p.1 #1 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
Has anyone sold/traded in a Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM lens to replace it with a Canon RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens?
Have you been happy with the RF version?
Did you find the additional 100mm range to be advantageous?
Other then the additional 100mm focal range, what other advantages (or disadvantages) would I see?
Would I experience better/faster/more accurate auto focus?
This would be used on an R5 for now. R5 II perhaps down the road.
Any insight, positive or negative, would be appreciated.
Thanks.
p.1 #2 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
LarryBeemer wrote:
Has anyone sold/traded in a Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM lens to replace it with a Canon RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens?
Have you been happy with the RF version?
Did you find the additional 100mm range to be advantageous?
Other then the additional 100mm focal range, what other advantages (or disadvantages) would I see?
Would I experience better/faster/more accurate auto focus?
This would be used on an R5 for now. R5 II perhaps down the road.
Any insight, positive or negative, would be appreciated.
Thanks.
p.1 #3 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
What do you shoot?
I also have a 100-400 II and have long struggled with whether the upgrade cost would be worth it over an already great lens. How is the 100-500 "much better?" Sharpness? AF? I've borrowed one for a weekend and while it was nice, it didn't blow me away vs my 100-400. Maybe I just didn't have it long enough or shoot in demanding enough situations.
I rented the 200-800 a few months ago and while it couldn't replace the 100-400/500 for me, it was the perfect bird and air show lens.
p.1 #4 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
I did it too, and am happy with the 100-500 on my R5. With the 100-400 I almost always used it with a 1.4 extender at the long end; now I seem usually to have to 100-500 also at the (not quite as) long end. Unlike Larry, I couldn’t come at the extra size and weight of the 200-800. I may eventually get the RF 1.4 extender.
The 100-500 is fractionally lighter than the EF lens, and wide open seems sharper. I think the IS is better too.
p.1 #5 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
Copy of Dave´s above: "I did just that. The 100-500 is much better,and the 100-400 was a great lens. I have since got the 200-800 Canon, and don't use the 100-500 much."
Exactly! Yes, the 100-400 LIS2 is a great lens. Used it on a 5D4, but usually with the 1.4xIII which added some length and slightly reduced the IQ. Not by much on the 30Mp FF sensor. The 100-400LIS2 was, IIRC, at max 384mm. Not very long for many birds.
Awaiting the 100-500 I used the 100-400 LIS2 on my new R5, mostly with the 1.4xIII and the adapter and of some reason it was a beast. Heavy and front heavy, huge on the substantially smaller R5 body. The 100-500 was such a delight to use in comparison. Better on all accounts than the 100-400 LIS2+1.4xIII. How much is relative of course. I´d say visibly. Perhaps the improved handling was greater than the improved IQ. Who can measure that?
But as Dave, I mostly use my 200-800 now. That 800mm field of view is just so much more (or less depending on view) than 500.
However, on the new and totally marvelous R72 the 100-500 will have a FoV of a 160-800mm with a pixel per duck very close to a 45Mp FF with 800mm! Light, handy, brilliant optics, fast AF.
Oh, the one stupid part of the 100-500 is luckily away-throwable! That mammoth ET-83F (WIII) lens hood... Why oh why?? I replaced it with the ES-83 of the RF50/1.2 as soon as I found one. Used some thirdparty 70-200 before that. Now I have the ES-83 on my newest GAS love, the wonderful RF 70-200/4, and use the 70-200 ET-83G on the 100-500. A very good match. Anything other than that ET-83F is highly recommended!
p.1 #6 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
Mike_5D wrote:
What do you shoot?
I also have a 100-400 II and have long struggled with whether the upgrade cost would be worth it over an already great lens. How is the 100-500 "much better?" Sharpness? AF? I've borrowed one for a weekend and while it was nice, it didn't blow me away vs my 100-400. Maybe I just didn't have it long enough or shoot in demanding enough situations.
I rented the 200-800 a few months ago and while it couldn't replace the 100-400/500 for me, it was the perfect bird and air show lens.
Much better? It was a very noticeable increase in IQ. And focus. BUT, I was also using the 1.4 with my 100-400 most times, so that might have an effect.
So if reach is an issue, I would go with the 200-800(not the question). If very happy with results on your 100-400, stick with it, If budget is an issue, stick with it. The 100-500 is a fine update to the 100-400 and a pleasure to shoot.
I have got bit by the video bug and the 200-800 is nice for the wildlife videos.
Dave
Much better? It was a very noticeable increase in IQ. And focus. BUT, I was also using the 1.4 with my 100-400 most times, so that might have an effect.
So if reach is an issue, I would go with the 200-800(not the question). If very happy with results on your 100-400, stick with it, If budget is an issue, stick with it. The 100-500 is a fine update to the 100-400 and a pleasure to shoot.
