EF vs RF: Comparing 100-400/500mm Telephoto Lenses on Canon’s R Series Cameras
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- An in-depth review/comparison of 4 of Canon’s super-telephoto zoom lenses popular for wildlife and sports on Canon’s mirrorless R series Bodies. Check the timestamps/chapters for individual tests.
Featuring the following Canon lenses:
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS I USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM
RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM
on the following Canon cameras:
EOS R7
EOS R10
Music Used: Ovani Sound Unplugged "Resolve Main"; see Audio Library section for additional songs used.
00:00 Intro
00:39 Lens Commonalities
01:55 EF 100-400 Mark I Overview
03:12 EF 100-400 Mark II Overview
04:33 RF 100-500 Overview
06:49 RF 100-400 Overview
08:24 General Test Parameters
09:41 Image Quality Test Intro
10:57 Image Quality Test
11:48 Image Quality Discussion
13:01 Aperture Range Comparison
13:20 Lens Stabilization Test Intro
14:02 Lens Stabilization Test (R7)
14:46 Lens Stabilization Test (R10)
15:31 Lens Stabilization R7 vs R10
15:56 Lens Stabilization Discussion
16:44 Bonus - Lens Stabilization with Extender
17:00 Lens Stabilization Noise
17:39 Minimum Focus Distance Intro
18:30 Minimum Focus Distance Comparison
18:51 Stills Autofocus Test Intro
19:20 Stills Autofocus Test
21:01 Video Eye Tracking Autofocus Test
22:41 “Real World” Autofocus Test Intro
23:10 “Real World” Autofocus Test
25:23 Bokeh Test Intro
26:33 Bokeh Test
28:20 Flaring Test
29:42 Final Reviews & Recommendations
30:03 EF 100-400 Mark I Review
31:16 RF 100-400 Review
33:05 EF 100-400 Mark II Review
34:30 RF 100-500 Review
36:00 Outro - Jak na to + styl
Superb Bro! Well explained, completely with putting too much of time and effort to produce such a good information to viewers. Good Job bro keep the good work.
Truly excellent work. Thank you. I have the RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 - a local vendor had a sale going, and I got a used one for $400 US. 'nuff said. I also find the size/weight shockingly good. The one time I've had an issue was shooting an osprey at the limit of the lens's range wide open on an R7. There was enough "glow" that I didn't care for any of the shots. Later testing showed me that stopping down from f/8 to f/11 gave me razor clarity - and in bright sunlight, that was OK. That issue was not apparent at all with the less dense sensor on the EOS-R I used to use the lens with.
At that price, I have less than nothing to complain about! At some point, I might go for one of the more expensive options, but whenever I think I'm going to pull the trigger on that, I keep coming back to that light weight and small size. So far, I'm still using it.
Great review and all fair points. The one you undersold was the weight of the RF100-400. It deserved a section too. I went for the 100-400 II L as the mounting options were great with extenders and mounts not to mention the deals one gets on the used market. £800 for a mint if you are patient otherwise it’s £1k.
Great info, well-organized! Thank you!
For birding, I love my R7 with RF 100-500 zoom. While I can't speak to the Canon EF lenses, I experienced "focus pulsing" with the EF 100-400 Vi DC from Tamron and the 150-600C from Sigma, and others have described similar with some older Canon lenses, perhaps because the AF has trouble keeping up? In any case, I am thrillred with my setup for birds and wildlife: the dual focus motors are fast and accurate, the OIS works well with the R7 IBIS, the minimum focus distance (MFD) is less than 1m at all focus lengths, and the image quality is simply spectacular. In my experience, the 1.4x TC doesn't compromise AF, image quality, or MFD, and the weather resistance is a comfort. If you can manage the price, I am sure you will be pleased,
Great video! Thank you
Thanks for this well balanced review. I was struggling between the used copy of EF100-400 II and RF100-500, and I already have the RF100-400 which I enjoy using for birds around my living quarters. The problem with the RF100-400 is that when it rains, I don't dare to bring it out as it lacks the water sealing, and that the other two has a small advantage of letting in a little more light, besides a lot better built wiith weather protection. With your review, I am more inclined to get the EF100-400 II
Glad to hear this was helpful! I really wished there had been a 4-way comparison like this back when I first got my R7, could have saved a lot of money, but at least the experience is helping others going forward.
