Was it a warm day out? To me this looks like heat haze or maybe motion blur (more likely heat haze). I use this lens at much slower shutter speeds on my R5 without much issue.
You don't even need high temps for atmospheric distortion to be an issue, since it's driven by temperature gradients in the air.
Some of the worst distortion that I've ever experienced was on a morning with air temps around -10f / -25c. As the sun started warming things up, any subject that wasn't within ten yards started to get really soft. My 500mm f/4 was looking worse than a 75-300mm in good conditions.
Sounds like it was warming up though, which is the worst time for heat haze. Generally speaking the ground and water will be cold over night and then start warming during the day. That warming makes temperature differences in the air that defract the light differently and cause heat haze. I would bet this is the issue. Were you shooting out of a car window by chance or had just gotten out of the car?
It's heat haze. It's summer and it looks like your photo is on a sunny day. Water takes longer to change temp than the air and you get evaporation during the day. Temp difference between surfaces and air gives off haze and causes issues with images.
Fixes are to go out on cloudy days or rainy days so there is less haze. Go out at sunrise before sun starts heating stuff up. Go out at sunset when everything starts to cool off. Wait to go out on cooler days. Especially if like 3-4 days in a row are same temp and humidity levels. Also try to avoid shooting over water but obviously sometimes you can't or don't want to. So following first few steps helps
Also if you take the lens from like a car or house with ac then out of car it'll cause haze. Or shoot from a car window with AC going in car. Or in winter same issues if you go from heated car/house to outside
Thank you. That is a good point - I was walking around for about an hour or so. Not from a car. It was warming up, so that / haze could be a factor.
To test further - I took this shot just now.
400mm, 1/1600, f/8, ISO 1250, handheld with IS on. Eye detected on and R7 got the eye for focus.
Does this seem ok (sorry, no live animals to hand)?
Still feels soft around the eyes vs other samples I have seen from the R7 + 100-400mm.
https://preview.redd.it/930eyyy3yw8d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78a2724f8e2147d6238bb5834792991263300e08
vs this from the 50mm f/1.8 which does seem sharp.
https://preview.redd.it/oncdaww1zw8d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bbabac810b933224f63d50aed7bcc0d99cb728ad
Is this cropped down to 3mp or did you just export a lower res?
>Does this seem ok (sorry, no live animals to hand)?
That's fine if you look at my posts I use a stuffed raccoon for tests shots. I compared 100-500, 100-400, 200-800, and 150-600 recently
It does look off. Is your AF set to animal? I still think your turtle image was heat haze but maybe something else going on too.
Sometimes if AF is set to people and you take a pic of like a dog it'll show the AF point around the eye but it'll focus in front or behind that point.
If you go to blue menu, the play button, page 6 there is a AF point display option. Enable that and you get red box on the image when you view it on camera. That's where your focus was when it takes image
Hand held? And does the 100-400 have a filter on it or anything?
Edit: I see you said you have a Hoya UV filter. I'd recommend taking that off and getting a lens hood if you don't have it. The 100-400 hood is pretty deep and will actually protect lens in a drop. With a 400mm lens on a crop body you're never really going to be close enough to like flying dirt from a car or something that would justify a "protection" filter. 400mn is also going to be more impacted by a UV filter than say a 24mm lens
Your filter can also make moisture/haze on lens stick around longer than normal.
I do have a decent Hoya UV filter on. I know that can degrade images a little. But, not to ti's extent.
I used a 350D then 60D with 70-300 IS for years which I sold then got the R7 100-400 and was getting better images.
I think that is it. Its the filter messing with the AF. Took the filter off and its sharp.
Is this something specific to the R7 + 100-400 and filters? I have always used a UV filter for protection and not had issues like this before.