I have got bit by the video bug and the 200-800 is nice for the wildlife videos.
Dave
I occasionally use the 1.4x TC III on my 100-400 II and there's definitely a hit in IQ and AF speed. I can still get sharp images, but it requires harder light to really pop and I have more shots that are out of focus. I always debate whether to use it or just crop. If I were always using the TC, the 100-500 would be a clearly superior choice with the increased speed and sharpness easily offsetting the loss of 60mm.
p.1 #8 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
Quoting above "I did that too" and am very happy with the results. The R5 + 100-500 is very sharp - noticeable compared to the 5D4 + 100-400, not that that combo was bad. Two major benefits, the 100-400 II plus EF/RF adapter weighs 3/4 lb more than the 100-500. And the 500 mm combined with the R5's 45 MP means I don't need an APS-C body for reach. The combo is sharp enough to crop 1.5. The 100-500 focuses a tad bit closer too.
I have, but haven't used, the RF 1.4X and have not felt the need for the 800 mm lenses, yet.
Also, just FYI IMHO, the R7 + RF 100-400 is also very good and weighs 2 lb less than the R5 kit. The 100-500 also works really well on the R7 in my experience but I tend to pair it with the R5.
p.1 #9 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
I chose to stay put with the 100-400ii and instead added the 1.4x converter for ~$200. A huge part of the reason though is that I am still using the 5DSR, so it works on both that and the R5. Some weight savings would be nice, but I don't think any of the sharpness increases or AF speed would be worth it in my case. The 100-400 is already spectacularly sharp.
p.1 #10 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
When I got the R5 (few months after launch, late Fall 2020) I used the 100-400 II for about a year (I owned it for about 4 years). It was tough to let go as it is/was my all-time favorite lens.
Sure it is not as fast at 7.1 at the long end, but the little extra reach and weight saving was a bonus and I can say it is just as sharp as the 100-400 II. No regrets whatsoever!
p.1 #11 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
LarryBeemer wrote:
Has anyone sold/traded in a Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM lens to replace it with a Canon RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS USM lens?
Have you been happy with the RF version?
Did you find the additional 100mm range to be advantageous?
Other then the additional 100mm focal range, what other advantages (or disadvantages) would I see?
Would I experience better/faster/more accurate auto focus?
This would be used on an R5 for now. R5 II perhaps down the road.
Any insight, positive or negative, would be appreciated.
Thanks.
I have two 100-400 IIs and later added the 100-500. The extra 100mm makes quite a difference and fits in with a 600/4 or 500/4 IS II+1.4x. AF and IS are better, especially since you don't need a 1.4x to get over 400mm.
I used the two copies of the 100-400 since the late 2014 release until getting the R5 in 2021. Since then I have hundreds of thousands of frames on more than a half-dozen 100-500s. I have not used either 100-400 II lenses since then, though I often carry one as a backup. The IQ of both 100-400 II and 100-500 are relatively similar overall though the 100-500 is a bit better in the longer part of the 100-400 IIs range. The central region is quite good at 500mm, but not as good toward the edges and corners. The bottom line is that you will probably not look back.
p.1 #13 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
dj63401 wrote:
---------------------------------------------
Mike_5D wrote:
---------------------------------------------
Hawker man wrote:
---------------------------------------------
Z250SA wrote:
---------------------------------------------
dj63401 wrote:
---------------------------------------------
Mike_5D wrote:
---------------------------------------------
Jeff Nolten wrote:
---------------------------------------------
gossamer88 wrote:
---------------------------------------------
EB-1 wrote:
---------------------------------------------
burningheart wrote:
Thank you to everyone for taking the time to respond.
I have thought of an additional question. When maneuvering through the focal lengths on the 100-500, does the exterior of the body of the lens move like the 100-400? Or does the exterior of the body stay stationary and the "zoom" happen on the interior like a 70-200? If the exterior moves, is it a twist action of a push/pull action? I know that's one more question but it's all kind of related.
I have contacted MPB to see what they might offer me for the 100-400 in excellent condition. I also inquired about an old 85mm f1.8 and an old 100mm macro that needs a new home. Hopefully they'll respond with numbers that will make the upgrade viable.
p.1 #15 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
LarryBeemer wrote:
Thank you to everyone for taking the time to respond.
I have thought of an additional question. When maneuvering through the focal lengths on the 100-500, does the exterior of the body of the lens move like the 100-400? Or does the exterior of the body stay stationary and the "zoom" happen on the interior like a 70-200? If the exterior moves, is it a twist action of a push/pull action? I know that's one more question but it's all kind of related.
