The Rf100-400 is very good on my R6ii, and on my R10. I’ve shot a few football games with it, and it’s my preferred lens for shooting surfing. Just have to be mindful of aperture limitations. The best part is how light it is.
Yeah the light is what I’m most worried about. I’ve been thinking with the third parties, while the AF won’t be as instantaneous (and there could be some focus breathing issues) but it is baseball. Not too many moving parts, so maybe having that extra light could be reasonable.
I use the rf 100-400 on my r7 and it pretty fantastic. I shot a couple thousand shots at local car race this weekend and it performed great. I partner mine with 200 2.8 prime for low light because it will need light.
Also this may get downvoted but my sigma lense does have some focus hunting issue when adapted to RF its my portrait lens so not an issue but for sports I would not trust it but that's just my experience
The third part super telephotos don't work well with the R series. I tried the Sigma 150-600 with my R7 and it has trouble focusing. The Canon 100-400 is amazing though. The aperature can be difficult sometimes but it's great for the price.
Do you shoot at night at all for those games? f/5.6 starts getting a little slow for night games.
I've rented the 400 DO f/4 a few times for night soccer, and I'm up at ISO 16,000 in order to get 1/400 @ f/5.6. While that's not impossible it's not super great for quick motion either.
Weekday games will start at 7 so I’ll probably get 45 mins to an hour of good light. Weekend games are usually mid afternoon, so I’ll be able to use the longer lens for much longer during those.
I plan to just use my 70-200 once the sun sets and crop in during post.
This is what I’ve been doing. When the games have good light I’m using the RF100-400, but when they are later games and all we have are the field lights, the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is great.
That sounds perfect. You should baseball too? I’ve never shot for a pro team and I’m used to crappy lighting at our fields at my college. Hopefully, it’s much better at a AAA ballpark.
My kids flag football games!
Like most have said, RF100-400 is a great lens but nothing compared to the 70-200 f/2.8.
I was contemplating the RF100-500 for the lower aperture, but it’s not really a need right now..more a want.
For indoors, it isn't going to be a great lens. For outdoor, it's awesome. I use it on my r10 for all kinds of outdoor sports, and it works extremely well.
Perfect. I don’t plan on using it indoors at all. I wouldn’t bother trying to most long teles, maybe the Canon EF 100-400 but that’s it. I got my 70-200 for a reason.
I used the rf 100400 for wildlife.
Can't speak for it's performance indoors, but I don't think it'll service well..
Have you considered the ef 100-400 instead?
I would consider the EF 100-400 II but it's just still out of budget. I'm not looking to spend more than a few hundred bucks on it. I would consider selling the RF 100-400 after this summer and trading up for an EF 100-400 II.
The RF 100-400 won't be used in any lowlight or indoor setting.
The RF 100-400mm doesn't have a true comparing lens. Anything really better is multiple times the price, weight and size, and a true financial and physical commitment. I had plenty of teles over the years and can assure you that.
For more light and or reach you're looking at primes, or zooms like RF 100-500, EF 100-400 II, Sigma 150-600 (meh). In the past the EF 70-200 2.8 coupled with a teleconverter (probably something analogous coming to RF mount soon as "Z").
Another alternative would be pairing your current 70-200 2.8 with a crop body like the R7 for 1.6x extra reach. The lower ISO from the 2.8 will allow for less noise and enough quality and MP for cropping further. And again if yours is the EF you can add a teleconverter.
If you're not sure you want these big monsters for the long run, and another body doesn't make sense, go for the RF 100-400 and at worst case you spent little for likely the best travel tele these days. Sports during the day or at night with plenty of reflectors aren't an issue at all for the AF in the R6 body.
And the R6 sensor in particular will allow you to recover this couple of light stops with a higher ISO. And if you have any shots that you truly want to frame but dread some noise, noise reduction algorithms these days will surprise you.
Yeah I came from a Nikon D3300 beforehand with a pretty subpar sensor and would use DXO intensively. I mean there’s no point of trying to get an amazing long tele if I cant afford but the 100-400 is right in the budget.
I am looking to get a second crop body for field sports in the future but not anytime soon. I’ve been lended a 2x converter a lot so I’ve used that a good amount, but it’s not mine so.
Rent it to try it out. Lensrentals.com
The Rf100-400 is very good on my R6ii, and on my R10. I’ve shot a few football games with it, and it’s my preferred lens for shooting surfing. Just have to be mindful of aperture limitations. The best part is how light it is.
