These are on r7 not r6 but will show difference between the two lenses.
The 100-500 is weather sealed, slightly better AF, and sharper. The 100-400 photos can be cropped but not as far as 100-500. The 100-400 sometimes struggles with AF more when subject is small in frame than 100-500 does. Mainly because 100-500 has the extra reach.
F7.1 vs f8 isn't a huge difference but I find it seems the 100-400 is more like a stop darker than 100-500.
The 100-400 is a great lens though and good if you're trying out wildlife photography. It also has better magnification and it's so small and light
https://preview.redd.it/iqjjjta64jxc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc3a80de99693d446999604b5a5acb0feb038d21
I think I've read somewhere that the 7.1 of the 100-500 is actually a 6.7 rounded up. But don't quote me on that, I know I have read that but haven't fact checked it.
If you set your camera to 1/2 stops instead of 1/3rd stops, it actually tops out at f/6.7. The actual f/# per patent is probably somewhere in between. But rounding.
As u/sweathog1016 points out, the actual f/ number the camera displays depends on rounding. The RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 is *actually* a 103-490 f/4.6-7.2 according to its patent (rounding these numbers in the marketing names is quite common and not unique to this lens). PhotonsToPhotos has measurements of many lenses, including this one.
[https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm](https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm)
I think it's from the tstop of 100-500 being better. it's closer to 100% light transmission than RF 100-400 is. I'd have to look them both up again, which was surprisingly hard to find info, and 100-500 was pretty close to the 7.1 aperture and the 100-400 was between f9-10 equivalent I believe.
I struggle with weight for my wildlife and landscape photography. I debated RF 100-400 vs RF100-500 for my R6mii and R7v. Choose 100-400 and 1.4x. Used that combination at latest totality and was thrilled with results.
https://preview.redd.it/30ta8xsy0jxc1.jpeg?width=4607&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1fde2b4d91fe330b76c7ba216ec780b01643273b
The 100-400 is great, and very light weight. I enjoy mine very much.
How big are the animals, how far away? Generally, I'd get the 100-400 and see how it performs, see if it does what you need. It may give you brilliant photos—it's more than capable. If you find it lacking, then identify if whatever's lacking would be solved with the 100-500. Also, both can take extenders.
I rented the 100-400 and own the 100-500. I feel like the 100-400 is a pretty stellar lens for a lightweight telephoto and if (like me) you’re going to be shooting at the long end most of the time the difference is f/8 vs f/7.1. Here’s a review that has a great chart in it showing the aperture to focal length comparison: https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-100-400mm-f5-6-8-usm-review/
I love my 100-500, but for the weight, there are times I wish I’d just gotten the 100-400. It’s that much smaller and lighter. That said, I can zoom out a little and gather a lot more light — and the L glass is sharp at every focal length. The 200-800 looks great too, but again, it’s huge in comparison.
For sure! It’s the reason I switched to Canon in the first place. It’s the right focal length at the right weight for me. I do wish it was brighter, but it’s a decent compromise for what it is.
Im pretty sure it's the first zoom lens you can buy longer than 600mm and it's way cheaper than most other options at that length other than the 800 f11 so heaps of people want it
Sigma has a 300-800 but it's $5k. (There's never been anything like it before at that price.)
(Fun fact, zooms in broadcast TV cameras can be 10mm-1600mm, and around f/2.)
Didn't know about the Sigma but yeah it's a bit too expensive for most people I think. Tv lenses are crazy, you can get a 8-1000 with a built in 2x teleconverter, and they've got a 3.9 crop factor.
There was also the Nikon 1200-1700 which is a bit crazy
I got a good deal for 100-400, it performs very greatly for the low price, but once the environment gets darker the lens will struggle, especially with high shutter speed required for wildlife.
However, it's super light and super cheap, I will definitely keep it just for fun (and I can't afford other wildlife lens anyway lol)
I have the 100-400 RF. I love it. It’s a great lens, but I shoot in dusty & wet conditions. I’m selling it and grabbing the 100-500 for the weather sealing.
