Side by side
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM vs Canon RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
45 positive (88%) · 5 mixed (10%) · 1 negative (2%)
Trust + time weighted: +85%
AI summary — not a quote
The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM is widely regarded as a professional-grade 'gold standard' zoom lens, praised for its exceptional sharpness, robust build quality, and fast autofocus. While it is an older EF-mount lens, it remains a top recommendation for wildlife and bird photography, even when adapted to mirrorless systems. Its primary drawback is its significant weight and 'hefty' profile compared to newer RF alternatives.
Pros
- Exceptional sharpness and image quality, often compared to prime lens performance
- Professional 'L' series build quality with weather sealing and durability
- Excellent performance when paired with 1.4x teleconverters
- Fast and reliable autofocus that remains competitive on modern mirrorless bodies
Cons
- Heavy and bulky (approx. 1.5kg to 1.7kg), which can be fatiguing for handheld use
- Manual focus ring is prone to accidental bumps due to its placement
- Mechanically linked manual focus ring cannot be disabled via camera settings in AF mode
Top excerpts
Nice! Is that a 100-400 II? Loved that lens.
Works great, performance is excellent, it’s just a hefty package. ... the only negative is the weight. It’s 1550g, 1700 with tripod ring and lens hood, plus RF adapter. RF 100-400 is 665g, and while there’s an IQ difference, I notice that I grab the RF 100-400 way more often, especially to pair with R50, it’s a bit overwhelmed by the chonk of EF 100-400 L ii.
Someone else mentioned EF 100-400 L ii as an option, I’ll just share that I love that lens, it was my first really great long lens, it remains one of the best and sharpest handheld daylight zooms available…
The EF 100-400 L ii was one of the best handheld wildlife lenses in the world when introduced, and remains a contender in that category.
The EF 100-400 II is a much better lens in all aspects than the RF 100-400 IMHO. ... while both lenses are excellent performers in their own right, the EF II has a brighter aperture range (not by very much but every bit counts). The build quality of the EF II is much better but then also weighs a lot more so if weight is a major point for selection then the RF wins hands down here.
Canon RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM
59 positive (76%) · 14 mixed (18%) · 5 negative (6%)
Trust + time weighted: +73%
AI summary — not a quote
The Canon RF-S 18-150mm is widely regarded as the premier 'all-in-one' travel lens for Canon's APS-C mirrorless system. It is frequently recommended as a significant upgrade over the basic 18-45mm kit lens, offering a versatile zoom range, surprising sharpness for its class, and a compact form factor that pairs well with smaller bodies like the R50.
Pros
- Highly versatile 'Jack of all trades' zoom range for travel and general use
- Significantly sharper and more capable than the 18-45mm kit lens
- Extremely lightweight (310g) and compact for the focal range provided
- Good performance for close-up photography
Cons
- Narrow maximum aperture (f/3.5-6.3) limits performance in very dark scenes
- Insufficient focal length and speed for dedicated sports photography
- Limited to APS-C (crop sensor) cameras
Top excerpts
The 18-150 is an RF-S lens which can only be mounted on crop sensor (APS-C) cameras; the 24-105 f/4L is a full-frame lens which can be mounted on any R-series camera.
What is recommend is the 18-150 if you can find a kit with that.
By contrast, 18-150 is surprisingly small, pretty much an ideal lens for travel/general use, and a near perfect match for R50.
Being able to put rf-s 18-150 on it for versatility is great
For me, 18-150 is R50’s natural companion lens. Small, light, sharp and amazingly flexible.