| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
  | sent on 26 Febbraio 2022 Pros: Small, light as a feather, surprisingly sharp, a perfect lens (not only) for hiking Cons: Reduced brightness, lack of hood and weather sealing Opinion: Among ef lenses I have always looked for the alternative that is light with a relatively large zoom range, and of course able to capture sharp, clear pictures. For me this solution was the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM (I also had 100-400 L and Tam 150-600, but this was my ideal partner for hiking). I bought rf 100-400 as soon as arrived to the market and I have to say that I didn't regret it. Nowadays this is my nr1 lens on short trips and it does the job perfectly. Of course its a bit darker than expected, but even with my EOS R it is not a problem even in low light conditions. Images are sharp, colours are beautiful "Canon-icals" :) before and after sunset, in cloudy weather as well. And it is works perfect in daylight. Yep, lack of tropicalization, so you wont use it in heavy rain or snowstorm, but some raindrops are absolutely ok. It is a perfect exchange of cheaper Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II nano USM but in quality its step by step with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L big brother. EF 100-400 and RF 100-500 are playing in az upper league, but you should decide if the plusplusplus amount of money worth it for you or not. For a normal everyday usage for a non-millionaire Ill definitely stick wit this clever, tiny friend :) |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
 | sent on 07 Dicembre 2025 Pros: Light, versatile, perfect colors, but the stabilization is something spectacular, the price is worth it all Cons: The only negative note is the lack of light. Opinion: I bought it at the end of November 2025 and I didn't have the opportunity to try it well, but I was amazed by the (spectacular) stabilization and contrary to what is said, it has a fast focus even at 400. On the subject of sharpness, I took three extreme photos, the first: I took a very small plant with a microscopic web from about 2 meters and cropping it you can see the web and the hairs of the plants perfectly. The second I shot a cat at about 20 meters and in the shade, times (250-8-1250) cropping the eyes are of absolute sharpness. The last photo, I took a vase full of colored and jagged balls, I shot at (1/8-5.6-160) the stabilizer has outdone itself. For me the grade is 9.9. |
 | sent on 04 Maggio 2025 Pros: Weight, minimum focus/magnification distance Cons: Focusing performance degrades between 300 and 400mm Opinion: I've owned it for a couple of years. I bought it to evaluate and try a focal length greater than 200mm. I use it mainly in landscaping and on some occasions for birdlife (which is not a genre in which I am well versed). In these scenarios I used the EF 70-200 f/4 IS USM and in some cases I found the 200mm insufficient. The weight is certainly a plus point for walks and hikes. The focal range for landscape is appreciated, as well as the maximum reproduction ratio at about 0.4X which allows you to shoot details of flora and insects. All this makes it a versatile enough lens to use outdoors. The construction is made of plastic, at the same time it seems solid enough. In my model I did not notice any play of the ferrules and the barrel once extended. I find the color rendering a bit dull compared to other lenses and then there is something more to work on in post. I find the focusing speed adequate, even if in my experience the responsiveness drops at focal lengths from 300mm upwards. This can be partly compensated by the fact that it supports the maximum shutter speeds of the RF system and therefore to have a few more photos available. Considering the price, I think it is a good purchase, especially if you prefer lightness and portability at the expense of tropicalization and brightness. |
 | sent on 04 Maggio 2025 Pros: Lightness, sharpness more than good in relation to the price. Cons: Autofocus a bit slow even with R3. Opinion: The RF 100-400 is a great compromise for those who don't want to or can't spend as much. Very convenient to carry around. Sharp enough to then optimize the quality with the software we have available. I bought it two years ago as a second long lens and the few times I used it it made decent images. Unfortunately, the autofocus speed isn't great even with very responsive cameras. But I repeat, with 700 Euros you buy very little alternative. |