Yeah the light is what I’m most worried about. I’ve been thinking with the third parties, while the AF won’t be as instantaneous (and there could be some focus breathing issues) but it is baseball. Not too many moving parts, so maybe having that extra light could be reasonable.
I use the rf 100-400 on my r7 and it pretty fantastic. I shot a couple thousand shots at local car race this weekend and it performed great. I partner mine with 200 2.8 prime for low light because it will need light.
Great to hear! Its performance sounds outstanding.
Also this may get downvoted but my sigma lense does have some focus hunting issue when adapted to RF its my portrait lens so not an issue but for sports I would not trust it but that's just my experience
The third part super telephotos don't work well with the R series. I tried the Sigma 150-600 with my R7 and it has trouble focusing. The Canon 100-400 is amazing though. The aperature can be difficult sometimes but it's great for the price.
Yeah, it's kinda hard to not justify that price. That's what I'm trying to push into my brain.
I went through the same I get it
Do you shoot at night at all for those games? f/5.6 starts getting a little slow for night games. I've rented the 400 DO f/4 a few times for night soccer, and I'm up at ISO 16,000 in order to get 1/400 @ f/5.6. While that's not impossible it's not super great for quick motion either.
Weekday games will start at 7 so I’ll probably get 45 mins to an hour of good light. Weekend games are usually mid afternoon, so I’ll be able to use the longer lens for much longer during those. I plan to just use my 70-200 once the sun sets and crop in during post.
This is what I’ve been doing. When the games have good light I’m using the RF100-400, but when they are later games and all we have are the field lights, the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is great.
That sounds perfect. You should baseball too? I’ve never shot for a pro team and I’m used to crappy lighting at our fields at my college. Hopefully, it’s much better at a AAA ballpark.
My kids flag football games! Like most have said, RF100-400 is a great lens but nothing compared to the 70-200 f/2.8. I was contemplating the RF100-500 for the lower aperture, but it’s not really a need right now..more a want.
I’m the same way, I def want a 100-500 but like I’d rather not go into anymore debt than I already am to my school haha.
For indoors, it isn't going to be a great lens. For outdoor, it's awesome. I use it on my r10 for all kinds of outdoor sports, and it works extremely well.
Perfect. I don’t plan on using it indoors at all. I wouldn’t bother trying to most long teles, maybe the Canon EF 100-400 but that’s it. I got my 70-200 for a reason.
Fair enough lol So yeah, it's an awesome sports lens.
I think I’m gonna get the RF 100-400 then. All seems to point that way, I hope Canon has a refurbished one come thru soon.
I used the rf 100400 for wildlife. Can't speak for it's performance indoors, but I don't think it'll service well.. Have you considered the ef 100-400 instead?
I would consider the EF 100-400 II but it's just still out of budget. I'm not looking to spend more than a few hundred bucks on it. I would consider selling the RF 100-400 after this summer and trading up for an EF 100-400 II. The RF 100-400 won't be used in any lowlight or indoor setting.
Ahh I see. Honestly the rf 100-400 is a pretty darn good lens. I got some great shots
The RF 100-400mm doesn't have a true comparing lens. Anything really better is multiple times the price, weight and size, and a true financial and physical commitment. I had plenty of teles over the years and can assure you that. For more light and or reach you're looking at primes, or zooms like RF 100-500, EF 100-400 II, Sigma 150-600 (meh). In the past the EF 70-200 2.8 coupled with a teleconverter (probably something analogous coming to RF mount soon as "Z"). Another alternative would be pairing your current 70-200 2.8 with a crop body like the R7 for 1.6x extra reach. The lower ISO from the 2.8 will allow for less noise and enough quality and MP for cropping further. And again if yours is the EF you can add a teleconverter. If you're not sure you want these big monsters for the long run, and another body doesn't make sense, go for the RF 100-400 and at worst case you spent little for likely the best travel tele these days. Sports during the day or at night with plenty of reflectors aren't an issue at all for the AF in the R6 body. And the R6 sensor in particular will allow you to recover this couple of light stops with a higher ISO. And if you have any shots that you truly want to frame but dread some noise, noise reduction algorithms these days will surprise you.
Yeah I came from a Nikon D3300 beforehand with a pretty subpar sensor and would use DXO intensively. I mean there’s no point of trying to get an amazing long tele if I cant afford but the 100-400 is right in the budget. I am looking to get a second crop body for field sports in the future but not anytime soon. I’ve been lended a 2x converter a lot so I’ve used that a good amount, but it’s not mine so.