p.2 #2 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
I never used 2x extenders in the past, because on zoom-lenses they were meeeehhhh.
Nevertheless, I purchased the RF Extender 1.4x and 2x for the 100-500.
As expected, I was satisfied with the 1.4x combination, but not with the 2x combination.
In combination with the RF 70-200 Z, the 2x extender actually surprised me positively.
So much so that I can actually recommend the combination.
It depends very much on the lens. If the quality is as good as the 70-200 2.8 Z (the one I own), 100-300 2.8, 400 2.8, 600 4.0 are the results with RF 2x are also very good. With RF 100-400, 100-500, 200-800, it's still too poor for me.
p.2 #3 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
In the very few "controlled" tests that I've done between the two lenses it's really hard to say if the 100-500 is better than the Z with 2x TC, or vice versa. The balance of the Z is phenomenal, the way the zoom ring feels is amazing. With the TC it gets a bit nose heavy. I carry my gear on a sling strap most of the time, and when I use the QD on the lens foot of the Z it's very awkward to carry if the TC is attached, because now the center of mass is on the wrong side. Again, if I'm planning on using the Z predominantly with the TC, then I don't bring it, I bring the 100-500, if for no other reason than better range.
On the plus side, the Z takes the same filters as the black Z (or the 24-70L).
p.2 #4 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
RobAmy wrote:
Yes I did own the 100-500 for a bit of time. It is a very nice lens but personally I have always hated extending barrels. The only downside with the Z version and the 2x is that you will not have the extra 100mm if that is important, image quality wise they are very close. You already own some nice glass so it makes it harder. You know what photos you want and have taken, so will that one lens fit your needs? I always like the f2.8 option and I tend to always shoot wide open. I sold both my 100-500 and the RF 70-200 for the 100-300mm because of the f2.8 and the non extending barrel. Never looked back. I picked up the Z version more for video and the ability to use extenders for a smaller travel option.
p.2 #5 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Bedon wrote:
Congratulations ! The 100-300 has to be such a nice lens but more expensive and I used to take pictures "by hand" without tripod.
Anyway, I will think about reselling my two lens and get an used 100-300 ??
From everything you have said the 100-300 maybe overkill for you. I mainly do wildlife so I use 600mm a lot. I was just giving another example of the f2.8 lens being very good with extenders. If you are good with the 400mm range the Z lens will a better fit. If you honestly feel the 400mm and 500mm is short then yes maybe the 100-300. Finding them used is tough and they still are very pricey. I mainly handhold also, the 100-300 is handhold able for me but that varies person to person. You lose the 70mm to 99mm but gain the 401mm to 600mm and much more weight. I may go the Z route if I was you.
p.2 #6 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Comparing the weight of the 70-200Z and 100-300, the latter is roughly twize the weight, even more in size/volume. Add the 2x and the Z is still quite handy. Perhaps not important in the case in question?
p.2 #9 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
AmbientMike wrote:
I printed 1 in particular I'd used 55-250 on recently. Surprised at the sharpness at f/9. Rf 100-400 supposed to be sharper so should be fine imo
The RF100-400 (which I also have... I have issues) is fine but not great. The big problem with it is that it's not really smaller and lighter than the 100-500, so why bother (price aside). I bought it for my daughter's use but she went another route so I kept it for "when I need something longer, lighter" and it's just never the case. Yes, it's cheap, and good for the price. But people in this thread are talking about red ring lenses, so I don't think the RF100-400 would be a fit.
I use the 100-300 on safari (along with my RF400), and my son uses it a lot for all types of high school sports. I don't think I ever attached a TC to the 100-300 other than for morbid curiosity. He uses it with a TC if he joins me for owls, which is rare.
p.2 #10 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Z250SA wrote:
Comparing the weight of the 70-200Z and 100-300, the latter is roughly twize the weight...
True, but what's interesting to me is how easy to handle the 100-300L is, despite its weight and size.
I usually work using a double Black Rapid harness, with a camera + long zoom on my left and a camera + short zoom on my right. I find that the 100-300 doesn't feel any more cumbersome than was my EF 100-400L on the same rig, and I have no trouble hand-holding it while shooting.
When I had either the EF 300 f/2.8L IS or EF 400 f/4.0 DO on the same harness, it felt way more bulky and awkward for some reason.
Perhaps it is the balance of the lens, being less front-heavy? But I definitely find it easier to handle than any 300 2.8 lens I have previously used. (And it zooms!)