I have contacted MPB to see what they might offer me for the 100-400 in excellent condition. I also inquired about an old 85mm f1.8 and an old 100mm macro that needs a new home. Hopefully they'll respond with numbers that will make the upgrade viable.
On the negative side, the tripod collar is removable, does not move very smoothly and is prone to breakage.
The first one was too loose (a known defect that caused lenses to fall on the ground), the second was fine but inexplicably the metal broke at the thinnest part, and the 3rd is overly tight.
They pulled that crap to claim the lens weighs less that the 100-400 II, but with the tripod collar and external A-S lens plate (the 100-400 II could use a replacement foot) the weight is the same. The 100-400 II had a super-smooth internal collar that I really miss.
p.1 #17 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
I used the EF 100-400 with my 5DIV but after moving up to the R5 I eventually sold the 100-400 and went with the RF 100-500. The extra reach is nice and the RF lens is better but not incredibly so. I also picked up the RF 200-800 and have used it some for sports just to try it out. I've found that it doesn't lock on as quickly or quite as well as an L lens would, but works reasonably well. The extra reach on the 200-800 is very nice but, of course, it's not going to be a low-light lens (and neither is the 100-500, really).
p.1 #18 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
crteach wrote:
I used the EF 100-400 with my 5DIV but after moving up to the R5 I eventually sold the 100-400 and went with the RF 100-500. The extra reach is nice and the RF lens is better but not incredibly so. I also picked up the RF 400-800 and have used it some for sports just to try it out. I've found that it doesn't lock on as quickly or quite as well as an L lens would, but works reasonably well. The extra reach on the 400-800 is very nice but, of course, it's not going to be a low-light lens (and neither is the 100-500, really)....Show more →
Do you mean the RF 200-800? I rented one for a week. I shot an air show, birds, and a soccer game. It was great for the first two, but just OK for soccer. I wasn't interested it in for sports, but since I had the lens, I figured I may as well try it. It wasn't as fast or as sharp as the EF 100-400 II and it was actually too long. Yes, I was able to get a couple of throw-ins and free kicks at 800mm, but it was too long for tracking action. Also, the longer lens just magnifies atmospheric issues. I can see myself just keeping the 100-400 II an adding the 200-800 for non-sports reach.
p.1 #19 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
If you are someone who regularly used the EF 100-400 II with the 1.4x extender, then upgrading to an RF 100-500 is probably a no-brainer. I imagine this would include most wildlife shooters, a cohort that is prominently represented here on FM.
By contrast, I found the100-400 to be ideal for daytime field sports and events, and rarely wished for a longer focal length. Also, granted it's a small difference, but I liked knowing I was shooting 400mm at f5.6 rather than f/6.3.
In the end, I did "upgrade" more for the size and weight savings, which are considerable once you include the mount adapter.
But honestly, both lenses are excellent. I could have kept my 100-400 II and continued getting great results for what I shoot, TBH.
p.1 #20 · update from Canon ef 100-400 to rf 100-500?
Mike_5D wrote:
Do you mean the RF 200-800? I rented one for a week. I shot an air show, birds, and a soccer game. It was great for the first two, but just OK for soccer. I wasn't interested it in for sports, but since I had the lens, I figured I may as well try it. It wasn't as fast or as sharp as the EF 100-400 II and it was actually too long. Yes, I was able to get a couple of throw-ins and free kicks at 800mm, but it was too long for tracking action. Also, the longer lens just magnifies atmospheric issues. I can see myself just keeping the 100-400 II an adding the 200-800 for non-sports reach. ...Show more →
Yes, Mike - my mistake. Thanks for catching that and I've corrected it now. Agreed on the use of the 200-800 for sports. Might be better for band compared to football, but more suited for birds/wildlife.
Scott Sewell made a video about the 200-800. At the time, he hadn't used it for sports, but sounds like the 200-800 was great for the airshow. He has since used it in sports and, I believe, made a video about that, too.
Scott Sewell wrote:
I will admit right up front I have not used the 200-800 lens for any sports yet. That's not really the main reason I bought it. But, I did very recently use it as my primary lens at AirVenture 2025 in Oshkosh, WI, the largest airshow in the world and it performed flawless. I used it with the R3 body, so that's an important thing to take into account as well.
Focus was fast and accurate, especially when I wasn't trying to capture images of a modern jet flying at nearly the speed of sound. But I have images of those jets shot at 800mm, f9 and 1/2000 that are sharp so I have no doubt it would handle athletes at any level of play.
My main reasons for buying this lens were the crazy impressive zoom range and to use for things like the airshow(s), marching bands (in good light, of course) and wildlife. Oh, and I bought it here on FM at a pre-tariff price.
Not sure this is appropriate here, but I made a video about that experience. I will also make videos about other uses as I get the chance to make that content.