  | sent on 14 Aprile 2025 Pros: Lightness and compactness compared to the long focal length, possibility of use as semi-macro, unexpected sharpness on a lens of this cost and level. Cons: If you know before buying its low light I would say none. Opinion: I switched to this lens from the RF 200-800, given that photographic hunting is not among my priorities, especially for the excessive weight and bulk of the L series super zoom, which certainly do not make it a bag lens to always carry with you with the rest of the kit as this 100-400 allows you to do. The comparisons made with the various 100-400 L series make me smile, since it would be like comparing a medium-sized Dacia with a Mercedes or BMW of the same displacement... Is it necessary to specify that one of the latter is far superior to the Dacia?, or is it nice to fill your mouth by necessarily praising an L series snubbing everything that the market offers as an alternative to its absurd costs, weights and dimensions? Surely the choice of these lenses, in my opinion, in most cases is not dictated by the lack of economic availability (or at least it is not in my case) but by their versatility of use and transport combined with an enviable sharpness achieved even on basic lenses, perhaps helped by everything that post production offers today, with which you can very well make up for both low light and a contrast or definition that is not excellent given the containment of production costs of these non-pro lenses, which in any case offer the priceless advantage of being able to carry them with you without the fear of carrying an overweight that could ruin a pleasant photographic excursion. Obviously it is not a lens recommended for those who as a genre of photography practice primarily photographic hunting or sports photography, especially indoors, or night shooting or in any case in low light, but it is assumed that one knows this before making the purchase of such a specific lens ..., so I am surprised to read negative comments on characteristics that one should already know before buying, Especially for the fact that these negative comments, in most cases, are expressed in the evaluation of economic optics, as if the fact of being cheap is always synonymous with poor quality, without ever taking into account the parameter that in my opinion is the first to be taken into consideration, that is the quality/price ratio, even if, I repeat, in my case it is not the price that dictates the choice of a lens. |
 | sent on 13 Aprile 2025 Pros: Lightness, compactness and sharpness of subjects at short distances. Discreet stabilization. Interesting potential as semi-macro. Cons: Rather dark, but you know it from the beginning. Only enough sharpness with distant subjects, just beyond a certain distance. Opinion: Great hiking zoom, perfect for landscaping and more. It combines compactness, lightness and ease of swinging. He does not disdain some shots in birdlife but as soon as you exceed a certain distance from the subject the fine detail is lost. The stabilization is decent but the good old rule of maintaining shutter speeds according to the focal length chosen remains valid. It is particularly comfortable and fun to use, despite the variable aperture. Advised! |
  | sent on 15 Settembre 2024 Pros: Compact, lightweight, stabilized. Cons: Slow and inaccurate MAF with low brightness. Opinion: If you want a compact lens with this focal range there is no alternative, it is the smallest and lightest 100-400 ever. and it costs relatively little. I took it to photograph distant landscapes and on a tripod at low iso for reasoned photos is fine. The performance improves if you close the diaphragm a little .. but you will further lengthen the shutter speed and therefore you need an excellent tripod to avoid blur. I can make the comparison with the EF 200LII which at 200 is obviously a blade, but which multiplied by x2 is not this great in landscape, so at this point I prefer the 400mm zoom. If you have to photograph the full moon set in it, things get complicated because to avoid blur you have to stay in times of 1:100s maximum. and at f8 you will be in a bad position with the high iso, so in this case better the 200LII with x2 than from f5.6. High isos take away more detail than a teleconverter. Bad instead to use in the evening handheld, the low brightness makes the iso rise a lot and not even the excellent stabilization can compensate for the lost aperture stops. It is the right lens for landscape or daytime travel. Not bad for photographing some flowers in the mountains either. For portraits I prefer the 200Lii (of course). If you have other needs you have to spend at least twice as much and carry a backpack with you. |
