D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
I wonder if Nikonrumors.com agrees...
Nope over there we bitch that the Z6ii/Z7ii aren't better than the D850 yet.
Upvote
0
I wonder if Nikonrumors.com agrees...
I don't disagree, but I don't really see this as a lens designed specifically for wildlife - it seems more like a 100-400 with a bit of extra reach, and the f/7.1 caveat if you're going to use that last little bit of reach. I'd want to use it for landscapes personally, so none of that is limiting for me - I'm much more interested in sharpness, contrast, small size and weight limitations. I don't think there is any question that if wildlife is the target, this is not the most ideal tool in the shed - I'm sure it would work in a pinch, but it wouldn't be the first choice for many.But for wildlife you need the reach and to be fair 500mm is not a lot on a full frame. It's not even a lot on APSC. So you have to crop a lot and Canon does not have high megapixel RF body, apart from the R5.
Plus the 100-500 is very expensive, almost double the price of the excellent Sony 200-600.
But for wildlife you need the reach and to be fair 500mm is not a lot on a full frame. It's not even a lot on APSC. So you have to crop a lot and Canon does not have high megapixel RF body, apart from the R5.
Plus the 100-500 is very expensive, almost double the price of the excellent Sony 200-600.
I can understand that perspective, but again I see it as a 100-400 with an extra 100mm: I think that's a much closer comparison than a 200-600. In the 100-400 realm, the price is comparable to both Sony and Canon, as is the size and weight. I really don't think of this as a wildlife first lens because of that 7.1 aperture and the compromises made to keep it small. It makes a lot of sense as a long distance landscape lens, in my opinion anyway.But the Canon one has 100mm less, f7.1 aaaand is over 1/3 or 50% more expensive then the Sony!
More expensive (>3.000€ is huge!) -> less photographers use it. Nice for those who can afford it^^
For me it would be also enough to have a 300-600 f5.6 ^^... for eveything else you could pick up other lenses (70-200 / 24-105 or 120-300 2.8)
The 100-500 is more of a competitor to Sony's 100-400, not the 200-600. By your logic, Sony's 100-400 is also overpriced given that it's within 10% in price to Canon's 100-500.
Thank you very much! I completely agree with you - it wouldn't be my first choice for birding either. I figure for my use it wouldn't really be used for wildlife except for in a real pinch - long distance landscapes would be its bread and butter for me.Yes, of course if you do a lot of hiking the 100-500 fits your needs better. For my birding attitudes each mm of focal length is wellcome. Also it is tooooo much pricy
Btw.: Great shots on your site.
I don't disagree, but I don't really see this as a lens designed specifically for wildlife - it seems more like a 100-400 with a bit of extra reach, and the f/7.1 caveat if you're going to use that last little bit of reach. I'd want to use it for landscapes personally, so none of that is limiting for me - I'm much more interested in sharpness, contrast, small size and weight limitations. I don't think there is any question that if wildlife is the target, this is not the most ideal tool in the shed - I'm sure it would work in a pinch, but it wouldn't be the first choice for many.
What an absurd post. You really need to read what you have said.
How preferable? Like when you see a distant bird you will switch lenses? And then switch back? That much preferable?What is absurd about it? I agree and have both the 100-500 and the 800 f11 for exactly the same reasons. I can see how this may not suit everyone, but for those who prefer versatility and only occasionally need the super telephoto, this is preferrable than a 200-600.
This question needs answering - I see no evidence of rebates on the R5, they're not even in stock here yet.There's a rebate on the R5?
How preferable? Like when you see a distant bird you will switch lenses? And then switch back? That much preferable?
P.S I agree about portability and I use 500mm lenses myself but a 600mm is much more powerful resulting a 44% bigger image than a 500mm lens.
Nope over there we bitch that the Z6ii/Z7ii aren't better than the D850 yet.
I checked. Canon Australia is indeed offering a $250 cash back promo on the R.This question needs answering - I see no evidence of rebates on the R5, they're not even in stock here yet.
In terms of sensors, there won't be a big leap until they get a decent agreement from Sony. Sony Semiconductor is real picky on who gets what sensors and what features are allowed. It's part of the reason that GoPro was using an ancient sensor until recently, and even then, it's not the most modern generation of Sony sensors.
I totally agree with that !I think Canon needs both satisfy the majority of customers.
I totally agree! I can see how 200-600mm is tempting for birders and wildlife, but I can hardly see any use and it is very bulky compared to the RF 100-500mm. The Canon lense is much more versatile and when wanna shoot wildlife at long distance I'd pick up a 800mm F11.
I know it's not a competitor for the 200-600. But because that's the only zoom lens Canon offers (until a 200-600 type lens arrives), there is nothing else to compare to, RIGHT? If you want a long zoom on Canon land, the only option is the 100-500 or EF 100-400 with 50% less reach or third part EF lenses.