Great review per usual. Loved the bar graphs, the comparison images and the the detailed rundown of image quality and situational focus acquisition. You packed a lot of great info into 20 min and kept the discussion objective/judgement free, enabling viewers to make up their own minds. Well done.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks a lot

This review is gold, thank you for the effort!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 ай бұрын

Thanks, glad to hear that you found it useful

Excellent video. The information was so clear and easily understood. The photo comparison really helped

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 ай бұрын

Thanks, happy to hear!

Great review! I'm impressed that you bought the lens specially for this video. I have both lenses, and still reach for the 100-400 when size and weight are key, such as when out hiking.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks! I will maybe keep the lens for another video 😊

A very thorough test Fabian, if I were a Canon shooter on a budget I reckon this would be a super helpful video for helping any decision making.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks a lot 😀

Your videos are so helpful! You're an exceptional teacher and reviewer, and I appreciate it very much. This particular video has been helpful in deciding what to do about my next telephoto for birding.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

14 күн бұрын

Thanks 😊

Excellent review!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks

Thanks, Fabian, for great video!!!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks 😊

❤ thanks so much! You answered all my questions. I’m going with 100-400 lightweight option.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

7 ай бұрын

Have fun with the lens!

Very helpful; thank you so much! I just subscribed 😊

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

4 ай бұрын

Thanks

Thanks for the review very thorough and helpful.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

18 күн бұрын

Happy to hear that

I am a hobby photographer. I am sold on the RF 100-400mm lens. Thank you for educating me on these two lenses.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

7 ай бұрын

Glad to hear that the video was helpful!

I thought your review was very well reasoned and explained.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 ай бұрын

Thanks

Great review, and after watching few other videos on the same comparison, this video gave me a peaceful mind for going to 100-400.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

6 ай бұрын

Happy to hear that the video was helpful

Thank you Fabian for putting together this comparison. I have been looking at the 100-400 for my next lens purchase but wondered if I should wait for awhile and save for the 100-500. I’m a hobbyist at this point and with that a stricter budget to work with. I feel much better that the 100-400 would accomplish my needs. Very nice review! Cheers!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

3 ай бұрын

Thanks and have fun!

Great comparison with excellent examples and opinions. I'm glad you ended by saying there's not one lens for all users as I find it strange when people compare two products like this that are so far apart cost wise yet seem to expect the cheaper product to perform comparably! While there's no doubt the 100-500mm has the edge in many areas so it should for over 3 times the price. The 100-400mm is a great lens for the $$ and paired with an R7 makes a tremendous value wildlife kit. One thing many comparisons gloss over or fail to mention as well is the significant size \ weight difference. I had to stop shooting with a DSLR and Tamron 150-600mm because of physical limitations now (as many experience especially as they get older) and have found the Rf100-400mm on the R7 has been the only combo that's allowed me to keep shooting hand held in the field as I used to. For that reason alone even if I was given a 100-500mm I'd still use the 100-400mm for the weight which is the main factor for me now. Really enjoy your videos, keep up the great work!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks for your words 😊

Fabian, great work with the videos. I regards to your E-books the link takes me to the Bird Photography book, but what if I wanted to also get your other E-book - Autofocus Tips for Canon EOS R Cameras? Do both books come in English and is there a bundle discount? Thanks, John

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks! Unfortunately, the AF E-Book is only available in German. It takes a lot of time and effort to translate it 😕 I hope you can enjoy the bird-book. Just make sure you get the english version 😊

Interesting review! Thank you.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks

Overall this is a very thorough, well done comparison. I imagine many people will find it quite helpful! Thanks for doing it. While I agree that the extending zoom changes balance on a gimbal, it really isn't a big deal. I've used the Canon EF 100-400mm II extensively on a gimbal, shooting sports. Some sessions would be all day long and I always worked with at least one other camera (handheld)... hence the tripod and gimbal. The only "trouble" you could get into with the minor change in balance is if you let go of camera and lens so that it tips forward or backward. So long as you have close to equilibrium, this is usually slow... but I just got in the habit of quickly locking the gimbal to prevent the self tilting. Unfortunately, Canon has always been stingy about lens hoods, only includes them with their L-series. This was true with many camera makers in the past... but most other than Canon now include them.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for your comment 😊

