advertisement


Anyone had a Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8

L

livingthedream

pfm Member
Daughters currently got a Canon R10 with a 18-150 but looking for something with a further reach

She’s thinking of the Canon Rf100-400 F5.6-8

She’s also got an RF50 and a RF35

Long term she wants a full frame but she loves the R10, I don’t really want the L series yet because she’s still at college so finding her way

Any help and views welcome
 
I have the RF 100-500L but the 100-400 gets excellent user reviews in the Canon forums on FB etc Buy with confidence.
 
livingthedream said:
Wow R3, that’s a serious setup. Is photography your hobby or job?

Out of interest what other lenses do you own?
Click to expand...
Gave up jobs a long time ago, purely a hobby but one that has lasted since the 70's. I have used mainly Canon 1D series since the IIN was introduced.

All RF lenses now. 14-35L F4, 28-70L F2.0, 50mm 1.8, 1.4X and 2X extenders. Probably going to get 100mm Macro next but 90% of my interest is wildlife and sports, hence long lenses.
Looking at the possibility of a quick trip to Kruger before my OH returns from Italy.mid September.
 
livingthedream said:
Daughters currently got a Canon R10 with a 18-150 but looking for something with a further reach

She’s thinking of the Canon Rf100-400 F5.6-8

She’s also got an RF50 and a RF35

Long term she wants a full frame but she loves the R10, I don’t really want the L series yet because she’s still at college so finding her way

Any help and views welcome
Click to expand...

One important point to note is that with the 100-500, if an extender is fitted, the lens won't go any wider than the 300mm setting.
With the 100-400, the full range of the lens' zoom is retained if an extender is fitted.

Nearly forgot.... the 100-400 doesn't come with the hood. Either buy the Canon hood for £44+, or go on the usual sites for a decent copy.
 
Thanks for the info, none of her lenses have come with hoods. With her first lens we couldn’t get the original hood so bought a JJC one from Amazon which seems ok to me

We also bought the Hoya filters which was around £20-£30 each, I’ve no idea if they’d affect the photo quality but the added protection is a little reassuring
 
livingthedream said:
Thanks for the info, none of her lenses have come with hoods. With her first lens we couldn’t get the original hood so bought a JJC one from Amazon which seems ok to me

We also bought the Hoya filters which was around £20-£30 each, I’ve no idea if they’d affect the photo quality but the added protection is a little reassuring
Click to expand...
IIRC, only L lenses come with hoods these days.
 
livingthedream said:
Thanks for the info, none of her lenses have come with hoods. With her first lens we couldn’t get the original hood so bought a JJC one from Amazon which seems ok to me

We also bought the Hoya filters which was around £20-£30 each, I’ve no idea if they’d affect the photo quality but the added protection is a little reassuring
Click to expand...

I very rarely fit filters. If a hood is on the lens, what are you protecting it from?
When I photographed lots of gravel rallies in the 1980s, I didn’t fit them, I just turned away, hand over the end of the lens. I’ve seen the mess created by a piece of flint hitting a filter… the front lens element wasn’t pretty.
 
We’d not planned on buying filters but my daughter got a mark on her RF35 lens, we thought it was a scratch but it wasn’t and did come off. She was away at the time so I couldn’t look at it myself, canon customer services said it would be far cheaper to sell the damaged lens and buy a new one than send it in for new glass

the filters aren’t expensive, I think the was called Hoya UX 11, I do hope they don’t degrade the photos
 
Just had a look the canon hood for the rf100-400 is £77! Seems a bit for a price of plastic, saying that look at what we spend on a bit of hifi cabling.

Silly question so hope you laugh when looking at a lens for example this one what would the reach be for something like birds? I’m a proper idiot when it comes to photography!
 
livingthedream said:
Just had a look the canon hood for the rf100-400 is £77! Seems a bit for a price of plastic, saying that look at what we spend on a bit of hifi cabling.

Silly question so hope you laugh when looking at a lens for example this one what would the reach be for something like birds? I’m a proper idiot when it comes to photography!
Click to expand...
The R10 has an APS-C sensor so you need to multiply the focal length by 1.6.Therefore, there 100-400 becomes a 160-640 lens which will be more than enough for any birds.
 
Tony Lockhart said:
I’ve been following Duade on YouTube for a while now. He presents so well, nice and calm, and is open about his mistakes. This is fairly typical, and shows how good the ‘cheap’ 800mm f11 can be.

Click to expand...
That is a lens that has been on my radar for a long time but I have 1.4 and 2X converters which work remarkably well on the R3.

Have you tried the internal crop on the R3? I haven't yet.
 
canonman said:
That is a lens that has been on my radar for a long time but I have 1.4 and 2X converters which work remarkably well on the R3.

Have you tried the internal crop on the R3? I haven't yet.
Click to expand...

That 800mm is so light. I reckon buy a used one, see how you get on, keep or move on.

I haven't tried the crop except at Duxford a couple of weeks ago when i used my mate's EF-S lens. 9Mp is 'ok' if you don't need to crop, but the photos were soft. I might give it a go this evening if I manage to get out across the local fields.

One issue I have with long lenses and bird photography, especially with birds in flight, is getting the buggers in the viewfinder! At 1.6x that will be even more difficult :)
 
Tony Lockhart said:
That 800mm is so light. I reckon buy a used one, see how you get on, keep or move on.

I haven't tried the crop except at Duxford a couple of weeks ago when i used my mate's EF-S lens. 9Mp is 'ok' if you don't need to crop, but the photos were soft. I might give it a go this evening if I manage to get out across the local fields.

One issue I have with long lenses and bird photography, especially with birds in flight, is getting the buggers in the viewfinder! At 1.6x that will be even more difficult :)
Click to expand...

I have tried the lens briefly, impressed. One of the Canon reps that I 'know' told me that he had used it with the 2x at f22 and AF worked perfectly! Try that with a 1D3 and original 100-400:)
Never forget trying to focus on a suicide bird in the Kruger and a Peregrine Falcon in the Cairngorms :)
 
canonman said:
I have tried the lens briefly, impressed. One of the Canon reps that I 'know' told me that he had used it with the 2x at f22 and AF worked perfectly! Try that with a 1D3 and original 100-400:)
Never forget trying to focus on a suicide bird in the Kruger and a Peregrine Falcon in the Cairngorms :)
Click to expand...
These mirrorless cameras really have changed the rules, especially with autofocus.

I try to use the Fv setting as often as possible. Manual shutter and aperture, ISO to auto. It’s a revelation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top