Rf 100-400 Vs Rf 100-500: The Ultimate Showdown!

Hey friends, let’s talk about two awesome telephoto lenses from Canon: the RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM and the RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM. If you’re chasing wildlife, shooting sports, or framing far-off landscapes, this Rf 100-400 Vs Rf 100-500 comparison will help you pick the right one. Both are built for Canon’s EOS R mirrorless system, but they serve different needs. Choosing between them can be tough since they’re similar yet distinct. I’ve used both extensively, and I’m excited to share what I’ve learned. Let’s dive into their strengths and see which fits your style.

Rf 100-400 Vs Rf 100-500 Comparison

Comparison Table

Here’s a quick snapshot of how these lenses stack up:

Feature	RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM	RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM
Focal Length	100-400mm	100-500mm
Max Aperture	f/5.6-8	f/4.5-7.1
Weight	635g	1365g
Dimensions (L x D)	165mm x 79.5mm	207.6mm x 94mm
Image Stabilization	5.5 stops (6 with IBIS)	5 stops (6 with IBIS)
Autofocus	Nano USM	Dual Nano USM
Filter Size	67mm	77mm
Weather Sealing	No	Yes
Tripod Collar	No	Yes, removable
Extender Compatibility	Full range (100-400mm)	Partial (300-500mm)
Build Material	Engineered plastics	Metal (L-series)

Weight and Portability

Weight matters when you’re out shooting for hours. The 100-400mm, at just 635g, feels like a feather in my bag. I’ve hiked miles with it, barely noticing the extra load. It’s perfect for travel or long days in the field.

The 100-500mm, at 1365g, is over twice as heavy. It’s still manageable, but after a full day, my shoulders feel it. Its larger size (207.6mm long) also takes up more space in my pack. For casual outings, the lighter lens wins hands-down.

Portability is where the 100-400mm shines. Its compact design slips easily into a backpack. The 100-500mm requires more planning, especially for air travel. If you’re always on the move, the 100-400mm is your friend.

Focal Length and Reach

The focal length difference—400mm versus 500mm—is significant. That extra 100mm on the 100-500mm lets me zoom in on distant birds or athletes without moving. On APS-C cameras, the 100-400mm’s effective range (160-640mm) is often enough. But on full-frame bodies, the 100-500mm’s 500mm reach is a game-changer.

I once photographed deer at a reserve. The 100-400mm got me close, but the 100-500mm captured details I’d have missed. For wildlife or sports, that extra reach is clutch. Still, 400mm handles most scenarios well.

The 100-400mm is versatile for closer subjects. I’ve used it for portraits with a telephoto look. The 100-500mm excels when subjects are far off, like in vast landscapes. Your shooting distance will dictate your choice.

Aperture Performance

Aperture affects low-light shooting and background blur. The 100-400mm ranges from f/5.6 to f/8, while the 100-500mm offers f/4.5 to f/7.1. At 400mm, the 100-500mm’s f/6.3 is faster than the 100-400mm’s f/8. This helps in dim light or for shallower depth of field.

Both lenses need higher ISOs in low light due to their variable apertures. In bright daylight, the difference is negligible. I’ve shot crisp images with both at noon.

The 100-500mm’s slight aperture advantage shines at dusk. I’ve captured sharper shots of moving subjects with it. For daytime shooters, either lens performs well. Consider your lighting conditions when choosing.

Image Quality

Both lenses produce stunning images, but the 100-500mm has a slight edge. The 100-400mm delivers sharp, vibrant shots, especially at 100mm. At 400mm, the center is crisp, but corners may soften slightly wide open. The 100-500mm, with its L-series optics, stays sharp across the frame, thanks to Super UD and UD elements.

Colors pop in both, with minimal flare in backlit scenes. The 100-500mm’s bokeh is smoother, ideal for isolating subjects. I’ve noticed the 100-400mm shows slight edge distortion, but it’s minor.

In my tests, the 100-500mm’s clarity at 500mm impressed me. It’s perfect for detailed wildlife shots. The 100-400mm holds its own for most uses. Unless you’re pixel-peeping, both are excellent.

Build Quality and Durability

Build quality sets these lenses apart. The 100-500mm’s metal barrel and over 15 weather-sealing points make it a tank. I’ve shot in light rain without worry, and its fluorine coating resists smudges. The 100-400mm’s plastic build feels solid but lacks weather sealing.

I’m cautious with the 100-400mm in dust or rain. It’s fine for fair weather, but I trust the 100-500mm in rugged conditions. The 100-500mm’s durability suits pros working in tough environments.

The 100-400mm’s lighter materials keep it portable. It’s less prone to dents but more vulnerable to elements. For outdoor adventures, the 100-500mm’s robustness is reassuring. Choose based on your shooting conditions.

Autofocus and Stabilization

Autofocus is a strength for both. The 100-500mm’s Dual Nano USM motors are lightning-fast and silent, locking onto birds in flight effortlessly. The 100-400mm’s single Nano USM is quick but slightly less reliable for fast subjects. Both pair well with Canon’s eye detection.

Stabilization is superb. The 100-400mm offers 5.5 stops (6 with IBIS), while the 100-500mm provides 5 stops (6 with IBIS). The 100-500mm’s three-mode stabilization, including panning, adds versatility for action shots.