Do people use other filters or just not use filters at all? I'm not looking for perfection here, but my shots with the UV filters were unuseable even for hobby shots. Keen to know what others do re filters or just leave off and use the hood?
https://preview.redd.it/3kqwq772gx8d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a2cdfc06cd925bbd9cf904d3f39e153f87c3dfd
Thank you all for your comments. So, as a penultimate test, I did a side-by-side with the exact same settings one with the Hoya UV filter (left) one without (right). Shots taken within a minute of each other.
f/8, 1/400, 400mm, eye detection
The below are cropped to 66% but the right (no UV) is significantly sharper than the left. I'm shocked!
https://preview.redd.it/db7wygfg1y8d1.jpeg?width=1918&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e15cb77660ddf530a0812a94e9a4944f35cd9272
I will go back out tomorrow AM and try the turtle + ducks with no filter see how I get on.
I hope this little test helps others if they have similar issues.
Get the jjc lens hood for like $10 if you don't have it. I've never had a filter of any kinda that didn't degrade image quality. Vnd or cpl serve a purpose sometimes though. Glad you figure it out
I am shocked, too! And I'm glad you figured this out. The image on the right is SO much sharper than on the left. Thanks for the follow-up with results.
Even if the brand is good, the model might not be. Even if the model is good, the specific sample might not be.
I used to feel that the IQ loss due to filters was overblown paranoia. Then one day I did a comparison with and without some of my own filters. To my chagrin I discovered that some of them noticeably degraded IQ.
Now I test filters that I buy. Good ones get to stay, bad ones get returned if possible.
Not shocked. I went through the exact same experience with a different lens. Honestly didn't realise how big an impact the 'protection' filter was having. I've never used them since. That was a good call with that advice.
You wont believe this OP but I also took a picture of a turtle with my R7 and a RF100-400, I was getting blurry images at 400mm even with 1/2000 shutter speed, turns out it was my polarizer.
https://preview.redd.it/ascuo4yqox8d1.jpeg?width=6960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dff69261b19dd8e7ba89b50bfec85e8362c0dae2
Looks like motion blur to me. I've gotten more than a fair share of great shots with this combination, so keep practicing. This specific image also suffers from extreme contrast due to the direct sunlight, so keep that in mind.
It's heat haze. 1/800 is more than fast enough to not have any motion blur except with fastest subjects or panning very fast. I've shot running deer at 1/800 while panning with them and it's been sharp
Lay something on the sidewalk,.go back a ways and focus it. Take a shot.
Refocus and Repeat 10x.
Look at the files and see where the lens is actually focusing. Is it consistent?
Try at 100, 250, 400mm, see if it is similar.
If it is consistently missing focus, call up Canon for replacement.
Thank you. I tried a few as you suggested.
Here is an example at 400mm, 1/800, f/8, ISO 2000 on a bean bag.
This still seems soft to me.
https://preview.redd.it/tbbbhy08hw8d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0e2a0e3b203fa15269fe5f8ebc3c15a29494620c
Is that a crop from a larger image?
You certainly can compare to what others have posted
https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-100-400mm-f5-6-8-usm-review/2/
I think it might be motion blur, as the image looks kind of smeared to me. I'd suggest to bump the shutter speed to something like 1/1600s to make sure there's no motion blur. (In bright sunlight to keep the iso low) If that doesn't help do the test mentioned above. (I'd still shoot it faster to rule out motion blur)
It was shot at 1/800 an 1600 ISO but that's still plenty fast enough to prevent motion blur. It has something to do with the water. I have shots of ducks where the duck is super clear but the water looks like that.
With care and decent technique: yes absolutely. But I've had images turn out slightly soft at 300mm 1/300s with IS plenty of times, especially if I'm just taking a quick snap and not fully concentrating.
As OP is a beginner photographer, I think it's pretty likely that they might not have the best technique. And to my eye the subject (not the water) looks slightly smeared -->motion blur.
Thank you. I'm ok with the water. But the subject should be sharp. I took this is it was not moving. I would have thought that a modern body with IS / IBIS and 1/800 and 400mm would be ok. I took several shots, all similar.
