Which lens to buy?

[birdman916]

Birding who wants to make the plunge into the big boy canon lenses. Weight is an issue as i like to bird with a camera and hiking may be an issue with a heavy lens. Current set up Canon R5 and 100-500 7.1

Option 1: Canon rf 600 f4
Heavy and pricey but looks to be an awesome lens. Would get me more reach and some very nice shots

Option 2: Purchase the 200-500 f4 and the rumored super Teleconverter. Probably pretty heavy but maybe lighter than the 600 not sure. I like the many options this gives me. At worst I have the same focal length I’m used to but f4 to f7.1 is a noticeable difference I believe. With the Teleconverter I could extend and have 700 at 5.6 which also would be great. Then for certain scenarios like ID shots etc I would be at 1000mm f8 which quite frankly sounds great. Probably pretty heavy and maybe 20k when it’s all said and done yikes

Option 3: purchase 100-300 2.8 and stack a 2xTC and be at 600 f5.6. Not sure of the weight but I’m thinking this would be the smallest and lightest of the options. I don’t like that I would never use the lens without a Teleconverter really. This would also maybe be the cheapest of the options.

Love the insight and feedback from this forum. Thank you

 

[unfocused]

Option 4: Purchase the R7 at a fraction of the cost of any of the above lenses.

I recently made this purchase and am quite satisfied. Is it as good as the R5 or R3? No. But it is quite good, light and gives you an effective 800mm lens with more pixels for cropping. Even at ISO 6400 with Adobe's new AI noise reduction it gives good results. Probably even better with other noise reduction software, but I am an Adobe person.

I've rented the EF 600mm. It's a fantastic lens, but it is not for hiking. At least not for me. It can be hand held in a pinch, but I wouldn't recommend it for any length of time. In my opinion, this lens is best when mounted on a tripod with gimbal and when shooting at locations where birds are plentiful. When I rented it I was at Sanibel Island and it was great at Ding Darling NWR. But, there is no way I could use it locally (Midwest) for shooting songbirds.

I don't expect the 200-500 will be lighter--most likely heavier. The 100-300 with a 2x gives you just 100mm extra length and is only a fraction of a stop faster than the 100-500. It weighs almost twice as much as the RF 100-500.

There is also Option 5: Canon's 800mm f11. My wife has this lens and has gotten very good results with it. You can pick this lens up for under $1,000, try it and resell it if it doesn't suit you and not lose much money.

 

[AlanF]

Option 4: Purchase the R7 at a fraction of the cost of any of the above lenses.

I recently made this purchase and am quite satisfied. Is it as good as the R5 or R3? No. But it is quite good, light and gives you an effective 800mm lens with more pixels for cropping.

Relative to the R5 the R7 gives 1.6x less field of view but only 1.4x reach as it has a 32 Mpx sensor compared with the 45 Mpx of the R5. It would be cheaper to buy the RF 1.4x TC and use with the R5 as it gives the same extra reach as the R7.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hard to judge Option 2, which comprises a rumored lens and a rumored TC.

Recommend against Option 3, I would not recommend buying a lens planning to use it mostly or exclusively with a TC, unless that's the only option or the best option to get to that focal length. That was the case when the EF 600/4 II came out – it was the longest MkII supertele and when combined with the 1.4xIII was longer, lighter and cheaper than the EF 800/5.6. Most of my shots with the 600/4 are with the 1.4x TC. But that's not the case with the 100-300/2.8. It is an excellent lens, and I find it very useful for indoor action. But with the 2x it takes a meaningful optical hit.

I routinely walk/hike with the 600/4 II and shoot handheld with it. I carry a monopod on hikes if I want to stay in an area for a while. For winter raptors where I'm stationary for hours, I use a tripod/gimbal. It's not a light lens by any means, and though the RF version is slimmed down quite a bit it's still heavy. So you need to judge based on your physique if handholding a 600/4 is feasible for you.

Of the three, I'd recommend Option 1 if you usually shoot from a tripod anyway (budget for a gimbal head) or if you are confident you can handhold it (or rent to check).

 

[DhlcadR6]

Grab R7 is the cheapest option, sell it when RF 200-500L comes out.