Thanks, Fabian, for so great clear and detailed honest review! ) I use 100-400 on R7. Indeed a great combo. I am very happy with it. Shooting a lot of wildlife, birds mostly. Very quick focusing, quite sharp. I use it a lot also for macro, flowers, insects. Actually, I was amazed how good image quality this lens provides. Much better than I expected! What surprised me most was how beautiful bokeh this lens provides! So soft and creamy! I shoot a lot of art macro, so now I use this lens even for art macro thanks to its so beautiful and pleasing creamy bokeh. I don't want a full frame camera for shooting wildlife and macro of insects, because R7 gives me the possibility to shoot at much longer distance and with much bigger magnification. The huge advantage of the 100-400 fir me is its amazing weight. Now I carry R7 + RF 100-400 everywhere with me for any walk and take many very nice pictures occasionally. With a heavier lens even like 100-500, I would not be able to carry it with me everywhere, so I just would miss all these shots ). The only real advantage of the 100-500 is more of background blur. But actually if you take a really great picture and want a little more of background blur on it, you can just do it with modern software quite easily and beautifully ). Earlier I shoot a lot with EF 100-400 II. A superb lens, but quite heavy. So I am really happy to have now the RF 100-400. Truly just amazing lens for its weight and image quality! Thanks Canon for it )

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks! Yes, I find in challenging light conditions it’s most visible. Personally, I prefer not to blur the background of my images in post - but everybody as he/she prefers 😊

@socraticgadfly

7 ай бұрын

I'm still in the DSLR world, but I am looking at both this camera, and this lens for the long zoom, when I make the jump.

@vimalneha

5 ай бұрын

Your reply or experience is quite helpful. Could you please help me by sharing your experience with low light conditions like in wedding or family shoot with R7 and 100-400. I will highly appreciate if you could show your insta or other show case.

Great and very informative video. I have a question though. For almost a year, I have a combo of r10 and rf100-400 and I'm generally happy with it. But recently I was thinking what would be the logical upgrade from here. Is the rf100-500 logical next step or the differences are not that big for the price? I'm mainly aiming to improve the performance in poorer light and not sure if rf100-500 (with aperture which is not super fast) can help with that especially on apsc camera. Once again great video and keep it on!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks! It can help, Since at 400mm you are 2/3 steps faster. But more important for me was the extra reach and blurrier background

Great comparison. Im glad Canon have the 600&800/11 and this 100-400. The affordable price, ability to focus and super low weight are great combinations that all photographers can enjoy with whatever mirrorless body they own. No need to break the bank with the 100-500 when the 100-400 can satisfy your needs. During this era I’m now picking up bargain EF L glass but one day I might grab the RF 100-400

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 ай бұрын

Thanks! The larger maximum aperture is the main advantage of the RF100-500 over the 100-400 in my opinion. And not everybody needs that

@nickg2308

7 ай бұрын

Wow. What do you shoot at f11? The sun?

I had both. Sold the 100-400. If you have the money, get the 100-500. More reach, weather sealed, , better IQ, and better Sharpness.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

I totally understand

@ajc1482

10 ай бұрын

A 100mm of extra reach for the extra £2100 isn't worth it, the IQ and sharpness difference is negligible, the weather sealing is an issue but you can put a weather resistant camo cover on the 100-400 for peace of mind.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

It’s not only 100mm more, the Bokeh (look) is also different and the RF100-500 provides a better background blur, etc

@alansach8437

8 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography True, and no question if you can afford it the 100-500 is the way to go; but, let's face it, you can add background blur in post. Not quite the same, but a reasonable substitute if you just don't have almost three grand laying around!

@mvubu6823

7 ай бұрын

​@ajc1482 except IQ isn't negligible, it's huge in the field. Taken them both on safari and its not even close.

thank u bro , u are a pro

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks

Well done, sir.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks

Just got the 100-500 and use it on the R8, but I had the dilemma of both these lenses. For me it was people who had owned both and said I would regret not getting the 500 that made my mind up, love it so far brilliant lens

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

I‘m sure you will not regret it 😊

Nice review. I think the 100-500 is weather sealed but the 100-400 is not. It can be a very important feature if it is used for wild life

