|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on July 31, 2024 Pros: Weight and dimensions. Good sharpness. Stabilization. All in all pleasant construction. Cons: It's a bit dark for certain types of photography. Blurred not exciting. Autofocus, in very low light conditions Opinion: It's really a very nice lens, and very useful. It is very light and small in size, it is the lightest 100-400 on the market, unattainable even in the micro 4/3 field. Of course the materials taste a little too much of plastic and savings, and the lens hood is also missing.... But considering what it costs and the focal lengths it covers, you can easily pass over it. Especially since it is built with criteria and there is everything you need: the zooming is quite soft, the selectors are complete, there is a customizable ring, perhaps for the apertures, with precise and pleasant shots and there is a nice ring for manual focus (which instead is shamefully missing on the new and super acclaimed 200-800 ... which costs five times more) It is quite / very sharp, certainly for the vast majority of needs... If you then consider that today practically all photos, even at 100iso (except mine; ) are altered and disfigured by the Denoise and Topaz garbage on duty, I would say that the sharpness is more than abundant for all needs. For the record, in reality, it is not the sharpest of the 100-400, but it is almost equal to the Panaleica and the Olympus 100-400, with a lower brightness and a less "interesting" blur, that is, therefore at the bottom of the 100-400 ranking... But as I said before, today the sharpness is so high that it is more than fine to do everything and in the field there are practically no differences compared to its much "more than big brother" 100-500, except in shooting conditions sought ad hoc and artfully constructed "naturalistic" sets ( = perches in the gardens of the house ....) The autofocus is good, although not at the level of the 100-500 in terms of accuracy. When the light goes down, and here I must, as usual, specify what I mean when it falls a lot, that is, when it really gets dark, and not at 6.30 pm on July 31st ... !!!! The autofocus slows down and struggles a lot, especially where the contrasts are not good. However, apart from serious sports or very dynamic bird use, the autofocus is excellent for everything else. As with all other low light RFs (including 100-500) this 100-400 is more suitable to be used on FF, for the usual known reasons. that is, for the unexciting performance of Canon APSC sensors and the unexciting performance of Canon APSC cameras themselves. Although, as I have said and resaid before, and as I always say, today you can do "everything" even with a Sony RX10 .. let alone with an R7 with 100-400 ..... I recommend it especially for trips, even challenging, perhaps where there is a lot of landscape, a bit of fauna, and a little bit of everything. Compared to the 100-500 in fact it weighs less than half, and costs five times less, but it has an equally valid stabilization ... In quiet situations it can go down to 1/40, sometimes 1/20 with an excellent success rate. You can count on four abundant stops. |
  | sent on July 27, 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 May 27, 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 May 27, 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 April 21, 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 March 15, 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 December 12, 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 September 20, 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 September 14, 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 June 20, 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 March 05, 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