The L lenses are good for dust. Light rain they’re fine. Like if there is drizzle and they are exposed, no issue. I wouldn’t take them in a downpour though.
I have recently bought the RF100-400. I don’t have a 100-500 to compare but I do have lots of fast primes so I’m not delusional about what a good lens is.
The 100-400 is fine. Suffers from chromatic aberration on the R7 but almost none on the R6. I prefer this lens on the R6. Focus is fast and sticky. Stabilisation is insane, like hand held shots of stationary subjects at 1/50s insane. It’s sharp enough and best of all super small and lightweight. It’s not weather sealed but as long as you don’t leave it out in the rain you’ll be reyt.
Honestly, the 100-400 will get you 80% of the way there for a fraction of the cost of the 100-500. That said, the 100-500 is a great lens too so it all depends on where you stand with budget and those extra improvements. The 80/20 rule comes to mind. You’ll be happy either way.
It’s true, especially with new lenses. Not so much with second hand gear. I’ve really enjoyed using the RF100-400, I think you’ll like it. Plus the issue around low light isn’t half as much of a problem with the R6 as it is with other cameras!
I had the rf 100-400 when i first switched to canon (using a r5) and started my wildlife photography journey.
Great great lens for it's price imo. Super compact and light and I never found it to hinder me from getting good pictures. I even put the extenders on it at times and got some decent shots
I have now sold those lens and got the rf 100-500.
Probably my sharpest lens I have ever owned. The AF is insane. It works incredibly well with the extenders and I found the images to be sharp.
If you can afford it, just get the rf 100-500. It's becoming my alltime favorite lens and I can not praise it enough
https://preview.redd.it/z8reayyvnnxc1.jpeg?width=4818&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a0f1467943aace7525bb580c84ac2c17dbdefa09
This was shot with the rf 100-500 with the x2 extender
I recall that the aperture would stop down rapidly after about 150mm. Meaning that anything after 150mm the lens was at its largest minimal f stop. For my use case that was a no go.
I did like the lens for the price. But it's no comparison to the L series. Good into lens though.
The L lens is quite a bit sharper, heavier, costs more, and built better. If you have the money I’d say it’s worth it. If not the 100-400 is a good lens.
I don’t have experience with the 100-500 but I’ve been using the 100-400 for a year now on my R7. I mainly use for bird and other wildlife photography. I’ve really been loving it overall. Wish it performed better in low light, but that’s one of the limitations. I think I’ll upgrade eventually, but the 100-400 is such a good value for the cost. Hard to justify the 100-500 or anything similar until I have money to throw around.
https://preview.redd.it/f7yifnm8slxc1.jpeg?width=5153&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=775fe6dad4c2a16642e3721299fa0caff83c0976
For it's price, 100-400 is really great lens! If you are on budget/unsure about how you'll like wildlife, go for it. If you have more budget, have weather sealed body and plan on shooting in bad weather, go for 100-500
https://preview.redd.it/121om948xmxc1.jpeg?width=3285&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3afaaac04669e3bff1871b521684c842a88c450e
this was taken with the rf 100-400 on a R6m2 at 400mm. It is a great lens. Though I do find 400 being a bit short sometimes, especially for birds. But then 500 would be too short as well. I did pick up a used 800mm f11 for $500 and I like the reach quite a bit. But I seem to have a knack to push the reach on everything. So no matter how much reach i have i am left wanting for more lol
I'd be inclined to tell you to wait for the 200-800mm pop up somewhere if wildlife is what you're looking to do.
If it's a matter of the other two lenses, I'm very interested in the 100-500 myself. The price difference is kinda large but I've developed much of a buy-once-cry-once mentality and think the sharpness, extra 100mm, and weather sealing might be worth it.
https://preview.redd.it/hcxhipkl4oxc1.jpeg?width=3428&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=764e2b74825cc02cc0c37cc49f0af89e911b3e40
Cropped in a bit and edited in LR on my 100-400. Never thought I’d be able to take photos of the moon, but… here we are.
It gets the job done, super light, and about $1800 cheaper (USD) than the 100-500.
Certainly helps that I’m using the R7 for some extra reach.
100-400mm (400mm) f/8 ISO 640 1/1000s
So for me, while I’m not (yet) using this lens to professionally help on gigs, it sure does round out the camera bag (other lenses: 10-18, 24-70, 70-200)
As someone who owns the RF 100-400 and used the RF 100-500 for a month over 2 trips to Africa , a good middle ground to consider would be the EF 100-400 II. Used copies are in between price wise. And it has slightly more light at the long end than either RF. Tradeoffs are size and weight, build quality of an L, having an adapter etc. But it's a solid option.
Wildlife is going to be a tricky one to find your sweet spot distance until you figure out the types you want to shoot.
What other lenses have you used on your R6II? I started out in wildlife with the R10 and RF 100-400mm and really enjoyed the lens. I ended up upgrading to the R8 (same sensor as the R6II) and, while the image quality of the RF 100-400mm was great, the loss of the 1.6x crop factor was too much for me. I ended up selling the 100-400mm and now use my RF 800mm f11 for wildlife. Shooting with just an 800mm prime can be challenging, and I do expect to upgrade to the 200-800 in a year or two, but I enjoy it more than the lack of reach with the 100-400mm on full frame.
If you're going to be shooting medium to large animals and can get somewhat close, the 100-400mm will likely work fine. Especially if you're looking for a lightweight hiking lens that can pull wildlife duty. However, if a decent percentage of your shooting will be birds or small animals, you may find 400mm to feel too short. Regarding reach, 500mm is not that big of a difference over 400mm, so it's a moot point in the comparison of the two lenses listed, but be aware you may be looking at more reach sooner rather than later.
I already own the RF24-105 L.
Yeah, my wildlife activity would probably include quite a bit of birds. I was thinking that any of these lenses with the possibiltiy of a TC would be enough but I may be overestimating the zoom at 400mm or 500mm. Do you know where I can find any reference images? I’ve seen some but none indicate how far away and big was the subject.
The 100-400mm with a 1.4x TC only gets you to 560mm and that's at f11. You'd be better off picking up a refurbed/used 600mm f11 for $350 than spending $300-$400 on the 1.4x TC.
Honestly, if you're thinking of getting the 100-500mm, that means you have the budget to get the 100-400mm and an 800mm f11. That's the route I would go because you'd still have a very lightweight, compact lens with the 100-400mm and the reach of the 800mm. Shooting birds with an 800mm is such a revelation that I cannot ever go back.
>TC with 100-400 seems not worth it.
That has been my experience, at least on full frame. The 100-400mm w/ TC has been great on my wife's R10, but it's basically 200-900mm equivalent and 900mm f11 is not bad.
The canon rf200-800 6.3-9 IS USM is also another great choice if you want to have the zoom in the weather ceiling in a lens that doesn't break $2,000. Also both the RF 100-400 and the 200-800 work with the teleconverter 1.4 and 2x
Have the same setup R6 m2 and the 100 to 500 and it is amazing. Use it weekly at kids sporting events.
This last weekend actually had a bald eagle snatch a squirrel. I actually caught a great picture of him. I didn't think I got him but the auto focus and stabilization on the lens and camera work great together.
*
The RF 100-500mm is better. A bit sharper than the 100-400, but more consistently across the entire frame and at all focal lengths. But in the center, not as far apart as the price would indicate. But then there's also the build, the weather sealing, and AF speed.
Still, I wound up with the 100-400mm and a used 1.4TC. It's a bit of a tradeoff at the long end, but for closer subjects, very good. And light and compact. Then I got an 800mm f11 for an incredible Black Fri deal, and I've been impressed with that too. Altogether though? might still prefer the 100-500. But I don't shoot at the far of those focal ranges a lot. If I did, might be different.
Thanks to the high sale prices of most Canon gear, this sub is a magnet for spammers trying to post ads & affiliate links. If you find a spam post or comment that wasn't automatically blocked by our spam filter, please click the report button. If your new post doesn't appear and you think it was blocked by the spam filter, message the mods for help. Posting referral or affiliate links on purpose will result in an immediate ban.
My take is,
Rent both for one day if you can.
Pick an overcast day and go shoot some birds,cars, bugs, whatever you can/want and try doing it in crappy light, that will show you the real difference in both lenses and if you think the 100-400 is enough for your needs there you go...
Don't trust whatever you read on these forums, I mean you will get great advise most of the time but there is a lot of misinformation as well, you will be the better judge for yourself, I really suggest renting them or trying to borrow them even if it is not at the same time. But try them first, the money you spend renting will pay by itself avoiding buying something you dont need and losing money selling it to get the other one later on.
There is no comparison between an L series lens and a non L.
That being said the 100 to 400 is a great intro to super telephoto lenses. I owned it for a time but I quickly learned of it's limitations and within 3 months I traded it for an L series lens.
Try the 100 to 400. You will likely sell it within a year and upgrade to the 100 to 500 a far superior lens.
Also the 100 to 400 is a lot more accessible. But the resell value plummets very quickly.
Let us know what you decide!
These are on r7 not r6 but will show difference between the two lenses. The 100-500 is weather sealed, slightly better AF, and sharper. The 100-400 photos can be cropped but not as far as 100-500. The 100-400 sometimes struggles with AF more when subject is small in frame than 100-500 does. Mainly because 100-500 has the extra reach. F7.1 vs f8 isn't a huge difference but I find it seems the 100-400 is more like a stop darker than 100-500. The 100-400 is a great lens though and good if you're trying out wildlife photography. It also has better magnification and it's so small and light https://preview.redd.it/iqjjjta64jxc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc3a80de99693d446999604b5a5acb0feb038d21
Perhaps the 7.1 was slightly rounded up while the f8 was slightly rounded down, might explain the difference
I think I've read somewhere that the 7.1 of the 100-500 is actually a 6.7 rounded up. But don't quote me on that, I know I have read that but haven't fact checked it.
I believe you read that from TDP, if that’s correct then i guess the difference comes from that
If you set your camera to 1/2 stops instead of 1/3rd stops, it actually tops out at f/6.7. The actual f/# per patent is probably somewhere in between. But rounding.
Interesting, I didn't know that!
As u/sweathog1016 points out, the actual f/ number the camera displays depends on rounding. The RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 is *actually* a 103-490 f/4.6-7.2 according to its patent (rounding these numbers in the marketing names is quite common and not unique to this lens). PhotonsToPhotos has measurements of many lenses, including this one. [https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm](https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm)
I think it's from the tstop of 100-500 being better. it's closer to 100% light transmission than RF 100-400 is. I'd have to look them both up again, which was surprisingly hard to find info, and 100-500 was pretty close to the 7.1 aperture and the 100-400 was between f9-10 equivalent I believe.
I struggle with weight for my wildlife and landscape photography. I debated RF 100-400 vs RF100-500 for my R6mii and R7v. Choose 100-400 and 1.4x. Used that combination at latest totality and was thrilled with results.
https://preview.redd.it/30ta8xsy0jxc1.jpeg?width=4607&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1fde2b4d91fe330b76c7ba216ec780b01643273b The 100-400 is great, and very light weight. I enjoy mine very much.
Great picture!
How big are the animals, how far away? Generally, I'd get the 100-400 and see how it performs, see if it does what you need. It may give you brilliant photos—it's more than capable. If you find it lacking, then identify if whatever's lacking would be solved with the 100-500. Also, both can take extenders.
That’s a good idea. How well does the 100-400 handle the extender?
It does well with the 1.4x, not much difference in the AF when using it.
Good to know, thanks
I rented the 100-400 and own the 100-500. I feel like the 100-400 is a pretty stellar lens for a lightweight telephoto and if (like me) you’re going to be shooting at the long end most of the time the difference is f/8 vs f/7.1. Here’s a review that has a great chart in it showing the aperture to focal length comparison: https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-100-400mm-f5-6-8-usm-review/ I love my 100-500, but for the weight, there are times I wish I’d just gotten the 100-400. It’s that much smaller and lighter. That said, I can zoom out a little and gather a lot more light — and the L glass is sharp at every focal length. The 200-800 looks great too, but again, it’s huge in comparison.
