When Canon introduced their RF mount system, photographers gained access to an impressive lineup of telephoto zoom lenses. Among the most debated options are the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM and the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM. After shooting extensively with both lenses across various genres—from wildlife to sports to landscapes—I’ve discovered that while they may seem similar at first glance, these lenses serve different needs and budgets in significant ways. In this comprehensive comparison, I’ll break down every aspect of these telephoto powerhouses to help you determine which lens deserves a place in your camera bag and which will better serve your specific photography needs.
Understanding Canon’s RF Telephoto Lineup
Before diving into the specifics of these two lenses, let’s talk about their place in Canon’s RF ecosystem. I’ve been shooting with Canon systems for over a decade, and the introduction of the RF mount represented a significant shift in lens design philosophy. The RF 100-400mm and 100-500mm are part of Canon’s push to provide photographers with versatile telephoto options that balance reach, portability, and image quality.
The RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM was introduced as a more budget-friendly telephoto option for the RF system. It’s designed to be lightweight and portable while still offering impressive reach. When I first got my hands on this lens, I was immediately impressed by how manageable it felt during a full day of shooting.
The RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM, on the other hand, is part of Canon’s prestigious L-series lineup. It represents the company’s commitment to professional-grade optics with superior build quality and image rendering. I discovered during a wildlife photography workshop that this lens delivers the kind of performance that professionals demand in challenging conditions.
Both lenses fill important niches in the RF system, but they do so with different approaches to design, performance, and price. Understanding these differences is crucial to making the right choice for your photography.
Head-to-Head Comparison
Build Quality and Design
The most immediate difference between these lenses becomes apparent the moment you pick them up. The RF 100-500mm, being an L-series lens, features exceptional build quality with weather sealing and a robust construction that inspires confidence. I’ve used this lens in rain, dust, and extreme temperatures, and it has never let me down. The lens barrel feels solid, and the zoom mechanism operates with smooth precision.
The RF 100-400mm, while not built to the same professional standards, still offers respectable construction for its price point. It features some weather sealing but not to the extent of its L-series counterpart. During a light rain shower while photographing birds, I found the lens performed adequately, but I wouldn’t trust it in more severe conditions.
Size and weight are significant factors to consider. The RF 100-400mm weighs approximately 635g (1.4 lbs) and measures about 164mm (6.5 inches) when retracted. This makes it incredibly portable for a lens with this much reach. I’ve carried this lens on long hikes without feeling fatigued, which is a huge plus for landscape and wildlife photographers who need to travel light.
The RF 100-500mm, by contrast, weighs 1530g (3.4 lbs) and measures about 207mm (8.1 inches) when retracted. That’s more than double the weight of the 100-400mm, which becomes noticeable during extended shooting sessions. However, the weight is well-distributed, and the lens balances nicely on larger camera bodies like the R5 or R3.
Both lenses feature extending zoom designs, but the RF 100-500mm has a locking mechanism to prevent lens creep when carrying it pointed downward. I’ve found this feature invaluable during long days in the field, as it prevents the lens from extending under its own weight.
Optical Performance
This is where the differences between these lenses become most apparent. The RF 100-500mm, as an L-series lens, delivers exceptional optical quality throughout its zoom range. I’ve been consistently impressed with its sharpness, even when shooting wide open. During a recent wildlife safari, I was able to capture detailed images of distant animals that retained excellent clarity when viewed at 100%.
The RF 100-400mm produces good image quality, particularly when stopped down, but it doesn’t quite match the level of the 100-500mm. At the longer end of the zoom range, I’ve noticed some softness when shooting wide open, which improves significantly when stopped down to f/11 or f/16. For most applications, this isn’t a major issue, but for critical work, the difference is noticeable.
Chromatic aberration is well-controlled in both lenses, but the RF 100-500mm has a clear advantage, particularly in high-contrast situations. While photographing birds against bright skies, I found the 100-500mm produced minimal color fringing, while the 100-400mm showed some purple fringing that required correction in post-processing.
Vignetting is more pronounced in the RF 100-400mm, especially at the wider end of its range and when shooting wide open. The RF 100-500mm shows some vignetting as well, but to a lesser degree. Both lenses benefit from in-camera corrections when used with compatible Canon bodies.
Autofocus Performance
Both lenses feature Canon’s Nano USM autofocus system, which provides fast, quiet, and accurate focusing. However, there are differences in real-world performance that I’ve noticed during extensive shooting.