 | sent on 01 Agosto 2024 Pros: Compactness, lightness Cons: Lack of af distance switch, very slow AF at 400mm f/8 Opinion: Tested for 15 days alongside the EF L-series model, What about gold and iron. The only possible comparison is the focal length, for the rest this RF loses on all fronts. It is true that we are talking about an L-series lens vs a consumer RF but personally I would have expected much more. There is no selector for the minimum focusing distance, just as there is no selector to decide the type of AF to be used, but it is still a lens with slow and inaccurate focusing on both R5 and R6mk2. I don't feel like recommending the purchase. |
 | sent on 27 Luglio 2024 Pros: Lightweight, space-saving and insane stabilization Cons: Dark, sharpness not much (let's give it a sufficiency) Opinion: I took this optic for hiking in the mountains and something hunting, great for the weight and absurd stabilization combined with my Canon r6. The only cons is a lens that is a bit dark and in sharpness it does not excel, we still consider the price !. In my opinion for just over € 600 I recommend it, especially those who take photos in the mountains for its lightness. Regarding photographic hunting, I don't practice it often so I wouldn't know whether to recommend it or not. Personal rating ( landscape 8 / hunting 6 ) |
 | sent on 27 Maggio 2024 Pros: Lightness and stabilization. Cons: A lens with two souls. Good with relatively close subjects, bad a little further away. Opinion: Lens that reminds me in all respects of the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM on the 70D, with the difference that the 55-250 cost a joke, even if it didn't have a metal bayonet, but it was always razor-sharp and a brighter full stop. The 100-400 is good if the subjects are relatively close, beyond that it is better to forget about the detail (will it be my specimen?). For the sporadic use I make of it, I'll make it suffice. It's dark, but you know when you're going to buy it, so this feature cannot, in fact, be counted among the defects. On the other hand, landscapes, the main reason why I took it months ago, are shot at fairly small apertures or on tripods. Honestly I'd prefer the optical performance of the 100-500, but (FOR ME) it weighs a lot of weight. So long live the lightness that combined with the rather sporadic use I make of the focal ones, will be a lens that will accompany me for a long time, contenting me with its optimal range of use. Would I buy it again ? Maybe yes, maybe no, but lightness always wins for me. |
 | sent on 27 Maggio 2024 Pros: Weight, compactness, price, stabilization, autofocus, sharpness Cons: None, if you make an informed choice Opinion: A lens that goes far beyond expectations (at least mine). I use it in a kit with RP, RF16mm 2.8 and RF50mm 1.8 and the whole thing fits easily in a shoulder strap. Excellent stabilization and quiet and fast focusing. Very balanced with a camera body like the RP, so much so that it seems even lighter. Good construction, probably a bit delicate for intensive use. The sharpness is good even at maximum excursion and aperture (we are still talking about F/8), the blur is pleasant. Fun to use as a "macro" (unpretentious) as well. For what it costs, if you need a generalist telephoto lens to use outdoors (and during the day) you don't have to think about it for a second. Also because it is difficult to find something similar in terms of compactness, travel, weight and value for money. A little reasoning on the brightness issue: it is NOT bright, but if I had preferred a brighter model (leaving aside the price difference), the vast majority of the times I needed it I would not have had it with me because of its weight and size. |
 | sent on 21 Aprile 2024 Pros: Compactness, weight and stabilization Cons: For this price range nothing Opinion: Bought for a family trip, where I don't have the opportunity to take all the lenses with me, from macro to 400mm. I've been testing it for a few days on a canon r8 and coming from L series lenses I found myself in my hand just what I expected. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised by the precision of the focus ring and the right resistance of the zoom ring. The plastics are the same as those of recent L-series lenses, the focus super quiet and even though I never do video, I wanted to test this lens and it follows moving subjects very well. Below I will make some criticisms, which are not such, if we take into account that we are talking about an entry level, the focus is sometimes a bit uncertain and unfortunately the quality of the cheap lenses is felt. It will still remain in my backpack on family trips alongside the 24-70 2.8 ii or on Sunday bike or motorcycle trips where I don't need excellent quality and above all I have to carry the minimum bulk and weight with me. I definitely recommend it to those who are beginners, you can do everything from closeups to photo hunting with excellent results for a non-professional photographer. |
 | sent on 15 Marzo 2023 Pros: weight and compactness, optical quality, superb stabilization Cons: cheap construction, lack of tropicalization Opinion: I approached nature photography (animals, birds) and thanks to the lack of budget I bought this "little one" immediately after testing the EF 100-400 L for a few days (first version, the pump one). The first thing that immediately catches the eye is the compactness of this lens with respect to focal range: it looks like a toy compared to the EF version! The weight then is frankly ridiculous (we are talking about 635gr against 1380gr of the old EF): everything has a certain "weight", since the use I make of it is that of long walks (excursions). Like all RF lenses, the build quality leaves something to be desired: we are talking about a plastic lens (moreover an opaque plastic that seems designed to collect fingerprints, scratches and the like) and not tropicalized (but I admit, I used it in the rain without any problem). But this is a known problem, I noticed the same "low" build quality (excluding tropicalization) on the much more noble RF 24-105 L. The defects in terms of materials, however, are abundantly overcome by the optical quality and the goodness of the stabilizer: honestly I have not seen any difference in terms of details compared to the old EF L series (and does not fear too much competition even with the second generation 100-400), and the stabilization is simply of another level: coupled to the R6 this lens reaches up to 6 stops (in practical terms, I shoot quietly at 1/100sec at 400mm without worrying about blur). A few notes on brightness: of course, it is not an L series, but for daytime use it goes perfectly. The price then, considering the focal range, is quite tempting. Another point, it is compatible with RF teleconverters, great thing. I admit, if I were to continue with nature photography sooner or later I will switch to its older brother, the 100-500 RF L, but to start (considering also that it is a rather resalable lens) it is really a great tool. The convenience of transport can then be a reason – even for the most demanding photographers – to prefer this little jewel to heavier, brighter and more noble lenses. |
 | sent on 12 Dicembre 2022 Pros: Weight and price on everything then also sharpness Cons: Dunno... I haven't found any yet Opinion: I had a 7DMk2 with Sigma 150/600 sport and a Canon 400mm f5.6 for birdlife. I switched to R6 and sold all the previous kit because I could no longer carry all that weight with me. It was almost natural, to make birdlife, take with the R6 the Canon 800mm f11 but then something was missing to take close-up photos (the 800 focuses at 5 meters abundant) and I took the RF 100/400 recommended to me by my trusted shopkeeper and I did not regret it at all. Later I added the R7 and then with a weight much lower than the previous kit I bring 2 camera bodies, an 800mm and the 100/400mm. This 'Zoom' is fast in the MAF, light and also very sharp with the right light. I make birdlife to my satisfaction and with the R7 and it becomes a 160/560 equivalent. I made comparisons with the photos taken with the old equipment and I think my shots are now definitely improved |
 | sent on 20 Settembre 2022 Pros: Weight, weight, weight!!! but also sharpness, speed and minimum distance of MAF. Cons: Probably the position of the control ring, a hindrance when you want to focus manually. Opinion: I state that I have been for years very happy owner and user of the EF 100-400 IS II, which for me remains the best zoom so far produced, which I use in Football, Rugby, air shows, etc. but I do not hide that outside the use mentioned above, I began to have difficulty carrying it with me "every day" even for a bit of birdlife or for fields. So, just switched to R6 and 7, curiosity got the better of it and, very skeptical, I wanted to take this RF 100-400 basically encouraged by featherweight for a 100-400. The first shots I took them in the garden, close-ups and already here, brandishing 1200 grams of R7 + RF 100-400 against the previous 2500 of 7D2 + 100-400 II, it was a pleasure! But even the results were not so bad indeed... So I took him to an air show and even there he showed himself up to it, but above all my back, after a day, was still almost healthy ... On Sunday, finally, I wanted to use it for the first half of a football match (in the