@@Postosuchus It was helpful. You probably have saved me $1000, the difference of price in the used market.
I have the R7 and used my trusty EF 400mm F5.6 L. Mostly for birds. It works great except that you dont get the full 30 FPS. I then got a used EF 100-400 L ii. Very impressed, even with 1.4x iii. I got both for $1000. I will sell both for the RF 100-500 soon I think. But in no hurry
Thanks for sharing! I didn’t think to test the shots per second at the time but just did now, and both the R7’s high speed continuous + and focus bracketing actually work on the ef 100-400 mark 1, despite being a design from 1998 and not being listed as compatible with those features in the R7’s manual! I guess your 400mm was a bit too much older?
How works the camera stabilization? I learn the 400mm is the sharpeness of old lens, but no IS. Could the mirroless body “fixes” the lack stabilization of the lens?
@@fernandodelgiovo my understanding is the Camera body’s stabilization “IBIS” is less effective the longer the focal length, so I wouldn’t expect it to help much or at all with a 400mm prime. It could possibly even make it worse (I have an ancient ef Tokina 300mm that the R7’s IBIS makes even shakier).
@@Postosuchus good to know!! Thanks again!!
I have the same setup and have no difference in FPS. Also I have the Canon 0.71x for the 100-400 ii L and it’s great for when I want to tone down the focal length a tad on the R7
Excellent work. My take, if you have a R7 or similar and are on a budget, get the RF100-400. If you have loads of dough, get the RF 100-500. The end.
And thank you for doing this!
Good take! Though I admit the EF 100-400 mark I fared way better than I thought it could for a film-era lens. Glad I held off on selling my old lenses long enough to do a comparison like this.
Thanks very well done scientific review. If I had to nitpick, I would onlybadd to include the distance to subjects on the video, I think you mentioned in audio. I find distance is very important, as many lenses will do fine at 5m, but less so at 10m or 20m (reality when shooting birds, not always close). Lastly, for your flare test, I imagine they were done without hood, since the audio says the hood can fix this (though nice if written on video), which is nice since I am lazy to carry/put hood though I think often improves quality. Regardless, thanks again for very thourough comparison!.
For my next wish, I would like to learn more about the 800mm f11 less as this could be the "long hike" lens compromise (If one owned the 100-500, the 600 would be less of an advantage)
Thank you! These tests (aside from the "real world" and flaring which WAS done without a hood) were indeed done between 5-7 meters and in hindsight i would've also done a second round of long distance image quality tests outside on an overcast day for even lighting, but at the time I was worried about heat/atmospheric distortion interference.
Regarding the primes, I don't own them as the insanely long minimum focus distance is incompatible with my style of birding, but I'd be happy to do the tests if someone were to supply the lenses for me! You listening, Canon?
Very nice review. I’m sure you did this, but I wish you had mentioned that you updated all firmware on both bodies and lenses before testing. I recall that the RF 1-5 had firmware updates that specifically addressed IS behaviors.
Thanks! And yeah I did forget to mention all lenses and bodies were fully updated. My 100-500 was a new copy and came already updated to the latest firmware… to my disappointment when I checked!
I’m on a serious budget right now and have a m50 and a r50. Use the r50 mostly. With the 100-400 RF. The price jump is holding me back to the 500. But the lack of tripod collar is probably slightly messing with my tracking mount for Astro photos. Really useful video. Thanks again such a detailed analysis.
Glad it was helpful! I’d read the EF 100-400 mark 1 was good for astro use, as was the EF 400 f/5.6 prime for potentially less.
Much appreciate the group test here, very useful and particularly thorough. Do you have any experience with the Sigma 100-400 f/5.6-6.3?
