Show your Bird Portraits

Sort by date Sort by votes
#28,326
AlanF said:
I think this is a fair comparison of the Nikon 180-600mm vs Sony 200-600mm, with the Canon 100-500mm at the end. The Canon is the more general purpose lens with its wider field of view at the short end and much shorter mfd for macro shots. The other two have the extra at the long end but are heavier. I'm tempted by a 600/6.3 but I know the 100-500 is the best for me.

Click to expand...
Thank you Cog & AlanF for this discussion (sorry I'm late to it). Am I the only one that is irritated that Nikon and Sony have lenses with greater reach, larger max apertures, & at least comparable sharpness for $700 - $1,000 (USD) less than Canon's 100-500L? I'm still using the EF 100-400 ii (on an R5), because I can't bring myself to pay what the 100-500 costs.
 
Upvote 0
#28,333
Cog said:
A few non-Canon (=Sony) photos shot in August
Egyptian nightjar




White-eared bulbul


Eurasian collared dove






Great crested grebe




Little owl


Click to expand...
Beautiful shots as usual! I went this afternoon to the local shop as they have a used 200-400mm in. Lovely lens and well balanced but too heavy as a hiking lens for me now - I could have managed it 5-10 years ago. But, it would be good for me for use in a hide or elsewhere where's there little walking. It's lighter than an RF 600 f/4 and much cheaper!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#28,334
AlanF said:
Beautiful shots as usual! I went this afternoon to the local shop as they have a used 200-400mm in. Lovely lens and well balanced but too heavy as a hiking lens for me now - I could have managed it 5-10 years ago. But, it would be good for me for use in a hide or elsewhere where's there little walking. It's lighter than an RF 600 f/4 and much cheaper!
Click to expand...
Thank you, Alan! 200-400 is very heavy indeed. This was the main reason why I never considered this lens for myself. But I saw the pics, they are great.
 
Upvote 0
#28,335
Cog said:
Thank you, Alan! 200-400 is very heavy indeed. This was the main reason why I never considered this lens for myself. But I saw the pics, they are great.
Click to expand...
Big typo from me - I meant the Sony 200-600! I really do like your photos - beautiful composition and sharpness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#28,336
AlanF said:
Big typo from me - I meant the Sony 200-600! I really do like your photos - beautiful composition and sharpness.
Click to expand...
Ah, I thought you meant Canon EF 200-400, the big guy with the extender... It is really huge.

Sony 200-600 is also not light. I'd say it's manageable, but I always bring it to the shooting spot in a car. I rarely just walk with it. I'd either have it with me in a kayak or put on a tripod under a cover.

RF 100-500 is much lighter and smaller. This is why I have an easy choice when I travel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

1
Interior Shots
Replies
15
Views
18K
jtee
J
1
Your best Architectural & City B&W shots?
Replies
118
Views
97K
canon_guy
C
1
Water Reflections
Replies
28
Views
24K
Pitbullo
P
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu