I generally don’t do much photography that would require a lens with a range beyond 100mm.  I mostly do product, street, landscape, automotive, and travel photography.  So I generally stay within 15mm to about 85mm in focal lengths.  That said, I’ve almost always had a Canon 70-200 in my lens line up.  Because occasionally I would do photography that required more reach.  I started with an EF 70-200 f4, then eventually moved to the EF 70-200 f2.8 I which I had for years until I transitioned to mirrorless and got the first version of the Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 that was more travel friendly.  I might only break the 70-200 out a handful of times per year.  My problem is that when I did need more reach – maybe a trip to the zoo, an auto race, or the occasional air show – I found the 70-200 often came up short.  Take a look at theses photos I took at the Cincinnati Zoo earlier this year.  Or these photos I took last year at The Battle of the Bricks in Indianapolis The Battle of the Bricks in Indianapolis last year. Or even the shots from a recent BMW High Performance Drivers Education course I was asked to cover.  I got some GREAT shots with my 70-200.  But I also found myself doing a whole lot of cropping.

So I found myself in a position a lot of working photographers can relate to:  in between.  Investing in a lens that could provide more reach might make me some money, but probably not enough to justify the lens in the near term.  But as long as I could see some potential return it was worthwhile investigating options.  For the RF platform, To get the kind of reach that I thought would be beneficial – at least 400mm and preferably closer to 600m – the options are few.  The most obvious being the Canon 100-500 f4.5-7.1.  That’s about a $2900 lens.  Certainly not unobtainable, and of a similar price that I’ve paid for several other RF lenses.  But the aperture range bothered me a bit at the price point.  Probably because I’m a bit of a lens knob at this point.  I currently don’t own any glass that’s got an aperture smaller than f2.8.  Yes I understand that a lens like this is going to be predominantly used outside.  If a lens like this had an aperture larger  than about F3.5, I’d probably need to use it with an ND filter in most of the use cases.  But that amount of money was also just darn hard to justify when I could only see myself using it maybe two to three times a year.  It’s at this point that the Canon haters start crying about how Canon doesn’t offer any third-party lens solutions.  To which I respond that they really don’t have to because there’s such a large, broad catalogue of fantastic EF cgass that easily adapts to the RF platform.  The Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 L IS II quickly made my short list of lenses to consider.  This lens was announced in 2014 and you can still buy the lens new today at about $2600.00.  There are rumors the lens was discontinued in 2024, but there’s no official cancellation from Canon.  Depending on condition these lenses can be picked up preowned for about $1200.00 to $2000.00 fairly easily.  I looked around for a couple of months – it was a bit more challenging than I thought it would be to find an example that had like new optics and was originally purchased in the US (I am a member of Canon Professional Services and wanted to make sure that I could get the lens serviced here in the US per Canon policy).  I finally ended up purchasing an example from KEH.  I have a Petapixel membership – it provides a 5% discount at KEH so that wiped out the lion’s share of the sales tax, and shipping was free.

When it arrived it was in pretty darn good condition for its age.  The optics were clean, and the body had just a few minor paint chips:

My copy came with the original lens cap and lens hood.  The lens also originally came with a zipper pouch, but I’ve never used those so I wasn’t concerned about not getting it:

As I mentioned, I have the Canon RF 70-200 f2.8.  The EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 is considerably longer and noticeably heavier:

Of course, adding the Canon EF-RF adaptor does add a bit to both length and weight, but not significantly.  Still, I’ve found I prefer to use the EF-100-400 monopod mounted as it’s more comfortable than hand holding this beast:

COMPARED TO THE RF 100-500?

Chances are if you’re considering this lens, you also thinking about the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1.  We know a pre-loved version of the EF 100-400 can be had for about half the cost of the 100-500 at retail.  But let’s look at some other considerations.  And it obviously is a stop less at the long end of the aperture range.

WEIGHT

The EF 100-400 is considerably heavier, but perhaps not significantly heavier than the 100-500.  Assuming you’re shooting the EF 100-400 with the tripod mount collar on it, and the fantastic Canon EF-RF Adapter, you’re looking at a lens weight of 4.06 lbs. vs 3.37 lbs. for the RF 100-500.  Add the lens hood, and you’re looking at 4.32lbs. vs. 3.55lbs. for the RF 100-500.  Finally, if you want to try and get apples to apples reach with the EF 100-400 by adding the Canon EF 1.4x teleconverter II, you’re looking at a total weight of 4.82lbs.  Any way you compare it, you’re looking at about a 1lbs. difference between the two lenses.  Lighter is always better.  Both are hand holdable, but neither for extended periods.  If you’re hiking all day carrying one vs. the other, a full pound difference might be significant.  For my uses, it really won’t be all that significant.  Certainly not a deal breaker.

IMAGE QUALITY COMPARISON

I haven’t done a side-by-side comparison with these two lenses (yet) but several other sources had so I reviewed all the available data.  Keep in mind only six years separate these two lenses.    They’re not that far apart from a technological development perspective so I wouldn’t expect a noticeably huge difference in image quality.