I haven't used that lens, but considering the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary's well-documented focus pulsing issues on the numbered Canon R series bodies, I'd be wary of that lens suffering from it as well.
Very useful information, and well documented.
Can't an extender be used with the "RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM" model? Can only crop mode be used on a Cano R as a way of expansion?
Glad it was useful! I understand the RF 100-400 can indeed be used with extenders, and doesn’t suffer from the extension flaw of the 100-500, but between the degraded image quality and further darkened maximum aperture I personally wouldn’t want to use that combo on APS-C!
As for “crop mode” on the EOS R as long as you’re fine with 12mp or less resolution photos don’t see why you can’t do that! I understand you’ll be giving up all the light and noise advantages of full frame when you do that, though.
@@Postosuchus Thanks for the reply!
Yes.., I understand, without compromise you cannot have "advantages".., if you want a bigger zoom you compromise the quality of the image.
All the best and good light!
Awesome detailed review. Surprised to learn that the IS on the ef100-400 ii out performs the rf100-500. I use the ef100-400 ii with my Canon r3, and one of my complaints is the IS often is a second or two too slow to settle. I'm torn about upgrading to the 100-500, the f7.1 aperture doesn't have me excited. Based on other reviews I was under the impression the IS on the rf100-500 was rock solid.
I could have a lesser copy of the 100-500, or perhaps the stabilizer isn't calibrated properly for APS-C bodies? Could also be weight distribution or the way I handhold lenses, there's a lot a factors but after 4.5 months with the 100-500 now the IS is still worse than the 100-400 II for me; even on a tripod that mark II would soften camera panning movements in a way the 100-500 doesn't. All the lenses here had the latest firmware possible I neglected to mention.
I was a bit worried about the darker aperture at first too but the loss of 1/3 of a stop along their shared focal ranges really made hardly any difference, in fact the 100-500 seems to focus hunt less in the same scenes despite the lost light. It's much better than the 100-400 ii with a 1.4x converter too.
Congratulation! I look for this kind comparation so much!
Do you have any news about of use 300mmf4IS in mirroless cameras? I have my, most of time with 1,4sigma extender. I”d consider chance my 7D for R7, but keep my okd lens.
I don’t have any experience with that lens sorry, but being an official Canon lens from 1997 (?) it probably works as well as 1998’s 100-400 mark 1 I would imagine.
@@Postosuchus thank you!!
8:20 Thank you for shortening the names for the sake of your voice and our sanity and it looks like I am buying the Mark 1 its sharp enough for my use and that price is do able.
Thank you, I was surprised by how well the mark 1 did in these tests and In hindsight could have saved a lot of money just sticking with it instead of buying the whole chain. I took it for one last birding hike recently though and going back to it after experiencing its descendants is rough to say the least.
Pity though that the RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 is now selling for 3349 euro, of the equivalent of about 3650 US$. It is a great little machine, but not sure of they are *that* great. They are even becoming gradually more expensive with time. No fun anymore.
Ouch! I’d heard Canon prices in Europe had a bad markup but that’s horrendous! That lens was overpriced at $2600, let alone $1000 more. It really is a near-flawless lens though, the more I use it the more I appreciate its IQ/weight. The worsened stabilization and teleconverter flaw are inexcusable for the price though.
Can you compare them with the sigma ef 150-600???
I don’t have that lens to test, sorry. I understand the Contemporary version has focus pulsing issues on Canon’s numbered R series (except maybe R100) so that alone would be a big factor.
What’s the point of testing lenses made for full frame cameras on an APS-C sensor, specially when want to find out image quality differences?
Those 4 lenses are/were popular with wildlife photographers (400mm is a great birding length on APS-C and there are no R/EF-S lenses approaching that focal length to my knowledge), and those pixel-dense crop sensors like the m6ii/90D/R7 really challenge the central IQ. I also don’t own any Full Frame cameras so can’t test what I don’t have.
@@Postosuchus Thanks for the reply. Good work.