The RF 100-500mm focuses slightly faster and more decisively, particularly in challenging lighting conditions. During a sports event in dim stadium lighting, I found the 100-500mm maintained focus accuracy where the 100-400mm occasionally hunted. The 100-500mm also seems to track moving subjects more effectively, making it the better choice for action photography.
The RF 100-400mm’s autofocus is still very capable for most situations. For stationary or slowly moving subjects, it performs admirably. I’ve used it successfully for portrait sessions and landscape work without any focus issues. However, when photographing fast-moving birds in flight, I noticed a higher percentage of missed shots compared to the 100-500mm.
Both lenses work well with Canon’s advanced autofocus features like eye detection and animal tracking, but the 100-500mm seems to take better advantage of these capabilities, particularly on higher-end bodies like the R5 and R3.
Image Stabilization
Image stabilization is crucial for telephoto lenses, and both options perform well in this regard. The RF 100-500mm features Canon’s advanced IS system, providing up to 5 stops of stabilization according to CIPA standards. In practice, I’ve found this to be conservative—I’ve consistently been able to get sharp handheld shots at shutter speeds much slower than the reciprocal of the focal length.
During a landscape photography session at dawn, I was able to capture sharp images at 500mm with shutter speeds as slow as 1/60s, which is remarkable. This level of stabilization opens up possibilities for shooting in lower light without needing a tripod.
The RF 100-400mm offers up to 4.5 stops of stabilization, which is still very respectable. While not quite as effective as the 100-500mm, it has saved me in numerous situations where using a tripod wasn’t practical. I’ve found that at 400mm, I can reliably get sharp shots at around 1/125s handheld, which is impressive for a lens at this price point.
Both lenses feature Canon’s Dual Sensing IS, which uses information from both the gyro sensor and the image sensor to provide more effective stabilization. This technology works particularly well when panning, automatically detecting the direction of movement and compensating accordingly.
Also Read: Tamron 35-150 Vs Canon 24-105
Reach and Flexibility
The most obvious difference between these lenses is their maximum focal length—400mm versus 500mm. That extra 100mm might not sound like much, but in practice, it makes a significant difference, particularly for wildlife and sports photography.
During a bird photography workshop, I found that the additional reach of the 100-500mm allowed me to capture frame-filling images of smaller birds that would have been mere specks with the 100-400mm. For subjects that are difficult to approach, that extra reach can be the difference between getting the shot and missing it entirely.
However, the RF 100-400mm has a trick up its sleeve—it’s compatible with Canon’s RF 1.4x and 2x extenders, while the RF 100-500mm only works with the 1.4x extender (and only at focal lengths above 300mm). This means you can extend the 100-400mm to 560mm with the 1.4x or 800mm with the 2x, albeit with some loss of image quality and light-gathering ability.
I’ve experimented with using the 2x extender on the 100-400mm for lunar photography, and while the results aren’t as sharp as a dedicated super-telephoto lens, they’re surprisingly good considering the lens’s price point. The ability to extend to 800mm makes the 100-400mm a more versatile option for photographers on a budget who occasionally need extreme reach.
Aperture and Low-Light Performance
The RF 100-500mm offers a wider maximum aperture throughout its zoom range, starting at f/4.5 at 100mm and reaching f/7.1 at 500mm. The RF 100-400mm has a more variable aperture, starting at f/5.6 at 100mm and reaching f/8 at 400mm.
This difference in aperture becomes most apparent in low-light situations. During an evening wildlife shoot, I found the 100-500mm allowed me to use shutter speeds a full stop faster at the longer end, which was crucial for freezing motion in diminishing light.
The wider aperture of the 100-500mm also provides a brighter viewfinder image, which makes composing and focusing easier in challenging lighting conditions. When photographing in dense forests or during golden hour, this brighter view can make a significant difference in your ability to capture the moment.
Both lenses perform well in good light, but as the conditions darken, the 100-500mm’s advantage becomes more pronounced. For photographers who frequently shoot in dawn or dusk conditions, this could be a deciding factor.
Price and Value
The RF 100-400mm is priced at approximately $649, making it an accessible option for photographers on a budget. For the price, it offers impressive performance and versatility. I’ve recommended this lens to numerous photography students and enthusiasts who want to explore telephoto photography without breaking the bank.