I don't have the 70-200Z, but I do have the 24-105Z which is roughly the same weight and exact same size. I use this in tandem with the 100-300L. They make a fine pair.
Dec 28, 2025 at 04:47 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #11 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
stanj wrote:
The RF100-400 (which I also have... I have issues) is fine but not great. The big problem with it is that it's not really smaller and lighter than the 100-500, so why bother (price aside). I bought it for my daughter's use but she went another route so I kept it for "when I need something longer, lighter" and it's just never the case. Yes, it's cheap, and good for the price. But people in this thread are talking about red ring lenses, so I don't think the RF100-400 would be a fit.
I use the 100-300 on safari (along with my RF400), and my son uses it a lot for all types of high school sports. I don't think I ever attached a TC to the 100-300 other than for morbid curiosity. He uses it with a TC if he joins me for owls, which is rare....Show more →
I haven't used it but definitely think I'd notice a difference between 1.5 and 3 lbs, especially since I notice the difference between 55-250 <1 lb vs Tamron 180 >2lbs. Not that 100-500 is heavy considering the FL etc
The 55-250 is one of my all time favorites. The Rf 100-400 looks like the FF version having excellent macro and basically the same equivalent FL
p.2 #12 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
AmbientMike wrote:
I haven't used it but definitely think I'd notice a difference between 1.5 and 3 lbs, especially since I notice the difference between 55-250 <1 lb vs Tamron 180 >2lbs.
Maybe, or maybe not, because I rarely carry just the one lens with me - in a 25lb backpack (with a 16" MBP in it) the difference is between "heavy" and "heavy" and at least I can't tell. What's more important, in the camera bag the 100-400 takes up the same "slot" as the 100-500 would, and at that point neither my back nor my packing sees any difference, thus the question is usually moot. The only time it would make a difference is if I didn't pack either lens in the backpack, and maybe simply tossed the 100-400 in my checked bag because what's the worst thing that will happen? But I never done that, at least not with that lens.
p.2 #13 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
tomba8tomba wrote:
I never used 2x extenders in the past, because on zoom-lenses they were meeeehhhh.
Nevertheless, I purchased the RF Extender 1.4x and 2x for the 100-500.
As expected, I was satisfied with the 1.4x combination, but not with the 2x combination.
In combination with the RF 70-200 Z, the 2x extender actually surprised me positively.
So much so that I can actually recommend the combination.
It depends very much on the lens. If the quality is as good as the 70-200 2.8 Z (the one I own), 100-300 2.8, 400 2.8, 600 4.0 are the results with RF 2x are also very good. With RF 100-400, 100-500, 200-800, it's still too poor for me....Show more →
It's the balance of the new lenses. Older lenses were very front heavy, had larger glass elements to the front of the lens. The newer ones have in general smaller glass elements closer to the mount and fewer towards the end. A 600mm f4 IS III is much, much easier to handhold than the 500mm F4 IS II, despite having tne same weight and the fact that the 60mm is considerably karger, too.
p.2 #14 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
stanj wrote:
The RF100-400 (which I also have... I have issues) is fine but not great. The big problem with it is that it's not really smaller and lighter than the 100-500, so why bother (price aside). I bought it for my daughter's use but she went another route so I kept it for "when I need something longer, lighter" and it's just never the case. Yes, it's cheap, and good for the price. But people in this thread are talking about red ring lenses, so I don't think the RF100-400 would be a fit.
I use the 100-300 on safari (along with my RF400), and my son uses it a lot for all types of high school sports. I don't think I ever attached a TC to the 100-300 other than for morbid curiosity. He uses it with a TC if he joins me for owls, which is rare....Show more →
The RF 100-400 (working weight 690g) is a fraction of the working weight of the RF 100-500mm (1690g) and much smaller.
Dec 29, 2025 at 08:27 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #15 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
stanj wrote:
Maybe, or maybe not, because I rarely carry just the one lens with me - in a 25lb backpack (with a 16" MBP in it) the difference is between "heavy" and "heavy" and at least I can't tell. What's more important, in the camera bag the 100-400 takes up the same "slot" as the 100-500 would, and at that point neither my back nor my packing sees any difference, thus the question is usually moot. The only time it would make a difference is if I didn't pack either lens in the backpack, and maybe simply tossed the 100-400 in my checked bag because what's the worst thing that will happen? But I never done that, at least not with that lens....Show more →
Yeah, if you did it that way, the weight savings wouldn't be that noticeable. Im bad about carrying one lens though, so I'd notice. Thinking just last week I need to be carrying at least 2 lenses
I definitely don't check lenses. They dont get paid to baby baggage. 100-400 has gone up to $750, one more reason I'm probably not going Rf
p.2 #16 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
cpe1991 wrote:
The RF 100-400 (working weight 690g) is a fraction of the working weight of the RF 100-500mm (1690g) and much smaller.