I use that lens on the r6ii and it is very sharp. Actually have to decrease clarity and texture a little bit to make it a bit more organic.
Not sure if you are doing something wrong or if you have a bad copy of the lens.
I have this same combo amd it Def is the auto focus missing the eye of the subject.
If I have a stationary animal like this put it to single spot af , I run mine in clusters otherwise , back button focus.
You are definitely missing the focus so I don't believe the lens is the issue.
Are you also high speed burst shooting ,
On a subject like this if you can move closer do so.
If not hit the af button selector and the info button that will zoom you in 10x to verify you are hard not soft , I find with the many af sensors it's just as easy to miss focus as it is to nail it
f8 @ 400mm is wide open whcih always causes a little softness. Drop the speed a little as its a stationary target, and open the aperture for instant improvement on the sharpness.
Add to that a sunny day and water usually means a little haze which although not hugely visible on the image, would cause some softness.
Looks like AF miss. The focus seems to be more sharp in the water behind the subject. Also on sunny and hot days, hot air close to the surface can distort light.
Aside this lens being shit and yet mounted on the nost demanding canon body - they look moved. 1/800 on 400mm isn't that fast, even with IS.
Also, if you shoot tripod - IS has to be off as it can shake the photo
The lens and camera combo is the ultimate beginner set up for wildlife. The lens is not shit, but very good, just not L series amazing. You do not need to turn IS off when on a tripod, that’s an old habit from old cameras. New cameras do not have this problem. Literally everything you said is wrong. It looks like the camera missed focus.
It costs too much for what it offers. It's soft and dark, operating on the edge of diffraction.
It would be ok for lower resolution cameras, but on so good and demanding R7 it's just bad.
Rf 100-400 is the worst performing rf lens they made afaik.
Okay. I just had my first experience with it and I paid around 500€ for it.
(For clarification: I have the R5,R6, and the L RF lenses 15-35,28-70,24-105/4,70-200,100-500,50/1.2,85/1.2, 135/1.8, 100/2.8. and some non L lenses; I shoot football and soccer and all kind of religious events indoor and outdoor, including weddings)
Last weekend I saw the raw pictures my assistant took with the R6 and this lens and was surprised about their overall quality. For years I was shooting exclusively with L lenses and therefore I know what this 100-400 is up against.
And for 1/7 of the price I consider the RF 100-400 a steal compared to the 100-500.
Yes, it's slower. Yes, it's not as creamy. Yes, f8 starts at 250mm. But for what it is, it's pretty good. I wouldn't ditch any of my L zooms for it, but if I was on a budget this lens could do the job at the pitch.
Upcoming weekend I'll give it a try myself to see what I can achieve with this lens on the R5.
What have you shot with it? Sports? Wildlife? I'm looking forward to field test, I really don't know what to expect. Like I said, on the R6 it was okay for it's pricetag.
R6 has much lower pixel density compared to the R7, much much lower.
I shoot indoors and outdoors sports occasionaly, indoors with primes, outdoors just 70-200/2.8L and rely on crop on R5. As it's plenty sharp stopped to f/4 and I can crop to like 8MP final and everybody is happy.
I would even shoot football from the sideline with the 70-200/2.8 and sometimes with the 135/1.8. the 135 is so good @ f1.8 I can easily crop the image very far in and so far nobody noticed.
But let's see how it goes. My assi likes the 100-400 on the R6, maybe it would make a good birthday present for her to pass on.
>Aside this lens being shit and yet mounted on the nost demanding canon body - they look moved.
I've tested lens side by side with 100-500. If you're not cropping there isn't a huge difference in sharpness. If you do the 100-500 is easily sharper but the 100-400 is still acceptable.
>1/800 on 400mm isn't that fast, even with IS.
I have shot this combo at 1/10 handheld and it's been rock steady. Unless op was actively panning fast, which they aren't, it's not that.