The RF 100-500mm, at around $2,699, represents a significant investment. However, for professional photographers or serious enthusiasts who demand the best image quality and build, it offers excellent value within the L-series lineup. When compared to other super-telephoto options, it’s actually quite reasonably priced for what it delivers.
It’s worth considering the total cost of ownership as well. The RF 100-500mm’s weather sealing and robust construction mean it’s likely to withstand years of professional use, potentially making it more cost-effective in the long run for working photographers.
Real-World Performance
Wildlife Photography
For wildlife photography, both lenses have their strengths, but the RF 100-500mm is clearly the superior choice if budget allows. During a month-long wildlife photography project, I used both lenses extensively and found the 100-500mm’s combination of reach, image quality, and autofocus performance made it the more reliable option for capturing decisive moments.
The additional 100mm of reach allowed me to maintain a greater distance from skittish animals, resulting in more natural behavior and better images. The faster autofocus also proved crucial when photographing birds in flight, with a significantly higher keeper rate compared to the 100-400mm.
That said, the RF 100-400mm still produced impressive results, particularly when paired with a 1.4x extender. For photographers just getting into wildlife photography or those who prioritize portability over ultimate performance, it’s a capable option that won’t break the bank.
Sports Photography
In sports photography, the RF 100-500mm’s faster autofocus and wider aperture give it a clear advantage. During a soccer tournament, I found the 100-500mm’s ability to track fast-moving players across the frame was superior, resulting in a higher percentage of sharp images.
The lens’s image stabilization also proved effective when panning to follow the action, allowing me to use slower shutter speeds to create motion blur in the background while keeping the subject sharp.
The RF 100-400mm performed adequately for sports photography, particularly in good lighting conditions. However, its slower autofocus meant I missed more shots, particularly when the action was fast-paced or unpredictable. For serious sports photography, I’d recommend the 100-500mm without hesitation.
Landscape Photography
For landscape photography, the differences between these lenses become less pronounced. Both lenses produce excellent image quality when stopped down, and the extra reach of the 100-500mm is less critical for most landscape applications.
I’ve used both lenses extensively for landscape work, and I’ve found the RF 100-400mm’s lighter weight makes it the more pleasant option for long hikes and backpacking trips. During a week-long trek through mountainous terrain, I appreciated the 100-400mm’s compact size and reduced weight, especially when combined with a lightweight tripod.
The RF 100-500mm’s superior image quality is apparent in large prints, but for most landscape applications, the difference isn’t significant enough to justify the extra weight and cost for many photographers.
Also Read: Tamron SP 35mm F/1.4 Di USD vs Sigma
Travel Photography
For travel photography, portability is often a key consideration, and this is where the RF 100-400mm shines. Its compact size and light weight make it an ideal travel companion, especially when you want to minimize your gear without sacrificing reach.
During a three-week trip through Southeast Asia, I relied primarily on the 100-400mm and was consistently impressed with its versatility. It covered everything from street scenes to distant landscapes to wildlife, all without adding excessive bulk to my camera bag.
The RF 100-500mm, while capable for travel photography, is noticeably larger and heavier. For travelers who prioritize image quality over portability, it’s a viable option, but those looking to travel light will likely prefer the 100-400mm.
Who Should Choose Which Lens?
Choose the RF 100-400mm if:
- You’re on a budget but still want quality telephoto performance
- You prioritize portability and light weight
- You’re just getting started with telephoto photography
- You primarily shoot in good lighting conditions
- You want the flexibility to use extenders for occasional extreme reach
- You travel frequently and need to minimize gear weight
Choose the RF 100-500mm if:
- You’re a professional or serious enthusiast who demands the best image quality
- You frequently shoot wildlife or sports where autofocus performance is critical
- You often shoot in low-light conditions
- You need the extra reach of 500mm without extenders
- You value weather sealing and robust build quality
- Budget is less of a concern than performance
Pro Tips for Telephoto Photography
After years of shooting with telephoto lenses, I’ve learned a few techniques that can help you get the most out of either of these lenses:
- Use a monopod for stability: While both lenses have excellent image stabilization, a monopod provides additional support and reduces fatigue during long shooting sessions. I’ve found that a monopod is the perfect compromise between the stability of a tripod and the mobility of handheld shooting.
