Birds Various birds with RF 100-400 lens

[DonRoos]

Went down to our local bird sanctuary to try out my new RF 100-400. Worked great with stationary birds but my results with in flight were very disappointing. I include the best of the shots of a Sacred Ibis but most shots were unusable. Subject tracking set to animals, eye detection on, Elec. 1st curtain shutter, AF servo, whole area AF. Tracking seemed to be working as I was shooting but it would appear that focus seemed to be more on the trees in the background. What should I change

 

[MikeZ]

I've had BIF auto-focus issues with my 100-400 as well, and wouldn't recommend it for BIF. Perhaps it's the slow aperture and/or the tangle of tree branches that help to confuse the auto-focus - I'm not sure. But using manual focus or auto-focus for stationary subjects and the lens seems to work wonderfully.

 

[Ed Cordes]

HMMM! I do not have experience with the RF 100-400, but my wife uses the adapted EF 100-400 II on her R7 and I use the RF 100-500 on my R5. Our setup is to use at least 1/2000 shutter speed with auto ISO capped at 6400. We use AF Case 2 and ensure we have animal eye tracking turned on. My experience is that most of our friends who have image softness aren't using a fast enough SS. We also use Topaz DeNoise AI to handle any noise and occasionally use the motion blur algorithm in Topaz Sharpen AI. For the Sharpen phase I do this in a layer so I can control the output and almost always select the subject and do not apply the effect to the entire image. I am attaching an example. This was taken with the R7, Adapted EF 100-400 II at ISO 6400 and Topaz DeNoise and Topaz Sharpen AI as described above. Hope this helps.

 

[drsnoopy]

I have both the RF100-400 and the RF 100-500L for my R5 and R10. I previously had the EF 100-400 L mk2, and used it on my R5 for bird photography. My observations are that the EF100-400Lii and the RF 100-500L track beautifully, and focus very accurately. The RF is a little better (not a lot) but more convenient in that it goes to 500mm without needing a teleconverter, and is a little smaller and lighter. The RF 100-400 in my experience is in no way comparable. My first copy was generally soft and tracked poorly, even in good light, and AF often missed focus (even with sky or a very bland backdrop) both for birds in flight and stationary birds. I was very disappointed, so I compared it to my brother's copy, which was definitely better. So I returned mine within the return period. My second copy is much sharper on stationary subjects. It tracks better, but often misses AF especially using eye detect on either body. I also find the bokeh very busy and distracting, blades of grass in front or behind for example are always double. I don't think there is anything actually wrong with the second copy. Of course it is much cheaper than the L lens! However I just don't like it and never pick it up as a result - so I will part exchange it for something more useful. It's very disappointing - especially as I have had good results with previous low cost Canon lenses, for example the EF-S 55-250 STM which was excellent on my 80D and 90D. There are lots of users reporting good results so either they have been lucky or their technique is way better than mine...

 

[Frank Stellitano]

I have had the RF100-400 mm for a week or so now and am quite disappointed in it. Like Dr. Snoopy said above, it just misses focus and when it does catch focus, it is soft. I am going to bite the bullet and get the L 100-500 mm.

 

[drsnoopy]

I have had the RF100-400 mm for a week or so now and am quite disappointed in it. Like Dr. Snoopy said above, it just misses focus and when it does catch focus, it is soft. I am going to bite the bullet and get the L 100-500 mm.

You will find it night and day better!

 

[Frank Stellitano]

You will find it night and day better!

Just ordered it from B&H; will be here tomorrow. Oh Boy!!

 

[MikeZ]

I've noticed the same issue with my RF100-400 and I'm also considering the L 100-500 too. I just need to get past the price and save a little cash.