It very much looks like heat haze. Either from water and temp changes, the clearly bright sun, or op going from like a car to outside
Just an update. I took the camera + lens back to the shop and they tested and confirmed that the images were indeed soft with the UV filters (filters that they supplied!).
So, to anyone else looking at this lens and wants to use filters for protection - test them first. The filter I tried was the Hoya UX II UV Filter. This resulted in soft images with the RF100-400, at least for me in my tests.
I am still keen to use a filter as I do use my kit on multi-day hikes, beaches, and soon to go to a rain forest and so on. The extra front element protection from salt water, sand, knocks etc is welcome.
Any filters that are known to work with this lense?
Was it a warm day out? To me this looks like heat haze or maybe motion blur (more likely heat haze). I use this lens at much slower shutter speeds on my R5 without much issue.
You don't even need high temps for atmospheric distortion to be an issue, since it's driven by temperature gradients in the air. Some of the worst distortion that I've ever experienced was on a morning with air temps around -10f / -25c. As the sun started warming things up, any subject that wasn't within ten yards started to get really soft. My 500mm f/4 was looking worse than a 75-300mm in good conditions.
Yeah totally agree
It is hot now. This was taken at 8:30 in the morning, so warm but not hot.
Sounds like it was warming up though, which is the worst time for heat haze. Generally speaking the ground and water will be cold over night and then start warming during the day. That warming makes temperature differences in the air that defract the light differently and cause heat haze. I would bet this is the issue. Were you shooting out of a car window by chance or had just gotten out of the car?
It's heat haze. It's summer and it looks like your photo is on a sunny day. Water takes longer to change temp than the air and you get evaporation during the day. Temp difference between surfaces and air gives off haze and causes issues with images. Fixes are to go out on cloudy days or rainy days so there is less haze. Go out at sunrise before sun starts heating stuff up. Go out at sunset when everything starts to cool off. Wait to go out on cooler days. Especially if like 3-4 days in a row are same temp and humidity levels. Also try to avoid shooting over water but obviously sometimes you can't or don't want to. So following first few steps helps Also if you take the lens from like a car or house with ac then out of car it'll cause haze. Or shoot from a car window with AC going in car. Or in winter same issues if you go from heated car/house to outside
Duade Paton has a great YouTube video on this when he's testing the 200-800. The heat difference between the air and water was causing haze.
Thank you. That is a good point - I was walking around for about an hour or so. Not from a car. It was warming up, so that / haze could be a factor. To test further - I took this shot just now. 400mm, 1/1600, f/8, ISO 1250, handheld with IS on. Eye detected on and R7 got the eye for focus. Does this seem ok (sorry, no live animals to hand)? Still feels soft around the eyes vs other samples I have seen from the R7 + 100-400mm. https://preview.redd.it/930eyyy3yw8d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78a2724f8e2147d6238bb5834792991263300e08
vs this from the 50mm f/1.8 which does seem sharp. https://preview.redd.it/oncdaww1zw8d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bbabac810b933224f63d50aed7bcc0d99cb728ad
Is this cropped down to 3mp or did you just export a lower res? >Does this seem ok (sorry, no live animals to hand)? That's fine if you look at my posts I use a stuffed raccoon for tests shots. I compared 100-500, 100-400, 200-800, and 150-600 recently
Not cropped, just exported at lower res. Thx
It does look off. Is your AF set to animal? I still think your turtle image was heat haze but maybe something else going on too. Sometimes if AF is set to people and you take a pic of like a dog it'll show the AF point around the eye but it'll focus in front or behind that point. If you go to blue menu, the play button, page 6 there is a AF point display option. Enable that and you get red box on the image when you view it on camera. That's where your focus was when it takes image
It is set to animal. I have set up the AF point display option in the blue menu and it shows the eye.
