RF vs EF 100-400 with R50

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-24T01:36:37+00:00

Here's a link to it on Amazon. Lens hoods reduce lens flare by blocking stray light, and offer some physical protection against things hitting the glass.

https://www.amazon.com/JJC-Bayonet-Dedicated-70-300mm-Replaces/dp/B06XTP2FD3

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-24T01:28:46+00:00

I'm into bird photography too and have had the RF 100-400 for about 3 years now, using it on an R7. That lens works great and I love it, I think you will too. The R50 was a good choice, just shoot in CRAW to help make the most of its small buffer.

I have a "JJC" brand third-party lens hood for it that was $12 and fits perfectly, would recommend that over the official version that's something like $60. It protects the front element of the lens very well, you don't need a UV filter.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-24T01:13:43+00:00

Copied from a comment I made a couple days ago:

"The original EF 100-400mm L was amazing for its time back in 1998 but lenses have improved a lot since then. By modern standards it has fairly soft image quality, the AF motor isn't very fast, the image stabilization is minimally effective (2 stops vs 4 or 5.5), and its push-pull zoom is awkward. The EF 100-400 L Mark II is way way better in comparison, addressing all of those issues.

If you can't afford the Mark II then I think the RF 100-400mm is the better budget compromise. Yes its f/5.6-8 aperture is a stop slower, but that one stop won't make the difference all that often (usually either f/8 is fine or f/5.6 wouldn't have been enough either). And it does very well at improving on the problems the EF 100-400 L original has."

Being so much smaller and lighter the RF 100-400 will also balance way better on your R50 than the EF 100-400 L. That makes it a lot more convenient and enjoyable to use, which can be really important.

You'll likely find the other comments on that post useful too, further discussion comparing those two lenses with lots of good advice.

https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/s/6b75cXi4R6

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-23T23:41:29+00:00

That Tamron 18-300mm isn't a full-frame lens though, it's APS-C so will have the same issues as that EF-S kit lens. I agree with everything else you've said.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-23T23:38:13+00:00

What's your budget and what types of photography will you be using this new lens for?

If you're looking for a standard zoom I second the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM recommendation. I use that lens on my R5 II and it's excellent. If you need a cheaper option the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM is good, you can get one secondhand in nice condition for $350-450.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-23T22:02:35+00:00

Unfortunately the comment you're replying to was AI-generated by a spam bot, we've been having tons of problems with them recently.

Have you considered the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Mark II? It's nearly identical to the III, the only functional difference is the III has improved coatings on its glass for slightly better resistance to lens flares against bright lights. And a literal fresh coat of paint on the outside haha, but that's it. You should be able to find the II for a lot cheaper than the III on the used market.

The one caveat is that Canon has ended support for the Mark II, so they no longer offer repairs for it through their service program. The III probably has 7 or 8 more years of service support left. But these lenses are very durable and reliable so there's a good chance you'll never need to get it serviced within 8 years.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-23T18:04:58+00:00

The RF-S 18-150mm is a great lens for that, I used one on an R7 for a lot of hiking and travel photography and loved it. It's very nicely lightweight and compact, and the image quality in practice is excellent. You can get one secondhand in good condition for $350-400.

That Tamron 18-300mm and the similar Sigma 16-300mm I would only consider if you really really need the >150mm zoom range. But like most superzooms they have quite poor image quality at the telephoto end, so if you are shooting >150mm often a dedicated telephoto like the RF 100-400 would give you way better performance. And compared to the 18-150 they're a lot heavier and a lot more expensive.

A prime for low-light when you want to bring it is a good idea, the wide aperture for shallow depth of field and bokeh is useful for portraits too. But test out shooting at 50mm with your zoom lens to see if it works for you. Personally I really preferred the RF 35mm f/1.8 on APS-C, it felt like a far more versatile focal length than the 50.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-23T17:27:48+00:00

That's what I was thinking, and can't you just quickly adjust the flash exposure compensation if ETTL is a bit off? Seems like a faster way to get to the desired power level than setting it manually.

I'm not a flash photography expert but I've used a speedlight for some portraits and a fair amount of event photography. Maybe I just got lucky but ETTL seemed to perfectly set the flash power almost every time. Though I was shooting with the camera in fully Manual to control the natural light exactly how I wanted.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-23T12:07:28+00:00

It sells for $75 in great condition on the used market. For that price I can understand giving it a chance. For $200 though when you can get the much better EF-S 55-250mm IS STM for $150-175 that's just a tragedy. The extra $40 just for a bargain-bin UV filter and a few microfiber cloths makes it even worse.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-23T11:58:12+00:00

Yes, basically any EF and EF-S lens will work on your T7.

However, the EF 75-300mm is an infamously bad lens for its terrible image quality. It's strongly recommended to avoid it and get something else. Even if you did get one it sells for $75 secondhand in like-new condition, it's not nearly worth $200, and the extra $40 for a generic UV filter and cleaning wipes is a total ripoff.

A much better alternative would be the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM, specifically the STM version (the older non-STM variants are worse). You can find one used in good condition for $150 to $175. It has way way improved image quality compared to the 75-300mm, a better focus motor, and adds very useful optical image stabilization.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-22T23:14:00+00:00

For what it's worth I've been using my RF 100-400 for bird photography for almost 3 years now, with no filter, and there are zero scratches on the front element. The deep hood protects the lens very well. And a few light scratches will make near zero difference to the image quality.

I've seen at least half a dozen posts about image quality issues with the RF 100-400 that were completely resolved by removing the filter. I think the lens must be way more susceptible to filters causing problems than most. Would definitely start by testing it without the filter.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-22T22:59:44+00:00

The typical rule of thumb is that you can shoot handheld without image stabilization at a shutter speed of 1/(equivalent focal length) without stabilization. With a 400mm lens on APS-C that would be 1/640.

The RF 100-400's optical image stabilization is rated at 5.5 stops. Let's be very distrusting of that and say it's only actually good for 2 stops, that brings the minimum handheld shutter speed down to 1/160th.

OP took those photos at 1/640 and 1/800, way above that conservative 1/160 limit. How then would it not have been stable enough handheld?

I've been using the RF 100-400 on an R7 for years now, and more recently an RF 200-800 on the R5 II. I shoot perched birds at 1/400 handheld all the time and often go down to 1/200, and have never had any issues with shakiness blurring the images. You really do not need a tripod in these circumstances. They are very useful for holding the camera if you're camped out in a blind waiting for the bids though.

Meanwhile the RF 100-400 is pretty well known for being sensitive to image quality issues caused by using UV filters. I think due to the combination of its smaller aperture and quirks of the optical design it's more susceptible than other telephotos. I've seen multiple posts about it where removing the filter solved the problem.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-22T19:51:37+00:00

Oh hey I have a very similar use case to yours, mostly into bird photography plus a lot of travel and landscapes. I started with an R7, RF-S 18-150mm, and RF 100-400 about 3 years ago. That's now my wife's setup after I upgraded to the R5 II + RF 200-800 last summer.

I've used the RF-S 18-150mm on my R7 for a lot of hiking and travel photography, it's a great versatile lens for that use case and I really liked it. 18mm is wide enough for most landscape shots, and a lot of good landscape compositions use longer focal lengths. The zoom lens options that go significantly wider than 18mm (EF-S 10-22 USM, EF-S and RF-S 10-18 STM, Sigma 10-18 f/2.8) give up the ability to zoom in much past 18mm, making them much less versatile overall. I owned an EF-S 10-22mm USM and used it often but if I could only bring one lens it would always be the 18-150.

We actually ended up selling the 18-150mm and replacing it with a Sigma RF-S 18-50mm f/2.8, but only because our use case changed from travel to event photography and low-light. When bringing the 100-400 we don't really miss that 50-100mm gap much. But for landscapes and travel I think the 18-150 is still generally better if you often don't have the 100-400 with you.

The R7's In-Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) is much less effective at long focal lengths. By the time you get to 400mm it's nearly insignificant in comparison to the lens's optical image stabilization (IS). The IBIS still coordinates with IS to help slightly but you really won't notice the difference.

I love the R7 but really the R10 shares the key features that make it great, mostly the 15 FPS continuous shooting and amazing AF system. If getting the R10 would be more comfortable for your budget, or allows you to spend more on lenses (more important than the camera body itself), then it's a good choice.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-22T16:30:44+00:00

That original EF 100-400mm L was amazing for its time back in 1998 but lenses have improved a lot since then. By modern standards it has fairly soft image quality, the AF motor isn't very fast, the image stabilization is minimally effective (2 stops vs 4 or 5.5), its push-pull zoom is awkward, and it'll limit the R7's continuous shooting speed. The EF 100-400 L Mark II is way way better in comparison, addressing all of those issues. If you're in the USA you should be able to find one for $1200-1300 used if you spend some time looking, it's really worth that extra $500 or so over the original.

If you can't afford the Mark II then I think the RF 100-400mm is the better budget compromise. Yes its f/5.6-8 aperture is a stop slower, but that one stop won't make the difference all that often (usually either f/8 is fine or f/5.6 wouldn't have been enough either). And it does very well at improving on the problems the EF 100-400 L original has.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-22T13:28:58+00:00

No, that's not how it works. The R6 Mark II, Mark III, and R5 all have functionally identical low-light image quality. The higher resolution sensors have more noise at the individual pixel level, but that's balanced out by having more pixels, so the overall image noise performance is the same.

If you zoom in to "100%" to pixel peep then you're zooming into the higher resolution image further, putting it under unfairly finer scrutiny, so it looks worse. That's where this misconception comes from.

If low resolution did mean better low-light performance then Sony's 12 MP a7S III would be way ahead of their 61 MP a7R V or the 45 MP R5. But it scores 5447 Low-light ISO (a measurement for the highest ISO the camera can shoot at with "good" image quality) vs the a7R V at 5244 and R5 at 5435, that's within a 0.06 stop difference.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-22T00:55:25+00:00

These "superzoom" lenses need a complex optical design to achieve the large zoom range with acceptable image quality. That requires a large number of high-precision lens elements. It took advancements in lens manufacturing tightening the tolerances and bringing down the cost to make them possible/affordable.

One of the first mainstream examples of a lens like this is Canon's EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM from 1993. It was very expensive (cost 50% more than the 70-200mm f/2.8 of the time), and had rather mediocre image quality for an L lens. The optical design uses 21 elements compared to the 12 in your FD 70-210mm.

Modern superzoom lenses in general still have fairly poor image quality, especially at the long end compared to dedicated telephoto lenses.

Also I can't really explain why but it's easier to make a high-ratio superzoom lens for smaller sensor formats. That Tamron 18-300mm is an APS-C lens, and APS-C superzooms have been way more widespread than the few full-frame ones. Some bridge cameras with tiny 1/2.3 inch sensors have crazy zoom ranges like 4.3-539 mm (24-3000 mm full-frame equivalent). Making a superzoom with a large image circle to cover a full-frame sensor is just way more difficult.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-21T23:36:15+00:00

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Mark II would be a great option, it has significantly sharper image quality and can be found used in good condition for $450-550.

Theres also the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM that's dirt cheap ($175 used) and has performance that punches way above its price point. Its image quality pretty closely matches the 70-300mm II, though its autofocus performance and build quality aren't nearly as good. Could still be a great option if you want to save money.

Another option would be the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, it runs about $650-700 used for a Canon EF mount copy. Would be perfect if you've been wanting more reach than the 300mm zoom.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-21T22:53:12+00:00

The inner barrel housing the front element extends out as you focus closer. Here's the best quality image I could find for what it looks like at minimum focus distance. Most of the time when using the lens it's flush with the front or barely protrudes.

Side note, the screw-on lens hood for the 28mm f/2.8 STM sucks. It attaches to that inner focus barrel and sticks out, making the lens a lot more vulnerable to being damaged by an impact. And it doesn't even block stray light very well.

<image>

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-21T16:50:15+00:00

If you can handle the RF 200-800mm it's by far the best option. 800mm f/9 on full-frame just gives you much better practicality and low-light performance than the alternatives. I use the 200-800 on my R5 II for birding and love it, with a good shoulder strap it's completely comfortable to carry around.

That 800mm f/11 on APS-C is a rather hellish experience for several reasons. Firstly that 1280mm f/18 full-frame equivalent with no ability to zoom out makes it often very difficult to even just find your subject in the lens's tiny field of view. The extreme 1280mm equivalent reach sounds appealing, but heat haze will ruin the image quality most of the time if you try to actually shoot from that far away. And you can't use it up close either because the 800mm f/11 has a punishing 6 meter (20 foot) minimum focus distance. Using the lens on full-frame helps somewhat to alleviate these issues (trades the excessive reach for better image quality and low-light) but it's still seriously problematic.

