot going for it.