Canon RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 discuss and post images

[Titan6891]

Canon R7 RF 100-400 with RF 2.0 Extender. I may have to get one of these after having rented it. IT does give extra reach and with Topaz AI Denoise you can sharpen it enough.

View attachment 17433

View attachment 17434

Hello Jeff
Do you have any experience with the R10?
I’m planning to get the RF 100-400 plus RF 2x Teleconverter for BIF, but I’m not sure about the AF. The RF 200-800 is tempting, but I never owned such a long zoom lens and it’s heavy. Also the price is in a different league.
Thx Alexander

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

Hello Jeff
Do you have any experience with the R10?
I’m planning to get the RF 100-400 plus RF 2x Teleconverter for BIF, but I’m not sure about the AF. The RF 200-800 is tempting, but I never owned such a long zoom lens and it’s heavy. Also the price is in a different league.
Thx Alexander

I have never even seen a R10, sorry. the 200-800 is heavier than my old 150-600 and that was a beast.

I ended up buying a 100-500 from Canon reconditioned sales. So while I really want a 200-800 I am listening to my inner self warning me about the weight and while I will check one out and maybe at some point rent one I will not buy one at this time

 

[Titan6891]

I have never even seen a R10, sorry. the 200-800 is heavier than my old 150-600 and that was a beast.

I ended up buying a 100-500 from Canon reconditioned sales. So while I really want a 200-800 I am listening to my inner self warning me about the weight and while I will check one out and maybe at some point rent one I will not buy one at this time

Thx for your reply. Looking now at the 800 f11. Lots of questions in my head.

 

[Scott M]

Thx for your reply. Looking now at the 800 f11. Lots of questions in my head.

I own a R10, RF 100-400mm, and RF 800mm f/11 -- but don't have any RF TC. Both lenses work very well on the R10. Sorry that I cannot offer any insight on AF with a TC.

 

[Jan1977]

I got this lens for its form factor that seemed nice. Later on I got the RF 100-500 and in most occasions I use that if I need the reach. The RF 100-400 mostly made it to the bag when I went walking in the mountains or sometimes during a cycle ride. I sometimes wonder if it would be better just to sell the lens as the RF 100-500 aint that big.
On new years day I went to the year opening of a local rugby club where I knew they would play a friendly amongst each other between old and young. I did not know what kind of match it would be and the exact time they would actually kickoff the match.
I therefore really doubted to take my camera at all. In the end I decided to just take a small bag and the RF100-400 just in case I would want to shoot some pictures just for fun. Due to potential klick-off late in the afternoon and darkness coming in early, I opted for my R6 as the camera. I ended up shooting during the game. No wall hangers, but I was satisfied with what I could get given this 'minimalistic' setup in the conditions. If it was a match that really interested me from a photography perspective, I would have been shooting my Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and RF 70-200 f2.8. But occassions like these, where I don't want to lug with to much gear, the RF 100-400 definitely has its usefulness.

To illustrate a bit, 2 photos from the game. (1st photo: R6 , 1/800 , f5.6 , ISO12,800 , at 104mm ; 2nd photo: R6 , 1/640 , f8 , ISO 25,600, at 347 mm)

 

[Scout7ID]

Meet Afro Duck. This guy showed up in the pond near my house about a year ago. Every time I would see him on my walks (exercise not photo) I would go back to my house and come back with my camera only to find that he had disappeared. I've been trying since then to get a picture of him. I nicknamed him that because of the puff of feathers on the top of his head.

Today, I went walking with my wife and our son's dog and lo and behold, there he is. This time I had my R5 and RF 100-400. He seemed to like that fact that the dog was there and although he stayed in the water, he seemed to interact with the dog.

Maybe someone more versed in birds/fowl can tell me what he is...

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

I am working on a comparison between the RF100-400 and RF 100-500 both with and without RF 1.4x using my R7 and R6ii

When I get a 200-800 I will add it to it.

Here are images of each

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmpadell/albums/72177720313912136/

 

[gokusan1972]

_MGL1338 por K. Murguía, en Flickr

 

[gokusan1972]

_MGL1304 por K. Murguía, en Flickr

 

[gokusan1972]

_MGL1372 por K. Murguía, en Flickr

 

[gokusan1972]

_MGL1365 por K. Murguía, en Flickr

 

[just whistle]

Mountain bluebird by Lesley : ), on Flickr

 

[Paul D. (Cyberex)]

At last, 100-400 in my hands...
No crystal sharp, ugly bokeh (Lens blur in LR can help sometimes), very light even for one hand, can be carry in Peak design 3L bag.

My first BiFs ever. Interesting, need to waiting hours and spay thousands frames for 1 good shot, first 20 minutes i can't find bird in viewfinder or screen, after I understood that need to hold camera very close to the eye and always be prepared.

DP5_9402-2548px_PDphoto by Paul Drevnytskyy, on Flickr

DP5_9852-2548px_PDphoto by Paul Drevnytskyy, on Flickr

DP5_8109-2548px_PDphoto by Paul Drevnytskyy, on Flickr

DP5_0226-2548px_PDphoto by Paul Drevnytskyy, on Flickr

 

[Jeff USN Photog 72-76]

The RF 100-400 is a great lens!

 

[Lubos-PM]

 

[jgoetz4]

A couple taken with the R100. They were about 150' away.

 

[mcoren]

National Zoo in Washington, DC.

 

[edmidlifecrisis]

I've really been looking at this lens. I'm trying to replace an EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L. I've got an RF 100-500 that's too big for walking around, and a 70-200/4 that's too short. I want one that goes to 300.

I think the 100-400/5.6-8 is the RF replacement for the 70-300/4-5.6, but I'd gladly trade that extra 100mm for an extra aperture stop. I have a long lens when I need a long lens. To me, 300mm is the end point of medium telephoto.

And I'd actually like 30mm on the wide end more than I'd want 100mm on the long end. This would be a walking around lens, and paired with a 24-105, I get 35mm of overlap in the 70-105 range (@f/4 on both). It's remarkable how many pictures I shoot in that range and it's nice to be able to do that with whichever lens is mounted up at the time.

Now that the f/5.6 AF barrier has been breached, I think longer, slower, midpriced telephotos will be the norm. I resigned myself to 5.6 max aperture lenses, but slower than that bugs me. I'm still thinking about it.

I had the L version of the 70-300 for several years and really didn't think the weight and size were worth it. I much preferred the old 100-400 L II as I had both. Ended up selling the 70-300 back when I had only mirrored DSLRs. I never tried the non-L version though.

 

[dxd]

I just got this lens a few days ago, my first attempts out in the wild. Using a Canon R8, also still very new to me at ~2 months old. Crop only at 100%.
saguarodove by *dxd*, on Flickr