 

[AlanF]

Grab R7 is the cheapest option, sell it when RF 200-500L comes out.

He has an R5 and as I pointed out it's much cheaper to buy an RF 1.4xTC to give the same reach as an R7, and he can keep it to use on the RF 200-500L if he goes for one.

 

[AlanF]

Birding who wants to make the plunge into the big boy canon lenses. Weight is an issue as i like to bird with a camera and hiking may be an issue with a heavy lens. Current set up Canon R5 and 100-500 7.1

Option 1: Canon rf 600 f4
Heavy and pricey but looks to be an awesome lens. Would get me more reach and some very nice shots

Option 2: Purchase the 200-500 f4 and the rumored super Teleconverter. Probably pretty heavy but maybe lighter than the 600 not sure. I like the many options this gives me. At worst I have the same focal length I’m used to but f4 to f7.1 is a noticeable difference I believe. With the Teleconverter I could extend and have 700 at 5.6 which also would be great. Then for certain scenarios like ID shots etc I would be at 1000mm f8 which quite frankly sounds great. Probably pretty heavy and maybe 20k when it’s all said and done yikes

Option 3: purchase 100-300 2.8 and stack a 2xTC and be at 600 f5.6. Not sure of the weight but I’m thinking this would be the smallest and lightest of the options. I don’t like that I would never use the lens without a Teleconverter really. This would also maybe be the cheapest of the options.

Love the insight and feedback from this forum. Thank you

Weight is the biggest issue for me as I carry the telephoto lens everywhere when I hike, go out for simple walks and cycle, and most of what I take is opportunistic. Would an f/4 lens make a difference to me? The RF 100-500mm gives me enough quality for my simple purposes. An f/4 would give me more range in some cases and some better images, but not that it would make any real differences for what I do with my images, and I couldn't hike with it.

 

[john1970]

In terms of light weight the R5 + 100-500 mm f4.5-7.1 combo is very good. Any large big white is going to easily add another ~3 lbs to that setup. I would suspect that the upcoming RF 200-500 mm f4 would be similar in mass to the current 600 mm f4. The RF 100-300 mm f2.8 weighs in at 5.7 lbs and the RF 400 mm f2.8 weighs in at 6.4 lbs only a 0.7 lb difference between the two lenses.

If I were in your shoes I would wait another 6-8 months and see what lens are announced before the 2024 Olympics. In the mean time you can rent the RF 600 mm f4 lens and see if you like it.

 

[john1970]

Also note that there were rumors that Canon was going to release a 500 mm DO lens f4.5 or f5. With a 1.4x TC that lens becomes a 700 mm f6.3 or f7.1. Being a DO lens that would be relatively light weight. As other have said a rumor is only a rumor, and best to focus on what is currently available.

My advice is to wait until Q1 2024 and see what is released.

 

[Czardoom]

Option 5....Keep what you have. For hiking, it is the only option, in my opinion. All other options will be very heavy. The 100-300 with 2x TC will be both heavy, expensive and lower IQ. The 2x TC will degrade the image noticeably from reviews I have seen (check out Duade Paton's review).
What exactly are you not satisfied with? What do you think those other options will give you that will make a big difference?

 

[john1970]

Option 5....Keep what you have. For hiking, it is the only option, in my opinion. All other options will be very heavy. The 100-300 with 2x TC will be both heavy, expensive and lower IQ. The 2x TC will degrade the image noticeably from reviews I have seen (check out Duade Paton's review).
What exactly are you not satisfied with? What do you think those other options will give you that will make a big difference?

Thank you for notifying me of the review. I am taking the 100-300 mm f2.8 on an upcoming trip along with both converters. I will make sure to stop down to f7.1 if using the 2x TC. Because this is going to be used on a safari I am likely going to stick with the 1.4x TC and keep it at 140-420 mm at f4.

I have used the 100-300 mm f2.8 with the 2x TC and in my experience had decent sharpness.

 

[john1970]

Thank you for notifying me of the review. I am taking the 100-300 mm f2.8 on an upcoming trip along with both converters. I will make sure to stop down to f7.1 if using the 2x TC. Because this is going to be used on a safari I am likely going to stick with the 1.4x TC and keep it at 140-420 mm at f4.