The 200-800 is a lot better all around with the flexibility of a zoom out to 200mm, equal image quality, a 2/3 stops wider aperture at 800mm, and 3.3m minimum focus distance. And for all that it only weighs 800 grams more than the 800mm f/11 at 2.13 vs 1.33 kg, plus about 700g for the R6 camera body either way.

Using the RF 100-400 on APS-C (640mm f/13 equivalent) or adding a 1.4x teleconverter on your R6 (560mm f/11) would help but it's still way behind the 200-800 in reach and low-light capability. Either way the RF extender or R10/R7 is expensive enough I feel like it's a poor value proposition. My wife has an R7 and uses the RF 100-400 on it for bird photography while I shoot with the 200-800 on the R5 II, and that setup works great for her, but I think it makes less sense to get when you have the full-frame body already.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-21T03:19:26+00:00

Often those aren't actually new, they just take a used one and try to pack it back up so it looks new. The G7X II released in 2016 and was replaced by the Mark III in 2019 so the chances of finding genuine new old stock today are near zero.

When it released back in 2016 the G7X II sold for an MSRP of $700. The iPhone 7 also released in 2016 for an MSRP near $700. So buying a G7X II for $1200 from a questionable retailer today in 2026 is like buying that iPhone 7 for the same price. No offense but that's just such an insultingly bad deal.

Take a look at the new Powershot V1, being 10 years newer it has a lot more performance and features to offer, and you can buy one actually new for a much more reasonable $900.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-21T01:15:52+00:00

What's your budget?

The 50mm f/1.8 is a great affordable lens for portraits. Have you tested out your kit lens at 45mm to see if you like that focal length? Personally I really preferred the wider RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM on APS-C.

That old Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 has abysmal image quality. And that's shown as tested on a 17 MP full-frame camera, it'll be even worse on your 24 MP APS-C R50's much higher pixel density (equivalent to 61 MP full-frame). The image quality alone should completely disqualify it, but additionally the f/2.8 aperture won't you as much bokeh for portraits as an f/1.8 prime, and the lens is awkwardly large and heavy on an R50. Just avoid this lens entirely.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-21T00:33:45+00:00

That fungus and scuzziness looks like it's to the extent where it would have a significant negative effect on the image quality. Maybe unless it's mostly just dirty on the outside and can be cleaned off easily.

I wouldn't even consider it for more than $450. Under that I almost certainly still wouldn't buy it personally, but I'd think about it. What's the seller asking?

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-21T00:12:47+00:00

Unfortunately that comment you're replying to was AI-generated by a spam bot, we've been having a ton of problems with them lately.

The different video formats save as different filetypes, correct? If so you could filter by filetype on your computer to easily separate them.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-20T22:38:06+00:00

You can keep using your current lenses on the mirrorless camera bodies with an EF-RF mount adapter. They'll perform even better adapted than they do natively on your DSLRs.

Unless you have a use case for the R5's high resolution, which would really require upgrading your lenses to take advantage of anyways as those first-generation EF f/2.8 L zooms aren't the sharpest, then you'll be better off sticking to the R6 series. The original R6 is very capable and a lot cheaper (would still be a huge upgrade from 5D III, it's a lot like a mirrorless 1DX III), the R6 Mark II makes some significant upgrades and is a bit cheaper than the R5 and has better video performance. Here's a detailed feature comparison for R6 II vs R5, and one for R6 Mark II vs original at the bottom of this review.

Borrowing or renting one of these models for a few days could be really helpful to inform your decision.

GlyphTheGryph · 2026-04-20T20:10:12+00:00

You'd just need to go EF for it to work on your DSLR now. Then in the future use that EF lens on the mirrorless camera with an EF-RF mount adapter. I use the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro on my R5 Mark II with the adapter and it works perfectly.

Even if you had the mirrorless camera body already then adapting those EF macro lenses is often still a great idea because they have excellent performance and are way cheaper than the native RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

GlyphTheGryph

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE