Upvote
0
Thanks Eric. I agree. The one with the spiderweb caught me eye as well.Some great ones especially the spiderweb!
Lovely photos! I'm still missing a photo of Common Ring-necked Pheasant - they are around here and there but very cautious...Some more with R5 + RF 100-500mm this week. Coal Tit, Chaffinch, Great Tit, Nuthatch, Hybrid Ring-necked Pheasant, Common Ring-necked Pheasant. The Coal and Great Tits were there for only a second or so, and the 100-500 focussed faster than the 200-800 did last time I was in this situation and it was difficult to catch them then. For BIF and fast little birds, I'll be taking the 100-500.
View attachment 215690View attachment 215691View attachment 215692View attachment 215693View attachment 215694View attachment 215695
Great shots! Have you gone back to your 500/4 in general?Also at Seven Wetlands in Lakeland, FL
Red Shouldered Hawk....not liking the rain...
View attachment 215730View attachment 215731
For the Florida trip, I used the 200-800 on Friday and the 500 f/4 II on Saturday. Somewhat intentional to give each an extended try but also there were heavy clouds/rain on Saturday so I wanted the extra aperture.Great shots! Have you gone back to your 500/4 in general?
I had a pleasant surprise today. I took, quite unexpectedly, my first butterfly shot of the year with the lens at 637mm and it was unexpectedly sharp. So, this evening I did a series of close-up tests of £20 note. The 200-800mm is much sharper than the RF 100-500mm.For the Florida trip, I used the 200-800 on Friday and the 500 f/4 II on Saturday. Somewhat intentional to give each an extended try but also there were heavy clouds/rain on Saturday so I wanted the extra aperture.
I bought the RF 200-800 with a very specific use in mind where I did not like my options, photographing birds from a kayak. I do this several times each summer. The 100-400 was too short, the 500 II plus 1.4tc is more than a bit awkward to handle in a kayak. So, I am really excited about using the 200-800 for that purpose, I think it will be great.
Other than that, the 500 II is just better and I'll use it whenever it makes sense. I have always loved the way it renders images plus the AF is way more accurate and consistent. For walks in the park, more casual shooting, when size/weight are issues (like traveling or from a kayak), or when I expect to need a zoom, I'll go to the RF 200-800 or EF 100-400 II (until I replace it, then RF 100-500). All great lenses, it is just that the EF 500 II is better.
Nice position to be in, but I have options...good options.
That bluejay is so cute and funny! Great shots!
Thanks, when I got to editing I was glad that standing in the stink for an hour turned out to have been worth it.Very nice shot, photophil.
The RF 100-400 on the R7 is a killer combo and the R10 I guess would be good. The 200-800 on the R6 would be good. Suggest you try them first.Black kite, one of about a dozen having an ongoing spat with a murder of crows on a trash heap.
R6, RF100-400.
I am still not sure whether to keep my R10 for extra pixels per bird when the R6 just handles so well.
The alternatives I see would be for longer reach would be one of the STM teles or coughing up the extra cash for the 200-800.
Any opinions?
View attachment 215750