I have used the 100-300 mm f2.8 with the 2x TC and in my experience had decent sharpness. I seriously considered the 100-500 mm, but I thought the extra 4/3 stop of light at 420 mm would be worthwhile.

 

[john1970]

Thank you for notifying me of the review. I am taking the 100-300 mm f2.8 on an upcoming trip along with both converters. I will make sure to stop down to f7.1 if using the 2x TC. Because this is going to be used on a safari I am likely going to stick with the 1.4x TC and keep it at 140-420 mm at f4.

I have used the 100-300 mm f2.8 with the 2x TC and in my experience had decent sharpness. I did find that with the 2x that the AF was not quite as snappy as the bare lens or as with the 1.4x TC. With that said the AF with the 2x was not slow.

 

[The Professor]

Birding who wants to make the plunge into the big boy canon lenses. Weight is an issue as i like to bird with a camera and hiking may be an issue with a heavy lens. Current set up Canon R5 and 100-500 7.1

Option 1: Canon rf 600 f4
Heavy and pricey but looks to be an awesome lens. Would get me more reach and some very nice shots

Option 2: Purchase the 200-500 f4 and the rumored super Teleconverter. Probably pretty heavy but maybe lighter than the 600 not sure. I like the many options this gives me. At worst I have the same focal length I’m used to but f4 to f7.1 is a noticeable difference I believe. With the Teleconverter I could extend and have 700 at 5.6 which also would be great. Then for certain scenarios like ID shots etc I would be at 1000mm f8 which quite frankly sounds great. Probably pretty heavy and maybe 20k when it’s all said and done yikes

Option 3: purchase 100-300 2.8 and stack a 2xTC and be at 600 f5.6. Not sure of the weight but I’m thinking this would be the smallest and lightest of the options. I don’t like that I would never use the lens without a Teleconverter really. This would also maybe be the cheapest of the options.

Love the insight and feedback from this forum. Thank you

Ok..I have been a bird Photographer for 25 years .. about ten years ago I also wanted to make the leap to Big White Glass . Did not have a lot of money or did not want debt so what did I do ... looked on line and elsewhere for what the prospects were to buy a used lens in MINT condition .well at that time I found someone in California with several very special MINT lens ..and the one I wanted ..a 500f4 mk I... a bit heavy but very clean ..like new condition .. paid 5000 and lucked out .. it was as he said with Case .keys all accessories that came with this older lens ..auto focus . etc. got a TC 1.4 and 2.0 mk 3and the rest is history as they say .. then I saw a 300 f2.8 in MINT condition 3500 and jumped on that so I would have a walk around lens that was not so heavy . converters worked well with both lens .the 1.4 is a step up of course but now a days with Topaz and my old friend photoshop the 2.0 TC is not as bad as it would have been years earlier. I use R5 and did use the 5dsR till I got the R5 when it first came out . Long story short ..LOL .. I suggest you try to find a 500 f4 Mk II in MINt or excellent condition and you will be amazed how good your work will improve ... the500 f4 Mk II is much lighter than my older model ( You can look up the relative weights on line )and it should work great for you . If not a 300 f2.8 used MK II in MINT or excellent condition will asls be great . I use both rigs every day and you won't ragret it ... BUT and this is a big "but ' be safe and find a trusted place . or person . OR....if money is not a big obstacle get a 600 f4 mk III (if you can find one )..they are very light .. and it would be the ultimate lens ... the new RF ones600 f4 and the 100-300 f2.8 are so ,so, so overpriced (ridiculous) you would have to be crazy or rich . remember the EF to RF converter works perfectly so you do not need an RF lens . Im 74 years old and as of now don't have a big problem with my HEAVY lens and do not have any budget to move up ..Im quite happy with what I have . the new ..if real 200-500 f4 will be crazy high price and you will really only shoot at 500 anyways ... so beware ..and at the bizarre money they will want you might be foolish . again if you have money to burn well than go crazy and get all the new big whites ...hahaha ..$ 50,000.. lol . thats my two cents .. and if you need more help email me at [email protected]. Have fun .. keep shooting. Jimmy