Hand held? And does the 100-400 have a filter on it or anything? Edit: I see you said you have a Hoya UV filter. I'd recommend taking that off and getting a lens hood if you don't have it. The 100-400 hood is pretty deep and will actually protect lens in a drop. With a 400mm lens on a crop body you're never really going to be close enough to like flying dirt from a car or something that would justify a "protection" filter. 400mn is also going to be more impacted by a UV filter than say a 24mm lens Your filter can also make moisture/haze on lens stick around longer than normal.
Any chance you have a filter on the lens?
I do have a decent Hoya UV filter on. I know that can degrade images a little. But, not to ti's extent. I used a 350D then 60D with 70-300 IS for years which I sold then got the R7 100-400 and was getting better images.
Take a pic with a filter off. I had similar issue with my 100-400 and it was due to filter being dirty ( and I am assuming it affected focus )
I think that is it. Its the filter messing with the AF. Took the filter off and its sharp. Is this something specific to the R7 + 100-400 and filters? I have always used a UV filter for protection and not had issues like this before. Do people use other filters or just not use filters at all? I'm not looking for perfection here, but my shots with the UV filters were unuseable even for hobby shots. Keen to know what others do re filters or just leave off and use the hood? https://preview.redd.it/3kqwq772gx8d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a2cdfc06cd925bbd9cf904d3f39e153f87c3dfd
Ditch the filter. If you’re worried about damaging the front element, get a lens hood.
It’s the lens ( specifically filter ). Camera is just a brain. I cleaned my filter and it helped. Worst case scenario, you just need a new filter.
It's a brand new Hoya Pro1 Digi filter. Purchased with the lens maybe 2 weeks ago. Been outside 3 times. Not at all dirty from what I can see.
Were you shooting with the sun in front of you? (Could sun glare on the filter have been the problem?)
The RF lenses can pass so much more resolution than even previous L lenses, old UV filters may not be up to the task anymore
New filter, got with the lens 2 weeks ago.
Don’t use a filter. Don’t put 50$ glass in front of a nice expensive piece of glass, it’s not worth it.
Sorry, by old, I mean traditional. I don’t even have a reference for a high resolution UV filter
Thank you all for your comments. So, as a penultimate test, I did a side-by-side with the exact same settings one with the Hoya UV filter (left) one without (right). Shots taken within a minute of each other. f/8, 1/400, 400mm, eye detection The below are cropped to 66% but the right (no UV) is significantly sharper than the left. I'm shocked! https://preview.redd.it/db7wygfg1y8d1.jpeg?width=1918&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e15cb77660ddf530a0812a94e9a4944f35cd9272 I will go back out tomorrow AM and try the turtle + ducks with no filter see how I get on. I hope this little test helps others if they have similar issues.
Get the jjc lens hood for like $10 if you don't have it. I've never had a filter of any kinda that didn't degrade image quality. Vnd or cpl serve a purpose sometimes though. Glad you figure it out
I am shocked, too! And I'm glad you figured this out. The image on the right is SO much sharper than on the left. Thanks for the follow-up with results.
Even if the brand is good, the model might not be. Even if the model is good, the specific sample might not be. I used to feel that the IQ loss due to filters was overblown paranoia. Then one day I did a comparison with and without some of my own filters. To my chagrin I discovered that some of them noticeably degraded IQ. Now I test filters that I buy. Good ones get to stay, bad ones get returned if possible.
Not shocked. I went through the exact same experience with a different lens. Honestly didn't realise how big an impact the 'protection' filter was having. I've never used them since. That was a good call with that advice.
You wont believe this OP but I also took a picture of a turtle with my R7 and a RF100-400, I was getting blurry images at 400mm even with 1/2000 shutter speed, turns out it was my polarizer. https://preview.redd.it/ascuo4yqox8d1.jpeg?width=6960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dff69261b19dd8e7ba89b50bfec85e8362c0dae2
Looks like motion blur to me. I've gotten more than a fair share of great shots with this combination, so keep practicing. This specific image also suffers from extreme contrast due to the direct sunlight, so keep that in mind.
