Which 150-600 for R6

[JTM-77]

Thanks for this information. I own all three of these lenses + the 1.4x TC. I'm aware of the EF's performance limitations when adapted to a mirrorless body, the physical limitation of using a TC with the 100-500L, and the IQ difference between the 100-400 and 100-500L. That must be why Canon charges $600 for the 400 and $3,000 for the 500... Because "it's not that good".

The Rf100-500 for any R series canon body not just the R6, the R10, R7, R5, R6 i & ii and R3

 

[JTM-77]

Thanks for this information. I own all three of these lenses + the 1.4x TC. I'm aware of the EF's performance limitations when adapted to a mirrorless body, the physical limitation of using a TC with the 100-500L, and the IQ difference between the 100-400 and 100-500L. That must be why Canon charges $600 for the 400 and $3,000 for the 500... Because "it's not that good".

I never mentioned an EF lens. You said you shoot architecture and landscapes? so that would use a 28-70 f2 or 24-70 f2.8 so why do you have both the RF100-400 RF100-500 and a TC?

 

[shadowsports]

@JTM-77,

This thread was started with a user asking which Tamron/Sigma 150~600 (EF Mount) for his R6? Suggestions were made. Performance and limitations pointed out. Typically someone looking to do bird and wildlife might use a 150-600 which we all know are EF. Some get by with shorter FL's. Later someone suggested the RF 100~400. Points regarding its performance and possible limitations were added. While its reach is shorter, the OP indicated it was acceptable to him. He grabbed one.

Now you're asking me about my gear. Why do I have both the RF 100~400 and 100~500? Which doesn't seem relevant but its for travel. I don't always need or want to pack my 100~500. The lens you said earlier, "wasn't that good". The 100~400 is a lighter weight alternative and in many situations has the reach and clarity I need for most shooting conditions. Landscape and architecture is my primary focus. If you read my sig, you would see I have FL's covered from 15~500mm (RF Trinity+). I'm not here to argue. If you don't like the 100~500 that's fine. Its been a great lens for me and others based on what I've seen.

@killswitch I'm glad you got a lens that fit your budget and works well for you.

 

[AlanF]

That 100-500 is not that good plus you can't use the 1.4x TC with it until 300-500 it wont physically work the 100-400 is the best lens.

What is your evidence that the 100-500 is not that good? I have used over the years the EF 100-400mm, EF 100-400mm II, EF 400mm f/5.6, RF 100-400mm, Sigma 150-600mm C, Tamron 150-600mm, and the RF 100-500mm is the best of the lot. Without an extender, the 100-500mm at f/7.1 outresolves the 100-400mm II with a 1.4x TC at 560mm, and even outresolves my EF 400mm DO II. And, it is just about as sharp as the Nikon 500/5.6 PF. In short, the RF 100-500mm is the best zoom telephoto lens I have ever owned. You will have to go to a big white prime to get a sharper lens.

The RF 100-400mm is good, but doesn't take the extenders nearly as well optically.

 

[Jethro]

Can you or @AlanF give a link ?
I tried searching for 10-15 minutes but didn't find it.
Thanks !

Sorry - I wan't logged in for a few days! The search function here is ... quirky ... but it does work.