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 ай бұрын

Thanks, that’s a good point

Lens testing is soooo difficult, there are so many variables and ensuring both set ups are 100% equal is really challenging. Thanks for doing the test it looks like the 100-500 is better but not by as much as the price would suggest. In the UK you can pick up the 100-400 for under £500 with cash back, whilst the is about £2500 with cashback, sit its 5 times more expensive. Hmmm I guess its how much the value that extra performance? Great review.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks! Yes, I think that comes down to financial and photographic priorities

Would be great to see comparison of 100-400 RF and 100-400 EF II - the real question here is if you should really upgrade from 100-400 EF II (with/without extender)

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 ай бұрын

They are quite different lenses, I would not really call the RF100-400 an „upgrade“. The successor of the EF 100-400 II is the RF100-500

Thank you!!!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

You’re welcome

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

You’re welcome

Very practical and helpful comparison. I’ve been using my ef 100-400 L IS vii with my R7, but wanting more reach for the small birds here in eastern US. But have held off getting the 100-500 as i’m not really happy with the R7.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks!

@FotosyMas.

9 ай бұрын

May I ask why are you not happy with the R7? I sold mine and I’m kind of regretting it

@craigcarlson4022

7 ай бұрын

⁠@@FotosyMas.sorry, just seeing your question now in earlyOctober. I find the R7 just misses focus a bit more than it should. And i find the higher iso images a good bit more noisy than my Nikon Z50. Plus, with all the Canons the exposure shifts around more as the focus point moves around, requiring more post editing. In the same settings, my Nikon’s matrix metering just seems to get exposure ‘right’ more often. Hope this helps.

@victorthenotsogreat1975

3 ай бұрын

I Have the R10 and the Canon Rf 100 400 mm and very satisfied with the quality of my pictures, also the Eye tracking is very fast, af is extremely fast, it s working great for bif.

Great work mate . And RF 70-200mm f4 vs RF 100-500mm which one is better for landscape photography

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks! Hmm, depends whether or not you need the extra reach of the 100-500. Overall I would prefer the 100-500, but the 70-200/4 is a very light and inexpensive alternative

What a great review! I use the R5 +100-500mm. I also have the R7. Depending on the location, I switch cameras. I'm a hobbyist. Now you have me thinking about the 100-400mm for my R7. Have you tried the lens on that camera? If yes, thoughts? Thanks, Fabian!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks! No, I only tried it on the R5 and R10

@ritammelgunov

10 ай бұрын

I use 100-400 on R7. Indeed a great combo. I am very happy with it. Shooting a lot of wildlife, birds mostly. Very quick focusing, quite sharp. I use it a lot also for macro, flowers, insects. Actually, I was amazed how good image quality this lens provides. Much better than I expected! What surprised me most was how beautiful bokeh this lens provides! So soft and creamy! I shoot a lot of art macro, so now I use this lens even for art macro thanks to its so beautiful and pleasing creamy bokeh. I don't want a full frame camera for shooting wildlife and macro of insects, because R7 gives me the possibility to shoot at much longer distance and with much bigger magnification. The huge advantage of the 100-400 fir me is its amazing weight. Now I carry R7 + RF 100-400 everywhere with me for any walk and take many very nice pictures occasionally. With a heavier lens even like 100-500, I would not be able to carry it with me everywhere, so I just would miss all these shots ). The only real advantage of the 100-500 is more of background blur. But actually if you take a really great picture and want a little more of background blur on it, you can just do it with modern software quite easily and beautifully ). Earlier I shoot a lot with EF 100-400 II. A superb lens, but quite heavy. So I am really happy to have now the RF 100-400. Truly just amazing lens for its weight and image quality! Thanks Canon for it ). And thanks to the author for so great clear and detailed honest review! 😊

The stabilization of the RF 100-400 seems to work well for photos most of the time but I've had some issues with it for video or when using a teleconverter. Sometimes it takes quite a few seconds to settle down and other times (especially with the teleconverter) it seems to spazz out a fair bit. It might vary by unit but I have seen a few similar comments from other users. Interesting to see how much busier the bokeh looks even though there's only 1/3 stop of difference, so it goes to show there's other factors not just the f-stop (some have suggested the actual aperture may be even dimmer than f8). It does seem to me like the RF100-400 is designed to have more contrasty optics which gives the subject more perceived detail (but not necessarily sharpness) but consequently the bokeh is busier (almost feels like turning up the texture slider in Lightroom).

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

I think the bokeh is really heavily influenced by the type of glass or coating that’s used in the two different lenses

@omegavladosovich6757

8 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Do you notice more "specular highlights" (onion ring bokeh) and rainbow artifacts on the RF 100-400 than the 100-500? I've not been bothered much myself but one of my peers has been constantly frustrated by 100-400 and the autofocus accuracy with the R7 and believes it ruins macro pictures (for example the rainbow artifacts show up on spider webs). It might be less obvious depending on the processing method but it seems to be a big shortcoming not many users have emphasized.

There is noticeably better edge sharpness with the 100-500. It might not be important for wildlife , but for BIF this could be significant since it is difficult to keep the bird in the middle.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Usually I use the edges and corners more for non actions shots. But yes, I guess it can not hurt in general

Really helpful. Another consideration is the body - a crop sensor on a 100-400 gives you 640mm reach. At a cost over ff obvs but still to consider…

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

16 күн бұрын

Sure!

Canon does include a lens shade with the 100-400. They just forgot to mention that you use the box and a rubber band..biodegradable too! 😉

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

5 ай бұрын

😅

Thanks for the comparison. I want to get into wildlife and can't decide on the camera and lenses. Tried out an R before and liked it. Now the 100-500 looks really appealing and I don't think it's too heavy, also its weather-sealed which is pretty important imo. Would you recommend going with it and as a first body use an R7 or R8? R7 giving the advantage of the crop. Don't quiet know if the AF of the R8 is similar to the R7...

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

6 ай бұрын

Depends how much „reach“ you need and how much light you have available. The R8 AF is clearly superior to the one of the R7

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

6 ай бұрын

Depends how much „reach“ you need and how much light you have available. The R8 AF is clearly superior to the one of the R7

I’ve been contemplating getting the 100-400 for when I can’t/won’t bring the 100-500, usually for dragonflies and amphibians. Your experiences suggest that it is worth it. It would free up some space in the shoulder bag for snacks for the kids :)

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Glad to hear that the video was helpful 😊

Great! ❤💯

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Happy to hear that you liked the video

Whilst I'd have ideally liked the 100-500 I just could not justify the price differential as I do more landscapes than wildlife. It was therefore between an EF L series lens or the RF 100-400. I went with the 100-400 as still about half the price of the EF L series lens plus smaller. I'm crossing my fingers that Sigma/Tamron will produce a comparable lens to the RF100-500 at about half it's price and then I'd be in the market. Or will hope the RF 100-500mm keeps coming down in price as a grey import! PS - if you have the EF 70-300mm and a lens hood for it you can use the same hood on the RF 100-400.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 ай бұрын

Thanks for the hint about the lens hood! Unless Canon allows it, Sigma/Tamron will not be able to produce an RF lens that can compete with the RF100-500

Nice review. The other important factor is the weight. I would like to buy the 500mm after seing your review and reading the specs but the portability of the 400mm might win me over.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

2 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Nice good review with good conclusions. Just you did not mention: weight differences and it's comfort/possibilities. And...!! the price: if you can barley afford it, would you let it in your camper/car/hotelroom? I would not: that means you have to carry it the whole time. and as always: the best lens is the lens you have with you: Phone or lightweight 100-400. etc. Greetings, Onno Nugteren the Netherlands.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

I think I mentioned the weight difference. And yes, I always leave all my stuff in the hotel room. In the car I‘m a bit more careful, I usually try not to leave my 600/4 for many hours

I dont know if you will still make a video about this but i own the 100-400 and now am thinking about upgrading to either the 100-500 or the 200-800 and would love to hear your opinion!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

5 ай бұрын

Thanks! Yes, I‘m working on a video comparing these two lenses 😊

what if you turned of the magic of in camera corrections. I wonder how they would compare then? Its no mystery that modern lens improvement are hand in hand with digital corrections, but I wonder if the distortion correction makes the cheaper lens resolve mushy pixels? Lastly, what about a comparison with the R7 and 100-400 v R5 + 100-500?

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

I have all lens corrections turned off

Very good test, thank you. Just a note, an RF 100 400 + light treatment with Topaz Sharpen costs much less than a 100 500 :)

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

3 ай бұрын

Or you get the 100-500 + Topaz 😃

I would say I'm a little past beginner level after a 6 months of shooting wildlife, street and sports. I am thinking of a combo with the rf 100-400 together with the 50mm 1.8 and the R7. Do you think this combination will satisfy someone who takes his hobby serious?

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

6 ай бұрын

Hard to tell. If background blur is important and you can afford it, then I would go for the RF100-500 L

@mclordawesome

6 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I get it and am hoping on a black friday sale . Just that I am a student on a budget and I go out shooting 2-3 times a week for a couple of hours each session. So I'm trying to gather as much information and experiences about products as possible. Considering I currently have a 1/1.2" sensor on my father's old camera with built in zoom then this will already be a big upgrade no matter what I decide to buy along with the R7

I have the 100-400 L Vii and I have been debating to get the rf version and sell the old L version if the image quality is equal… would save in weight and would carry the lens more on hikes… Im using an R5 and shoot birds and herps… What do you think?

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

From what I understand, the image quality of the RF100-500 L is better than the EF100-400 II. If weight is a consideration and you can afford it, then I would probably upgrade 😊

@alopeztorres

10 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Yeah, I have read the same, the 100-500 has better quality and its lighter too. That said, Im pretty happy with the image quality of the 100-400 L already. What I meant to ask is if its worth to “downgrade” to the 100-400 rf and put the extra money I get in my pocket from selling the 100-400L to get the 100-400 non L rf version… This would save in size and weight… and if image quality is close to the 100-500L the it might actually be similar to the old 100-400L… thats my conundrum… The 100-400 L for sure is built better though… might be the only thing ai will miss out on maybe…

The primary argument here would be the difference in price vs. the similarity in technical specifications and picture IQ. Bear in mind the bokeh will be greater at 500mm vs. 400mm. and also bear in mind that the Canon at 500mm is f/7.1 vs. f/6.3. Perhaps your test would have been fairer if both lenses had been set at 400mm at 6.3. I have this Sigma lens, and it is lighting fast on my Canon R3, as well as the R5 and R6ii. Imagine, I could buy as many as four Sigma 100-400 mm lenses for the price of one Canon 100-500mm! The Sigma is the recommended choice for the money.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

7 ай бұрын

The RF100-400 can not be set to f/6.3 at 400mm - that’s one of the big limitations

Excellent review as always. One thing nobody mentions on the 100-500 is the mechanical quality of the tripod collar. Whilst the lens may well be mainly used hand held there are still plenty of us who will use it on a tripod. I haven't used this lens but I have heard that the collar is the same type as the one used on the RF 70-200 which I do own and can say that the collar on that lens is definitely not of the quality I would expect from a nearly £3000 lens. The collar on the EF version is far superior and I believe that it is the same situation with the RF 100-500 and the EF 100-400.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Thanks! Yes, I really have the collar removed 90% of the time. What are your concerns with that collar?

@robertlawrence7958

10 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I cannot specifically comment on the 100-500 but if, as I have read, it is the same as the 70-200 then I have to say that I find the collar to be quite flimsy in comparison to earlier ef lenses. The material that it is made from appears to be able to be distorted out of shape and this results in very uneven operation when it comes to changing orientation from horizontal to vertical and vice versa, not smooth at all! Not only that but, at least on my copy, if I have the lock mechanism of the collar loose enough to rotate the lens I then cannot trust the lock to remain fixed and so cannot attach a strap fixing to it to carry the set up without worrying about the collar opening and therefore dropping the camera and lens. I can lock it down of course and if I was using a strap then naturally I would be using it hand held and not using a tripod so wouldn't need the collar on at all but on a lens that costs in the region of £2750 I don't think this is acceptable. It may well be that it is just that I have a poor copy. As it happens I rarely use the 70-200 on a tripod anyway but I would certainly use a 100-500 more on a tripod. My ef 100-400 has no such issues.

Would this be good to take pictures or even video during a golf tournament? I will be at a distance of 25 ft more or less

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

27 күн бұрын

I‘m not an expert in sports photography, but for anything under ten meters (33ft) I would rather go for a 70-200mm

I love my RF100-500. I do however hate the way it handles with a teleconverter.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 ай бұрын

Thanks! Do you mean that you can only use it from 300mm on?