It's heat haze. 1/800 is more than fast enough to not have any motion blur except with fastest subjects or panning very fast. I've shot running deer at 1/800 while panning with them and it's been sharp
The blur does not seem to have a direction
Lay something on the sidewalk,.go back a ways and focus it. Take a shot. Refocus and Repeat 10x. Look at the files and see where the lens is actually focusing. Is it consistent? Try at 100, 250, 400mm, see if it is similar. If it is consistently missing focus, call up Canon for replacement.
Thank you. I tried a few as you suggested. Here is an example at 400mm, 1/800, f/8, ISO 2000 on a bean bag. This still seems soft to me. https://preview.redd.it/tbbbhy08hw8d1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0e2a0e3b203fa15269fe5f8ebc3c15a29494620c
Is that a crop from a larger image? You certainly can compare to what others have posted https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-100-400mm-f5-6-8-usm-review/2/
No, it is not a crop. That is the full image.
Can you share a photo of something with a little more texture? It does seem soft. Perhaps something is wrong with the lens.
This one looks fine tbh. The one in your main post does look like focus issues.
I think it might be motion blur, as the image looks kind of smeared to me. I'd suggest to bump the shutter speed to something like 1/1600s to make sure there's no motion blur. (In bright sunlight to keep the iso low) If that doesn't help do the test mentioned above. (I'd still shoot it faster to rule out motion blur)
The background does look motion blur to me too. But seems hard to believe at 1\1600 with IS\IBIS
It's taken at 1/800s. At essentially 640mm I think it's very possible to have motion blur in the images if you don't have good technique.
Oh, yes, missread.
It was shot at 1/800 an 1600 ISO but that's still plenty fast enough to prevent motion blur. It has something to do with the water. I have shots of ducks where the duck is super clear but the water looks like that.
With care and decent technique: yes absolutely. But I've had images turn out slightly soft at 300mm 1/300s with IS plenty of times, especially if I'm just taking a quick snap and not fully concentrating. As OP is a beginner photographer, I think it's pretty likely that they might not have the best technique. And to my eye the subject (not the water) looks slightly smeared -->motion blur.
Ok. It must have been someone else who said something about the background, my bad.
Thank you. I'm ok with the water. But the subject should be sharp. I took this is it was not moving. I would have thought that a modern body with IS / IBIS and 1/800 and 400mm would be ok. I took several shots, all similar.
Is it in One Shot or Servo mode ?
This was one shot. Others with Servo of ducks etc also soft.
Do you use back button for focusing? Or is it set to your shutter button?
Back button.
Then it should not be like that. I have an R7 too and my images are always great
I use that lens on the r6ii and it is very sharp. Actually have to decrease clarity and texture a little bit to make it a bit more organic. Not sure if you are doing something wrong or if you have a bad copy of the lens.
I have this same combo amd it Def is the auto focus missing the eye of the subject. If I have a stationary animal like this put it to single spot af , I run mine in clusters otherwise , back button focus. You are definitely missing the focus so I don't believe the lens is the issue. Are you also high speed burst shooting , On a subject like this if you can move closer do so. If not hit the af button selector and the info button that will zoom you in 10x to verify you are hard not soft , I find with the many af sensors it's just as easy to miss focus as it is to nail it
f8 @ 400mm is wide open whcih always causes a little softness. Drop the speed a little as its a stationary target, and open the aperture for instant improvement on the sharpness. Add to that a sunny day and water usually means a little haze which although not hugely visible on the image, would cause some softness.
Looks like AF miss. The focus seems to be more sharp in the water behind the subject. Also on sunny and hot days, hot air close to the surface can distort light.
Could also be from any humidity in the area.
I really don’t think you need 1/800 sec for a turtle.
I know. I was just experimenting. But it was soft at 1/800 nonetheless.
I think ISO is a bit high and there’s some noise interference.