- Master your panning technique: For moving subjects, practice smooth panning motions. Start with a stable stance, rotate from your waist, and follow through after the shot. I’ve found that using continuous high-speed shooting mode while panning increases my chances of getting at least one perfectly sharp image.
- Stop down slightly for maximum sharpness: Both lenses improve when stopped down by 1-2 stops. For critical work, I typically shoot the 100-400mm at f/8-11 and the 100-500mm at f/7.1-9, depending on the focal length.
- Use back-button focus: This technique separates autofocus activation from the shutter button, giving you more control over when and how the lens focuses. I’ve found this particularly useful for wildlife photography, where I might want to focus and recompose without refocusing for each shot.
- Leverage your camera’s electronic shutter: For silent shooting and extremely high burst rates, the electronic shutter is invaluable. During a recent bird photography session, I used the electronic shutter on my R5 to capture a sequence of a kingfisher diving for fish without disturbing the bird with mechanical shutter noise.
- Experiment with custom functions: Both Canon’s R5 and R6 offer extensive customization options. I’ve programmed custom modes for different shooting scenarios—wildlife, sports, landscapes—each with optimized autofocus settings, burst rates, and other parameters tailored to the specific situation.
FAQ
Is the RF 100-500mm worth the extra cost over the 100-400mm?
For professional photographers or serious enthusiasts who demand the best image quality and autofocus performance, the RF 100-500mm is absolutely worth the additional cost. However, for casual photographers or those on a budget, the 100-400mm offers excellent value and performance for its price point.
Can I use extenders with these lenses?
The RF 100-400mm is compatible with both the RF 1.4x and 2x extenders, extending its reach to 560mm and 800mm respectively. The RF 100-500mm only works with the 1.4x extender, and only at focal lengths above 300mm, limiting its maximum reach to 700mm.
How do these lenses compare to their EF mount counterparts?
Both RF lenses offer improvements over their EF counterparts in terms of image stabilization, autofocus speed, and overall optical performance. The RF 100-500mm, in particular, is significantly lighter than the EF 100-400mm II while offering more reach.
Which lens is better for bird photography?
The RF 100-500mm is generally better for bird photography due to its superior autofocus performance, additional reach, and wider aperture. These factors make it easier to capture sharp images of fast-moving birds, particularly in flight.
Do I need a tripod with these lenses?
While both lenses have excellent image stabilization that makes handheld shooting feasible, a tripod or monopod is recommended for critical work, especially at the longer end of the zoom range or in low light. I find a monopod to be the perfect compromise for most situations.
How do these lenses perform in low light?
The RF 100-500mm performs better in low light due to its wider maximum aperture. However, both lenses benefit from Canon’s excellent high ISO performance on their R-series cameras, making them usable in challenging lighting conditions.
Are these lenses weather-sealed?
The RF 100-500mm features comprehensive weather sealing as part of its L-series designation. The RF 100-400mm has some weather resistance but not to the same extent as the L-series lens. For shooting in severe conditions, the 100-500mm is the more reliable option.
Which camera bodies work best with these lenses?
Both lenses work with all RF-mount cameras, but they perform best with higher-end bodies like the R5 and R3, which feature more sophisticated autofocus systems and better ergonomics for balancing larger lenses.
Conclusion
After extensive shooting with both the RF 100-400mm and RF 100-500mm, I can tell you that both are excellent lenses that serve different needs and budgets. The RF 100-400mm offers incredible value for its price, delivering solid performance in a compact, lightweight package. It’s the perfect choice for enthusiasts and travelers who want quality telephoto capabilities without the bulk and expense of professional-grade equipment.
The RF 100-500mm, while significantly more expensive, justifies its price with superior image quality, faster autofocus, and more robust construction. For professionals and serious enthusiasts who demand the best performance, particularly in challenging conditions, it’s the clear choice.
For my personal work, I find myself reaching for the RF 100-500mm when I’m shooting wildlife or sports where performance is paramount. The RF 100-400mm becomes my choice when I’m traveling light or when I need a versatile telephoto without the weight and bulk of the L-series lens.
Ultimately, the decision comes down to your specific needs, shooting style, and budget. Whichever lens you choose, you’ll be getting a quality telephoto option that will serve you well for years to come.
If you found this comparison helpful, be sure to bookmark this page for future reference. I’ll be updating it as I continue to test these lenses with new camera bodies and in different shooting scenarios. And don’t forget to check out my other articles on Canon RF lenses and telephoto photography techniques!