I’ve handheld sharp shots at 1/15s with the 100-500mm. The 100-400mm performs similarly but lacks mode options. For dynamic scenes, the 100-500mm’s autofocus and stabilization edge out.

Additional Features

The 100-500mm includes a removable tripod collar, great for long exposures. Its customizable control ring is handy for quick video adjustments. The 100-400mm skips these but stays lightweight. Both support RF extenders, but the 100-400mm works across its full range, while the 100-500mm is limited to 300-500mm.

I love the 100-500mm’s control ring for tweaking ISO on the fly. The tripod collar balances my setup on a monopod. The 100-400mm’s simplicity suits casual shooters. Extender use depends on your focal length needs.

Filter sizes differ: 67mm for the 100-400mm, 77mm for the 100-500mm. If you own filters, check compatibility. The 100-500mm’s extras cater to pros, while the 100-400mm keeps things minimal. Your gear setup may influence your pick.

Real-World Experiences

Let’s get practical with some stories from the field. On a recent trip to photograph bald eagles, I brought both lenses. The 100-400mm was perfect for closer shots, its light weight letting me shoot handheld for hours. When eagles soared high, the 100-500mm’s extra reach filled the frame with stunning detail.

For sports, I’ve used the 100-500mm at soccer games. Its autofocus tracked players across the field, capturing key moments. The 100-400mm worked well for smaller venues but sometimes left me wanting more zoom. The 100-500mm’s reach is ideal for large stadiums.

In landscapes, both lenses compress scenes beautifully. I’ve used the 100-400mm on hikes for its portability, framing distant mountains with ease. The 100-500mm’s weather sealing gave me confidence shooting near waterfalls. Your shooting style will guide your choice.

I once shot a music festival with the 100-400mm. Its compact size let me weave through crowds, capturing performers from afar. The 100-500mm shone at an air show, nailing planes in flight. Both lenses adapt to varied scenarios, but their strengths differ.

Community Feedback

Photographers on forums like DPReview and Reddit praise the 100-400mm for its value. Many call it a budget-friendly gem for travel and casual shooting. Its portability is a big plus for hikers. Some note its lack of weather sealing as a drawback.

The 100-500mm gets love from pros for its reach and build. Wildlife photographers rave about its sharpness and autofocus. Some mention its weight as a challenge on smaller bodies, but pairing it with an EOS R5 balances it well. Both lenses have strong followings.

Dustin Abbott, a respected reviewer, calls the 100-400mm “surprisingly competent” for its price, with good autofocus and image quality (Dustin Abbott’s Review). For the 100-500mm, he highlights its premium performance, ideal for fast-moving subjects (Dustin Abbott’s Review). Community insights align with my experiences.

Decision-Making: Which Lens Fits You?

In the Rf 100-400 Vs Rf 100-500 debate, your priorities will decide. If you’re a casual shooter or value portability, the RF 100-400mm is a fantastic pick. Its lightweight design and solid performance make it ideal for travel or hobbyists. I’ve loved using it on long hikes without fatigue.

If you’re a pro or need extra reach and durability, the RF 100-500mm is the way to go. Its weather sealing and 500mm focal length are perfect for wildlife or sports in tough conditions. It’s my go-to for demanding shoots. Consider your shooting environment and needs.

Think about your camera body too. Both lenses work with EOS R series, including crop sensors like the EOS R7, boosting effective focal length. For fast action or rugged settings, the 100-500mm’s features shine. If weight and simplicity matter more, the 100-400mm delivers.

Conclusion

Both the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-500mm are stellar lenses, each excelling in different scenarios. The 100-400mm is a lightweight, versatile choice for casual or travel photographers. The 100-500mm’s reach and durability make it a pro’s dream for challenging shoots. I hope this breakdown helps you choose the perfect lens for your next adventure. Happy shooting!

FAQ

1. Which lens is better for wildlife photography?
   The 100-500mm’s extra reach is ideal for distant animals, especially birds. The 100-400mm works well for closer subjects or with crop sensors. Rf 100-400 Vs Rf 100-500—reach often tips the scale for wildlife.
2. Can I use teleconverters with these lenses?
   Yes. The 100-400mm supports RF 1.4x and 2x extenders across its range. The 100-500mm only works from 300-500mm, impacting low-light performance.
3. Is there a big difference in image quality?
   Both deliver excellent images. The 100-500mm has a slight edge in sharpness and bokeh due to L-series optics. Differences are subtle unless zooming in closely.
4. Which is better for video?
   The 100-500mm’s control ring and weather sealing make it versatile for video, especially outdoors. The 100-400mm is lighter but lacks these features. Both handle video well.
5. Are they compatible with crop sensor cameras?
   Yes, both work with EOS R series, including the EOS R7. Crop sensors boost effective focal length (e.g., 160-640mm for the 100-400mm).
6. How do their autofocus speeds compare?
   The 100-500mm’s Dual Nano USM is faster, especially for tracking fast subjects. The 100-400mm’s Nano USM is quick but less reliable in low light.
7. Are there any known issues?
   Some report zoom creep in the 100-500mm, fixable with its tension ring. The 100-400mm’s lack of weather sealing limits use in harsh conditions.
8. Which lens is better for travel?
   The 100-400mm’s light weight and compact size make it ideal for travel. The 100-500mm is bulkier but better for rugged destinations.