@ElBoyoElectronico

9 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography yeah, storing the lens while not fully retracted is very annoying

Very useful comparison Fabian! For me it is quite clear that the 100-400 is the more attractive lens because of its lightweight and small dimensions: I can take it out in the field most of the time. And nowadays it is possible to blur the background a bit more in post processing ... But if I were mainly a wildlife, resp. bird photographer then of course I would go for the 100-500, no question.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

5 ай бұрын

Thanks! Personally, I don’t like blurring the background in post. It also disqualifies for many wildlife competitions

@twelvethirtyfour

5 ай бұрын

Blurring in post has a long way to go before it’s acceptable tbh

We all know the RF 100-500 should have been f6.3 on the long end and should have had full converter compatibility. That is something that gives me mixed feelings about it, especially when there is a 100-400 that is so cheap but also optically fine. Maybe invest in Nikon Z for wildlife?😄

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

7 ай бұрын

I thought about switching to Nikon 😅 But the Z100-400 is even more expensive than the RF100-500.

@stephangauthier911

6 ай бұрын

i also find that canon is getting slouchy on their apertures on about all of their lenses. Their decent stuff are financially out of range for most ppl. Id get the tamron 50-400 in a heartbeat if canon opened their mount to 3rd parties. Last canon gear for me. Sony's next.

If you are going to shoot close the 100-400 is ok, but if your subject is a little bit further away and you want to put a 2x converter your F goes to F/16... In that case I would prefer the Sigma 150-600 or the Tamron for wildlife. I think the 100-400 is ok for starters but Canon has made the 100-500 because they know that for shoothing wildlife you need reachness and being able to shoot with fast speed in low light conditions.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

4 ай бұрын

There is now also the option of the RF200-800

@gonzaloferreras4333

4 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography money in the bank amigo

Having previously used a Nikon D7500 + Sigma 150-600 I recently bought an EOS R7 + RF 100-500 and was seriously disappointed with the results. Images were soft focused with a subtle double image effect- so I bought a RF100-400 and have been delighted with its results. I've now ordered a 1.4 extender and have returned the RF100-500 for a refund- sadly Canon support were very unhelpful when I reached out to them. It's probable that I was unlucky with the lens now I've seen the results with the 100-400......do I repurchase the 100-500 and hope for better results? Unsure......

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

That sounds weird, the RF100-500 L should definitely have better image quality than the Rf100-400

I’ve been using the 100-400 with an R6 for some time, sometimes using the Extender 1.4 with good results. I got the 100-500 when the R7 came out as I could now get a 800mm equivalent field of view. Both get used a lot, but if the 100-400 fits your budget, get it - you won’t be disappointed.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Glad to hear that your happy with both lenses!

I bought the 100-400mm L ii second hand [mint] for less than half the cost of the 100-500, I could not justify the extra cost. Everything is quite relative, I have been using a Sigma 50-500mm for years and doing a test there was very little IQ difference with the Canon L lens, only when I bought an R5 for AIAF it just didn't work. Sigma lenses are brilliant on my 5D4, but the firmware on the mirrorless is designed to annoy you. Incidentally I get far more sharp shots with Sigma lenses on the R6 than I do the R5, work that out if you can.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

It could be that you see any AF issues less on the R6 due to the lower pixel density

Remember me Fabian? We had a short discussion about your comment regarding the 100-400mm, you said it was for beginners. I was a beginner 35 years ago and would dream about the image quality, weight, IS and price of this 'dream lens'. I still cannot agree with your analysis. I am now even more convinced that if it were painted white you would use it!

@DavidInmanProductions

10 ай бұрын

Hey man, no need to be rude in the comments. Fabian did an excellent job objectively comparing each lens here and offered a favorable, non-biased review of the 100-400. An iPhone 14 pro is a professional grade camera compared to what was on the market 35 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's what a professional photographer would use in 2023. You could definitely get pro results with the 100-400, but weather sealing, reach and that aperture difference will be important to someone earning money off their wildlife photos. Let's keep it civil please.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Yes, I remember the discussion. If I recall correctly I said that the RF100-400 is a very good lens for beginners - but that doesn’t mean that more advanced users can’t use it. But I clearly prefer the RF100-500

@brianirving5889

10 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks for the quick reply, I am sorry if my final comment was a bit flippant! However, it is easy to compare and demote a lens worth 1/5 of the price of the competition!

rf 100-400 is basically budget, light version of rf 100-500

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 ай бұрын

Exactly 😊

You can buy both lenses here (Affiliate Links): Canon RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 IS: bhpho.to/474osGx Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 L IS: bhpho.to/45FriR5