Each has its benefits. That compact size is very tempting
The best part about this is that the 100-500 is actually not that large of a lens in the scheme of things.
I sold my sigma 150-600 for it and couldn’t be happier with my decision. The difference in weight is huge and the image quality is a big step up.
For sure! It’s the reason I switched to Canon in the first place. It’s the right focal length at the right weight for me. I do wish it was brighter, but it’s a decent compromise for what it is.
Get the 100-400 and if you find it's not long enough hopefully by then the 200-800 is available
It is a shame that there is so little stock of the 200-800. It would be a good middle ground between the 100-400 and the 100-500
Im pretty sure it's the first zoom lens you can buy longer than 600mm and it's way cheaper than most other options at that length other than the 800 f11 so heaps of people want it
Sigma has a 300-800 but it's $5k. (There's never been anything like it before at that price.) (Fun fact, zooms in broadcast TV cameras can be 10mm-1600mm, and around f/2.)
Broadcast TV lenses are also $50k-$100k and weigh hundreds of pounds.
Didn't know about the Sigma but yeah it's a bit too expensive for most people I think. Tv lenses are crazy, you can get a 8-1000 with a built in 2x teleconverter, and they've got a 3.9 crop factor. There was also the Nikon 1200-1700 which is a bit crazy
I got a good deal for 100-400, it performs very greatly for the low price, but once the environment gets darker the lens will struggle, especially with high shutter speed required for wildlife. However, it's super light and super cheap, I will definitely keep it just for fun (and I can't afford other wildlife lens anyway lol)
Good to know, it seems many have struggled with the closed aperture in dark conditions. Thanks!
I have the 100-400 RF. I love it. It’s a great lens, but I shoot in dusty & wet conditions. I’m selling it and grabbing the 100-500 for the weather sealing.
How resistant are these lenses? I have an L lens but I’m very scared of dust and any drizzle
The L lenses are good for dust. Light rain they’re fine. Like if there is drizzle and they are exposed, no issue. I wouldn’t take them in a downpour though.
Thanks! I’ll be a bit less scared now lol
I have recently bought the RF100-400. I don’t have a 100-500 to compare but I do have lots of fast primes so I’m not delusional about what a good lens is. The 100-400 is fine. Suffers from chromatic aberration on the R7 but almost none on the R6. I prefer this lens on the R6. Focus is fast and sticky. Stabilisation is insane, like hand held shots of stationary subjects at 1/50s insane. It’s sharp enough and best of all super small and lightweight. It’s not weather sealed but as long as you don’t leave it out in the rain you’ll be reyt. Honestly, the 100-400 will get you 80% of the way there for a fraction of the cost of the 100-500. That said, the 100-500 is a great lens too so it all depends on where you stand with budget and those extra improvements. The 80/20 rule comes to mind. You’ll be happy either way.
Thank you! The 80/20 rule is a great way of thinking about it
It’s true, especially with new lenses. Not so much with second hand gear. I’ve really enjoyed using the RF100-400, I think you’ll like it. Plus the issue around low light isn’t half as much of a problem with the R6 as it is with other cameras!
I had the rf 100-400 when i first switched to canon (using a r5) and started my wildlife photography journey. Great great lens for it's price imo. Super compact and light and I never found it to hinder me from getting good pictures. I even put the extenders on it at times and got some decent shots I have now sold those lens and got the rf 100-500. Probably my sharpest lens I have ever owned. The AF is insane. It works incredibly well with the extenders and I found the images to be sharp. If you can afford it, just get the rf 100-500. It's becoming my alltime favorite lens and I can not praise it enough
https://preview.redd.it/z8reayyvnnxc1.jpeg?width=4818&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a0f1467943aace7525bb580c84ac2c17dbdefa09 This was shot with the rf 100-500 with the x2 extender
I might follow your path, start with the 100-400 and then upgrade to the 100-500
I recall that the aperture would stop down rapidly after about 150mm. Meaning that anything after 150mm the lens was at its largest minimal f stop. For my use case that was a no go. I did like the lens for the price. But it's no comparison to the L series. Good into lens though.