second half I used the EF, so I could compare the results) and also in this case it behaved very well. Of course, the blurred, although pleasant, is not that of the "big biancone", in some situations of low contrast sends the MAF a bit into crisis, f / 8 if there is not so much light is the minimum union (although it must be said that the excellent management of the high ISO of both R6 and R7 (developing with DPP) helps a lot, it is not tropicalized (but frankly, I have always "protected" my equipment and I will continue to do so, tropicalized or not ...) but we are talking about a 100-400 of 750 euros ... and frankly, it's not worth 1/4 of its big brother EF but much, much more! I did not like the position of the control ring, I will probably have to take my hand, but it is the first I find when I intend to focus manually, perhaps the two rings should be positioned in reverse. As with all non-L lenses, Canon is careful not to provide bag and hood, but fortunately they are both (the bag even more valid than the "soft bags" and expensive ...) for little money, especially the hood: for the original Canon asks almost 100 euros, I took an excellent Profox - identical in everything except in the internal "velvet" - just over 10 ... In short, for me it is promoted with flying colors, I do everything, with R6 it is a "long all-rounder", with R7 you have fun for itinerant birdlife, sports with good light and many other occasions. ... And anyway, only those who do not have it speak badly, but on the web it is the rule. |
 | sent on 14 Settembre 2022 Pros: Lightweight - compact - sharp even at t.a. - remarkable RR even without additional - relatively cheap Cons: Obviously it's not bright, but it's part of the game Opinion: Those who love walking in the mountains will certainly appreciate this telephoto zoom by Canon: it makes it possible to carry along focal lengths otherwise unthinkable for the weights and dimensions normally implied by telephoto lenses pushed. It is obvious and it is useless to emphasize the low brightness: for the use to which it is intended it is fine, the optical performance (I use it on r5) are incredibly high, the af is fast, it allows you to close up rather small subjects (flowers, butterflies, dragonflies) in complete freedom, thanks to the excellent stabilizer that works together with that of the camera. If you want to take portraits in ambient light it is better to go to something else, it goes without saying, but the 100-400 is and will remain faithful for a long time appears at 15-35 L or 24-105 L in my mountain excursions. It would be nice a version "L" with tropicalized construction and hood as standard (remember the old EF 100-300 / 5.6 L?) but even with the current 100-400 the construction is very well done, transmits a feeling of solidity and is totally free of games. You have to see over time, with intense use, but for now it's fine. Good light |
 | sent on 20 Giugno 2022 Pros: Light Cons: Not very bright Opinion: Once I switched to ML I took RF 100-500 L, but this lens is still heavy and you can hardly carry it with you when you do several km in the mountains. So almost for fun, taking advantage of an offer I took this RF 100-400 and I must say that it was a pleasant surprise ... accustomed to much more weights this is a feather. It is true that it is not very bright, birdlife in the middle of the dense forest can be forgotten, but it has become my travel companion. Highly recommended |
 | sent on 05 Marzo 2022 Pros: Lightweight, small, a surprise Cons: At the moment I can't find any Opinion: Purchased for test, immediately skeptical from the point of diaphragms, used only on Canon r6 and I must say a pleasant surprise. I arrive from Canon 80d and 300 f4 L series a leap in quality in brightness, sharpness at par, but excellent autofocus system. Now shooting without light limits the sensor combined with the lens makes it bright, the resolution for the 20 mpix of the r6 is more than fine but since I have it in the kit it is always in the backpack ! I did Sunrises, sunsets, photos on the snow with the kids never had problems with flare. It arrives without a hood and at the moment I have it for 5 months and I have never had the need to buy it! to say how ergonomics and dimensions mounted on r6 I find it more portable than rf 24/105 f 4 . Certainly less performing than the RF100/500 L but the difference in weight and price is considerable and not compared to the quality! I wait for time to understand if the construction is of excellent quality but for the moment the lens is perfect and does not vacuum dust. Brava Canon nice job! |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