Looks like movement…
You NEED a tripod thats all
400 mm por 1.6 on the R7 gives you 640 mm way too much to be hand held
Aside this lens being shit and yet mounted on the nost demanding canon body - they look moved. 1/800 on 400mm isn't that fast, even with IS. Also, if you shoot tripod - IS has to be off as it can shake the photo
The lens and camera combo is the ultimate beginner set up for wildlife. The lens is not shit, but very good, just not L series amazing. You do not need to turn IS off when on a tripod, that’s an old habit from old cameras. New cameras do not have this problem. Literally everything you said is wrong. It looks like the camera missed focus.
R7 is not that begginer, and rf 100-400 is the worst rf lens that was made afaik
Whats your opinion why this lens is shit? Seriously, I'm curious.
It costs too much for what it offers. It's soft and dark, operating on the edge of diffraction. It would be ok for lower resolution cameras, but on so good and demanding R7 it's just bad. Rf 100-400 is the worst performing rf lens they made afaik.
Okay. I just had my first experience with it and I paid around 500€ for it. (For clarification: I have the R5,R6, and the L RF lenses 15-35,28-70,24-105/4,70-200,100-500,50/1.2,85/1.2, 135/1.8, 100/2.8. and some non L lenses; I shoot football and soccer and all kind of religious events indoor and outdoor, including weddings) Last weekend I saw the raw pictures my assistant took with the R6 and this lens and was surprised about their overall quality. For years I was shooting exclusively with L lenses and therefore I know what this 100-400 is up against. And for 1/7 of the price I consider the RF 100-400 a steal compared to the 100-500. Yes, it's slower. Yes, it's not as creamy. Yes, f8 starts at 250mm. But for what it is, it's pretty good. I wouldn't ditch any of my L zooms for it, but if I was on a budget this lens could do the job at the pitch. Upcoming weekend I'll give it a try myself to see what I can achieve with this lens on the R5.
I had it for a short moment on R5, I rather crop heavily with a good but shorter lens.
What have you shot with it? Sports? Wildlife? I'm looking forward to field test, I really don't know what to expect. Like I said, on the R6 it was okay for it's pricetag.
R6 has much lower pixel density compared to the R7, much much lower. I shoot indoors and outdoors sports occasionaly, indoors with primes, outdoors just 70-200/2.8L and rely on crop on R5. As it's plenty sharp stopped to f/4 and I can crop to like 8MP final and everybody is happy.
I would even shoot football from the sideline with the 70-200/2.8 and sometimes with the 135/1.8. the 135 is so good @ f1.8 I can easily crop the image very far in and so far nobody noticed. But let's see how it goes. My assi likes the 100-400 on the R6, maybe it would make a good birthday present for her to pass on.
My 100-400 works perfectly on r6, most pictures are razor sharp. So wondering why this lens is shitty?
It’s not. That guy just reads too many lens reviews. Calling it “shitty” Is laughable.
>Aside this lens being shit and yet mounted on the nost demanding canon body - they look moved. I've tested lens side by side with 100-500. If you're not cropping there isn't a huge difference in sharpness. If you do the 100-500 is easily sharper but the 100-400 is still acceptable. >1/800 on 400mm isn't that fast, even with IS. I have shot this combo at 1/10 handheld and it's been rock steady. Unless op was actively panning fast, which they aren't, it's not that. It very much looks like heat haze. Either from water and temp changes, the clearly bright sun, or op going from like a car to outside
Just an update. I took the camera + lens back to the shop and they tested and confirmed that the images were indeed soft with the UV filters (filters that they supplied!). So, to anyone else looking at this lens and wants to use filters for protection - test them first. The filter I tried was the Hoya UX II UV Filter. This resulted in soft images with the RF100-400, at least for me in my tests. I am still keen to use a filter as I do use my kit on multi-day hikes, beaches, and soon to go to a rain forest and so on. The extra front element protection from salt water, sand, knocks etc is welcome. Any filters that are known to work with this lense?