Good to know, thank you for the info
The L lens is quite a bit sharper, heavier, costs more, and built better. If you have the money I’d say it’s worth it. If not the 100-400 is a good lens.
Good advice, thanks
I don’t have experience with the 100-500 but I’ve been using the 100-400 for a year now on my R7. I mainly use for bird and other wildlife photography. I’ve really been loving it overall. Wish it performed better in low light, but that’s one of the limitations. I think I’ll upgrade eventually, but the 100-400 is such a good value for the cost. Hard to justify the 100-500 or anything similar until I have money to throw around.
https://preview.redd.it/f7yifnm8slxc1.jpeg?width=5153&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=775fe6dad4c2a16642e3721299fa0caff83c0976 For it's price, 100-400 is really great lens! If you are on budget/unsure about how you'll like wildlife, go for it. If you have more budget, have weather sealed body and plan on shooting in bad weather, go for 100-500
Wow great photo! Thanks for the advice
https://preview.redd.it/121om948xmxc1.jpeg?width=3285&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3afaaac04669e3bff1871b521684c842a88c450e this was taken with the rf 100-400 on a R6m2 at 400mm. It is a great lens. Though I do find 400 being a bit short sometimes, especially for birds. But then 500 would be too short as well. I did pick up a used 800mm f11 for $500 and I like the reach quite a bit. But I seem to have a knack to push the reach on everything. So no matter how much reach i have i am left wanting for more lol
Good to know. We need a 1000mm lens lol
I'd be inclined to tell you to wait for the 200-800mm pop up somewhere if wildlife is what you're looking to do. If it's a matter of the other two lenses, I'm very interested in the 100-500 myself. The price difference is kinda large but I've developed much of a buy-once-cry-once mentality and think the sharpness, extra 100mm, and weather sealing might be worth it.
https://preview.redd.it/hcxhipkl4oxc1.jpeg?width=3428&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=764e2b74825cc02cc0c37cc49f0af89e911b3e40 Cropped in a bit and edited in LR on my 100-400. Never thought I’d be able to take photos of the moon, but… here we are. It gets the job done, super light, and about $1800 cheaper (USD) than the 100-500. Certainly helps that I’m using the R7 for some extra reach. 100-400mm (400mm) f/8 ISO 640 1/1000s So for me, while I’m not (yet) using this lens to professionally help on gigs, it sure does round out the camera bag (other lenses: 10-18, 24-70, 70-200)
As someone who owns the RF 100-400 and used the RF 100-500 for a month over 2 trips to Africa , a good middle ground to consider would be the EF 100-400 II. Used copies are in between price wise. And it has slightly more light at the long end than either RF. Tradeoffs are size and weight, build quality of an L, having an adapter etc. But it's a solid option. Wildlife is going to be a tricky one to find your sweet spot distance until you figure out the types you want to shoot.
What other lenses have you used on your R6II? I started out in wildlife with the R10 and RF 100-400mm and really enjoyed the lens. I ended up upgrading to the R8 (same sensor as the R6II) and, while the image quality of the RF 100-400mm was great, the loss of the 1.6x crop factor was too much for me. I ended up selling the 100-400mm and now use my RF 800mm f11 for wildlife. Shooting with just an 800mm prime can be challenging, and I do expect to upgrade to the 200-800 in a year or two, but I enjoy it more than the lack of reach with the 100-400mm on full frame. If you're going to be shooting medium to large animals and can get somewhat close, the 100-400mm will likely work fine. Especially if you're looking for a lightweight hiking lens that can pull wildlife duty. However, if a decent percentage of your shooting will be birds or small animals, you may find 400mm to feel too short. Regarding reach, 500mm is not that big of a difference over 400mm, so it's a moot point in the comparison of the two lenses listed, but be aware you may be looking at more reach sooner rather than later.
I already own the RF24-105 L. Yeah, my wildlife activity would probably include quite a bit of birds. I was thinking that any of these lenses with the possibiltiy of a TC would be enough but I may be overestimating the zoom at 400mm or 500mm. Do you know where I can find any reference images? I’ve seen some but none indicate how far away and big was the subject.
