Full Frame R6 with the mk 1 100-400, any good?

[JohnN]

Hi,

Does anyone have experience on using the EF 100-400 L (mk 1) on the R6, I'm curious how well it functions.

Of course if anyone wants to give me an RF 100-500 the question would be moot

 

[JohnN]

Nevermind, a link from a previous thread showed this:

Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 v1 (very soft at the 400mm Focal Length)(Confirmed Low Resolving) – this is one of the worst **DISCONTINUED*****

A shame as this is half the price of the mk II, which is half the price of the 100-500

 

[miuzi]

I have the RF 100-400, which I recognize is a bit slower, at f/ 5.6-8, but I absolutely love it. Since I switched to Canon and the RF system, many of my favourite images I've created came from that lens. It may not be an L, but the image quality to my eye is spectacular, it's smaller and lighter, way less expensive, and fully compatible with the RF extenders, unlike the 100-500 L, which works from 300-500mm but can't be fully zoomed in due to the extender protruding into the lens body. I know it's not the question you asked, but that might be the best 100-400mm option for you.

 

[JohnN]

Thanks for the suggestion - very light which looks cool, I'll have a dig around see what I find, but again, thanks - not one I'd considered being f8 where I'd use it, and were it on an older camera I still wouldn't but the R6 plus post-processing should help with noise from ISO, presuming of course it doesn't mess with the detail.

 

[JohnN]

Spent far too much time watching videos and looks like it may not be for me, I very much like taking bird in flight shots and from what I can tell this isn't it's strong point, a real shame as the weight, or lack thereof would have been a real boon.

 

[miuzi]

Fair! I'm not really into wildlife photography, I tend to use it for airshows, the moon and clouds, landscapes, stuff like that. Also, it serves as my go-to for macro work, since I don't have a dedicated macro lens, and with the 2x extender it achieves >0.8x reproduction ratio for macro. I can see where every bit of lens speed helps with wildlife though.

 

[JohnN]

Now, that is interesting - I'd not considered how the extender would affect macro, but it really was very much on my checklist.

I've almost finished watching this video (link) and to me this paints the lens in a very different light, and now its on the shortlist with the Sigma 150-600 C, but, and this is a big 'ol but I do not trust that lens for AF at all.

This is giving the RF 100-400 to really strong pros:

• Light weight
• Small
• Low MFD (for macro on dragonflies etc) - I should mention this twice as getting a macro is also on my list
• Extender (should I chose to get one) doesn't get in the way - yes 100-500, I'm looking at you
• Reliable AF

Cons:

• Higher f-stop at F8, which means less separation and potentially struggling with UK light (or lack thereof)
• Not as long, again, less separation, plus may need to crop more - may not be great on a 20MP body
• If I did go for an extender they are stupid money on RF - almost as much as the lens itself - lowest price I can see on the 1.4 is 459, and 463 on the 2x

Middle ground

• Cost - it may be cheap but the 2nd hand prices are too close at 100GBP to make it worth buying second over new
  • 2nd hand cost of a Sigma 150-600 C isn't much more than the RF new
• Native lens - not a concern as already have an adapter, but this may turn into a con if I get more EF glass and the hassle factor kicks in - very much m'eh

What I can see happening is getting the RF 100-400 - and thank you again for the suggestion - and then looking at Sigma again when/if they get a their act together (I have emailed Sigma for their input on lens compatibility but am not holding my breath)

 

[miuzi]

Your consideration process is very thorough!

I bought the 100-400 a little under a year ago, and like you, found that prices for new vs. used were minimally different. I snagged a used one on eBay that happened to include a hood and a UV filter, which upped the value equation enough in that direction for me. Even without an extender, the 0.41x macro ratio is decent. The extenders (I have the 2x) are suuuuper expensive, but I've been very happy with mine, no regrets about the purchase. Doubling that macro ratio such that it's getting fairly close to 1x helped convince me to buy it, I looked at it as solving two needs, both the longer reach AND the more legit macro performance. The combined price for me (Canadian dollars) was about $1600. For comparison's sake, that's roughly what the RF 100mm f/ 2.8 macro costs here (a lens I covet, to be sure). The RF 200-800 retails for $2600 (plus tax would take it north of 3 grand). Getting a a very usable macro ratio plus a 200-800mm zoom range for near enough 1/3 the money makes the value undeniable for me, even with the big caveat of more restrictive apertures.

That f/ 16 at 800mm is something to consider though, but with steady hands and good light, hasn't been an impediment for me. The ISO performance of these R-series bodies has greatly reduced my aversion to higher ISOs. With an R6 body, you also have the advantage of IBIS, lacking in my R8, so that'll be a boon as well. One other thing I like about the combo is that the densest part of the system is the extender, so the balance of the weight in my hands or on a strap is comfortable, it's not a drag to hold my lens up. It's wonderful to have 800mm of reach in a full system that weighs less than 1.5kg. Obviously an R6 body weighs a bit more than an R8, but it would only be another 200g or so.

Anyway, I feel like I've said all I can possibly say about these pieces of equipment! Good luck with your research and eventual choice.

 

[JohnN]

Thanks again - thats some really great points in there - now, here in Blighty, we don't believe in that glowing orb, some say provide light - and when it is spotted we must, by law, complain loudly and scurry for shade - or in other words f16 could be an issue - but I do get the point.

Funny that what swung it for me was macro, who would have thought, I understand its good for landscape too!

On macro, one thing I was enjoying were the images some people were showing off from the 100-500, from what I saw earlier this lens is even better.

Well, the deed is almost done, I've traded in a shed load of old kit to pay for this lot - and I will be in trouble - but I asked they price me up a new RF 100-400 as part of the trade (with the rest going on commission) - with the current 70gbp off, plus 100 cashback it seems a good time to buy new - that should if my maths is even close mean it'll set me back 530gbp, something of a bargain, and stave off buying a EF 100mm macro IS for some time too.