@alonzoescamilla4960

8 ай бұрын

Hi! Did I get it well? You have an e-book? I’m interested in it but I don’t see the link. Thanks for de video. I’m a photography enthusiast and also a getting in to birdwatching, so… I’m on my way. 👍🏽. From Los Cabos, Baja Sur, Mexico. 🤙🏽

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

7 ай бұрын

@@alonzoescamilla4960 Hi! Sorry, I completely missed your comment! Here is the link: naturfotografie-fopp.ch/wp/e-book-bird-photography/

Bonjour, Fabien, avez-vous votre livre en français.Merci

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

6 ай бұрын

No, unfortunately not

Yes, the 100-500 is slightly better, but it's not $2000.00 better. I'll keep my 100-400.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

This highly depends on the person who shoots it. For me it would even be worth it paying 3000$ more 😉

The 100-500 is insanely expensive, especially when you consider that Nikon just released a 180-600 5.6-6.3 for a thousand dollars less! If you want to hit 600mm with Canon for under two grand your ONLY choice is an f11! F11!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 ай бұрын

I think the price of the RF100-500 is fair, the Nikon equivalent (Z100-400) is more expensive! But it’s true that Canon lacks a more affordable and lower quality zoom like the Z180-600

Hi, very informative review. Perhaps an additional ‘proviso’ should be how young, or old the prospective user might be - as an old fart now (on the verge of 60!) I would be aware of my limitations and I’m swayed towards the smaller, lighter lens for that main reason (at my age I’m not aiming to be a professional now, I do it as my own hobby enjoyment although a little ‘side hustle’ would be welcome!).

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for the feedback!

100-400 is better if you traveling, You will look striking if you carry a bazooka 100-500 L more quality, but it's still too big if Canon make 100-500 L same big size like 100-400 ITS was awesome

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

4 ай бұрын

Yes, for some people the weight is an important factor. But to be honest, the RF100-500 is already incredibly light for what it is

Is it worth the extra cost??? Well, that all depends on what you want to use it for and what sort of results your need or expect. If you want a cheap, low budget lens, or an expensive professional lens. If you are shooting professionally where you are being PAID for your photos, I would NOT advise using a cheap, low budget lens! Just remember, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR! I have tried both these lenses, and sure, the cheap RF is a great value and a good performer, but the 100-500mm is FAR superior in pretty much every way!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

4 күн бұрын

The RF100-400 can actually deliver very high quality output, but I find the RF100-500 the better and more consistent lens

@-WhizzBang-

2 күн бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography well it should be as it costs almost 4x more~!

I’m not sure the comparison is fair to be exact. Cropping the 100-400mm to match the view of the 100-500mm would result in loss of resolution and will cause lower quality image when you zoom in to pixel peep.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

Ай бұрын

Sure, but what other option would you suggest in a situation where you can’t get closer to your subject?

But the rf100-400 is using PLASTIC molded elements (PMO) which is getting worse overtime comparing with the all real glasses on the L lenses or the EF models. $650 for 2-3 years use or $2800 for 10 years is up to you.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

Yes, the material is different. But why exactly would the plastic „decay“ after 2-3 years?

@BOLANGTHANG

10 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography i believe plastic will be downgraded overtime 😬 maybe?

@EricCheung

9 ай бұрын

@@BOLANGTHANG There are many older plastic lenses and still going strong..does not decay after 2-3years LOL

smaller always better. you don't want to carry the big one around

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

2 ай бұрын

That‘s a matter of perspective and preference. My main lens is the RF600/4, so much bigger than the RF100-500

At 3000usd the 100-500 is possibly the most overpriced lens ever. F7.1 is a joke at this price point, also Focus breathing is bad at 500mm compared to the much cheaper 200-500mmm Nikkor

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

It’s not ideal to compare it against the old Nikkor 200-500. the competitor is the Nikkor Z100-400, which is more expensive than the RF100-500!

@Sigurd_9230

10 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Despite the weight difference, is it reasonable to compare with the price for the Nikon Z 180-600mm? Here where I live, the price difference between them is 1,500usd.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

10 ай бұрын

I think it would be better to compare it against the Z100-400. But I agree that there is no real competitor from Canon to the Z180-600

Excellent review - thank you.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

15 күн бұрын

Thanks