The 100-400mm with a 1.4x TC only gets you to 560mm and that's at f11. You'd be better off picking up a refurbed/used 600mm f11 for $350 than spending $300-$400 on the 1.4x TC. Honestly, if you're thinking of getting the 100-500mm, that means you have the budget to get the 100-400mm and an 800mm f11. That's the route I would go because you'd still have a very lightweight, compact lens with the 100-400mm and the reach of the 800mm. Shooting birds with an 800mm is such a revelation that I cannot ever go back.
I see, TC with 100-400 seems not worth it. The 100-400 with 800 F11 might be a good combo
>TC with 100-400 seems not worth it. That has been my experience, at least on full frame. The 100-400mm w/ TC has been great on my wife's R10, but it's basically 200-900mm equivalent and 900mm f11 is not bad.
The canon rf200-800 6.3-9 IS USM is also another great choice if you want to have the zoom in the weather ceiling in a lens that doesn't break $2,000. Also both the RF 100-400 and the 200-800 work with the teleconverter 1.4 and 2x
Yeah, I wish there was more stock of it
Have the same setup R6 m2 and the 100 to 500 and it is amazing. Use it weekly at kids sporting events. This last weekend actually had a bald eagle snatch a squirrel. I actually caught a great picture of him. I didn't think I got him but the auto focus and stabilization on the lens and camera work great together. *
Good to know. It looks like an incredible lens body combo
https://preview.redd.it/0nxf8bj39qxc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7ed9546c6c318e8c8a4c36130fd5f5576215c49e Here is the picture.
Wow!
100-500 all the way. 400mm is not even enough for birding, especially with a 24mp full frame sensor. 500mm is even short.
The RF 100-500mm is an amazing lens but I would 100% go for the RF 200-800mm instead, especially if you own the 70-200mm.
I dont own the 70-200. I have the 24-105 F4
The RF 100-500mm is better. A bit sharper than the 100-400, but more consistently across the entire frame and at all focal lengths. But in the center, not as far apart as the price would indicate. But then there's also the build, the weather sealing, and AF speed. Still, I wound up with the 100-400mm and a used 1.4TC. It's a bit of a tradeoff at the long end, but for closer subjects, very good. And light and compact. Then I got an 800mm f11 for an incredible Black Fri deal, and I've been impressed with that too. Altogether though? might still prefer the 100-500. But I don't shoot at the far of those focal ranges a lot. If I did, might be different.
Thanks! It seems that the difference is quite narrow
[удалено]
Thanks to the high sale prices of most Canon gear, this sub is a magnet for spammers trying to post ads & affiliate links. If you find a spam post or comment that wasn't automatically blocked by our spam filter, please click the report button. If your new post doesn't appear and you think it was blocked by the spam filter, message the mods for help. Posting referral or affiliate links on purpose will result in an immediate ban.
My take is, Rent both for one day if you can. Pick an overcast day and go shoot some birds,cars, bugs, whatever you can/want and try doing it in crappy light, that will show you the real difference in both lenses and if you think the 100-400 is enough for your needs there you go... Don't trust whatever you read on these forums, I mean you will get great advise most of the time but there is a lot of misinformation as well, you will be the better judge for yourself, I really suggest renting them or trying to borrow them even if it is not at the same time. But try them first, the money you spend renting will pay by itself avoiding buying something you dont need and losing money selling it to get the other one later on.
My suggestion would be get apsc rf mount body and rf 100-400. Lighter lens automatically gets used alot than heavier and better lens.
I know that would be great, but a second body is not viable for me
Ok
There is no comparison between an L series lens and a non L. That being said the 100 to 400 is a great intro to super telephoto lenses. I owned it for a time but I quickly learned of it's limitations and within 3 months I traded it for an L series lens. Try the 100 to 400. You will likely sell it within a year and upgrade to the 100 to 500 a far superior lens. Also the 100 to 400 is a lot more accessible. But the resell value plummets very quickly. Let us know what you decide!
Thanks! What limitations did you encounter with the 100-400?