Since you have both I'm sure you know first hand - if you pack the 100-500 for a trip, which slot does it go in your 25lbs backpack? Conversely, which slot does the 100-400 go? What can you fill the freed up space with?
I'm actually pretty sure that like most sane people on this thread, you don't actually own both lenses and so you're just reading some spec sheets and YouTube videos at best.
I'm packing for a trip right now. This is what my bag currently looks like. The first two photos show what's actually inside, the last photo shows the 100-400 on top of the 100-500 to illustrate just "how much smaller it is."
Care to elaborate why I should take the 100-400 instead of the 100-500?
p.2 #17 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
stanj wrote:
Since you have both I'm sure you know first hand - if you pack the 100-500 for a trip, which slot does it go in your 25lbs backpack? Conversely, which slot does the 100-400 go? What can you fill the freed up space with?
I'm actually pretty sure that like most sane people on this thread, you don't actually own both lenses and so you're just reading some spec sheets and YouTube videos at best.
I'm packing for a trip right now. This is what my bag currently looks like. The first two photos show what's actually inside, the last photo shows the 100-400 on top of the 100-500 to illustrate just "how much smaller it is."
Care to elaborate why I should take the 100-400 instead of the 100-500?...Show more →
I was replying to your first post that the RF 100-400 is not much smaller or lighter than the RF 100-500mm. As you subsequently clarified, you don't notice the difference in weight, about a kg, and volume, the RF 100-400mm is 820ml and the RF 100-500mm 1,430ml, for your purposes. I don't use a 25lb backpack so it is not relevant for me and possibly for others. When we go on a hike, my wife takes the RF 100-400 as that is the heaviest she is happy with and I have the RF 100-500mm or 200-800mm on my BlackRapid strap. If I want something light, when I would notice the difference, I'll take my copy of the RF 100-400mm as I do when I am on a business trip and need to throw something relatively small in my hand luggage.
p.2 #18 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
stanj wrote:
Since you have both I'm sure you know first hand - if you pack the 100-500 for a trip, which slot does it go in your 25lbs backpack? Conversely, which slot does the 100-400 go? What can you fill the freed up space with?
I'm actually pretty sure that like most sane people on this thread, you don't actually own both lenses and so you're just reading some spec sheets and YouTube videos at best.
I'm packing for a trip right now. This is what my bag currently looks like. The first two photos show what's actually inside, the last photo shows the 100-400 on top of the 100-500 to illustrate just "how much smaller it is."
Care to elaborate why I should take the 100-400 instead of the 100-500?...Show more →
stanj, you are clearly a victim or perhaps beneficiary of Weber´s law which states that you cant feel a difference in weight (your case) if the difference is small compared to the total weight.
I have both the RF100-400 and the 100-500 and use them on quite different trips. The 100-400 is perfect on the R10 when I want to go as light as possible, perhaps cheap too if things would go down into the big drink. The 100-500 is so good on all bodies, but not one I´d risc without due reason. So for my use the difference in both size and weight is substantial.
However, if I take out the R5´s, the 100-400 stays at home. Of course!
p.2 #19 · RF 70-200mm F2.8L Z with 2X TC vs RF 100-400
Z250SA wrote:
stanj, you are clearly a victim or perhaps beneficiary of Weber´s law which states that you cant feel a difference in weight (your case) if the difference is small compared to the total weight.
I have both the RF100-400 and the 100-500 and use them on quite different trips. The 100-400 is perfect on the R10 when I want to go as light as possible, perhaps cheap too if things would go down into the big drink. The 100-500 is so good on all bodies, but not one I´d risc without due reason. So for my use the difference in both size and weight is substantial.
However, if I take out the R5´s, the 100-400 stays at home. Of course!...Show more →
Likewise, I use the RF100-400 on an R7 rather than the R5 or R5ii when lightness is called for. The reference to Weber was interesting, though he might not have have extended his law to the extreme where it's the last straw that breaks the camel's back. :-)