The image quality of each of these lenses is quite comparable.  The RF 100-500 does edge slightly edge out the EF 100-400 in some aspects, but the EF 100-400 does have some appealing advantages.  Not the least of which is the EF lens aperture advantage at maximum range (f5.6 vs. 7.1) which results in slightly better, more pleasing bokeh.  The RF lens also has slightly more vignetting at shorter focal lengths, but the difference is minor and correctable, making it negligible for most users.

Here again, looking at the price delta between the two, the aspects of image quality which are slightly improved in the RF 100-500 over the EF 100-400.   So get the RF 100-500 if:

• You need the extra reach
• You require the absolute best image quality.
• Every ounce matters so the weight difference is significant.

With the Canon Extender EF 1.4 II, the range of this lens becomes 140mm (f6.3) – 560mm (f8).  Performance remains impressive even at f/8.  But Autofocus speed does lag when the extender is introduced.  If you’re regularly shooting static or moderately moving wildlife and need that extra reach, the EF 100-400 II + 1.4× II combo is pretty magical—surprisingly sharp and still hand holdable.

SAMPLE IMAGES

I’ve been using the Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 L IS II  for the past several weeks.  Here are some sample images from a recent high school football game I shot.  As the sun was setting, I had to push the ISO in order to maintain a motion freezing shutter speed of ~1/1000th:

278mm @f6.3, 4000ISO

340mm @f6.3, ISO 6400

371mm @f5.6, ISO 1000

I will say that in this particular use case, I would easily pick this lens over the RF 100-500.  For high school football (and most other outdoor after school sports) you could be dealing with a setting sun.  I was happy to sacrifice 100mm in focal length for that extra stop as I started running out of sunlight.  That said, I had to switch to my RF 70-200 f2.8 once were under the “Friday night lights” of the football field.  The EF 100-400 simply was not fast enough to maintain the 1/1000 shutter speed I needed to properly freeze the action – even pushing the R5 Mark II to 6400 ISO.

THE PERFECT MOTOR SPORTS LENS?

Panning shots in motor sports are among the more challenging types a photo taking techniques.  Mainly because it requires not only technical expertise, but a fair amount of skill as well.  If done correctly, the end result is that the vehicle is crisp and sharp, but the background Will exhibit fairly extreme motion, blur, as well as radial blur in the tires.  The focal range of this lens makes it ideal for this application, the variable aperture works in your favor in this application as well.  To achieve the blur, you need a fairly specific shutter speed – Normally, somewhere ~ 1/125.  And depending how close you are to your subject, you’ll want your aperture setting to be ~f8.  To achieve this condition in bright sunlight, you’ll likely need to use a neutral density (ND) filter.  Three stops is normally sufficient but a high quality 1-5 stop variable neutral density works well in my experience.

Here are a few shots from the IMSA Battle on the Bricks at Indianapolis Motor Speedway:

400mm F5.6, 1/100th

188mm f8, 1/160th

These shots were taken in very bright conditions – I got some great shots with this lens.

USE THIS LENS WITH A TELECONVERTER?

Canon made three generations of 1.4x and 2x teleconverters compatible with this lens.  I actually had a Canon EF 1.4x II laying around.  The version III can still be found new in box for $459.00 but you can readily find excellent pre-owned versions of the II for between $100-$150.  The version III will cost you about $100 more with only modest improvement in corner sharpness and auto focus performance.  With either version, the focal range of the lens goes up by 1.4x making it an effective 140-560mm lens!  Can you only lose one stop of light so it becomes a f/6.3–8 range lens.  So if you need the reach of the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 then using a 1.4 X teleconverter on the EF 100-400 II becomes a darn competitive option at a much lower price.  It is said that you lose both a bit of image sharpness/quality as well as some auto focus performance when using the 1.4x TC.  I did notice that the auto focus performance was a bit more erratic while using the TC, but was extremely impressed by the image quality:

560mm f8

560mm f8

560mm f8

It should be noted that there is a 2X teleconverter option available, but based on what I read of the image quality you’re better off with the 1.4x.

FINAL THOUGHTS

This lens really impresses me!  The Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 L IS II remains an extremely powerful lens for those situations where the more pedestrian 70-200 focal length is simply inadequate for your photographic requirements.  If you’re willing to accept a bit less reach than the RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 (and enjoy a stop brighter aperture at the long end) and the extra weight, the EF 100-400 provides exceptional image quality and fantastic reach at a far more attainable price.   And don’t sleep on adding the Canon EF 1.4x II teleconverter with this lens!

Yes, it would nice to have a 3rd party option that was cheaper than the over $6000.00 Canon RF 300mm f2.8, or the over $13,000.00 RF 400mm f2.8.  I get it – my photography business revenue doesn’t justify that level of investment.  But there are options in the EF line that can be adapted to mirrorless RF bodies that provide some very effective and affordable alternatives.

Here’s my video supplement to my written photo review where I share some additional thoughts: