Lens recommendations for my EOS R6 Mark II

[Nicrkoz1]

I currently have a RF 24mm-70mm F2.8 lens for my camera body. I was looking to get a longer lens for some upcoming shoots I have to do. I am on the fence about the 70mm-200mm and the 100mm-500mm, both seem to have pros and cons. I do like having the option for F2.8 on my small lens and thought the same would be a safe option to maintain that sharpness. Any suggestions would be welcomed! 

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

I own these 3 lenses.  I hope these comments will help in your decision process.  😀

The RF 24mm-70mm F2.8 is a true staple and a fantastic everyday lens.  I'm sure you have discovered this.

The RF 70-200 f2.8 and RF 100-500 are very different from a purpose standpoint.  The current 70-200 is an external zoom compact.  The RF 100-500 is also external zoom.  You cannot use a TC with the current 70-200.  Its possible with the 100-500 above 300mm only.  There is a rumor of an RF 70-200 f2.8 Z internal zoom which should (rumored) support a TC for its entire focal range, also the power zoom adapters PZ-E2 and PZ-E2B.  There is not an announcement or release date currently.  (Just this year).

I really like the compact size of the RF 70-200 "mkI".  Its not a focal length I would use with a TC, but we all use our camera's differently.  I always say "magic happens" when you put a 70-200 on a Canon body.  Its truly one of Canon's best lenses ever.  It picks up right where the 24-70 ends and takes breathtaking images.

While having f2.8 is great for low light, bokeh and subject / background isolation, you will not always use this lens wide open.  Yes if you have the budget, the choice is always nice.  You should consider how you will use the lens primarily.  Indoor sports, portraiture, indoor venues / performances, etc.  Anywhere when you cannot use a flash.  In general, its got you covered.  It cannot put kids on the other side of a soccer field or swimming pool near you.  It can take great indoor volleyball photos if you are court side.   

Until Nov of last year, the RF 100-500 was the only native RF super zoom in a sub <$3K category.  Now the RF 200-800 is available at $1900.  I'm mentioning it because its possible to purchase.  You might have to wait for it a bit, but it does exist.  It supports a TC as well, its entire focal range, but you will lose one or more stops of light and a percentage of AF.  One thing most here will tell you.  If you have a lens with this much reach and you think you need a TC, don't.  Instead, try to get closer.  Of course there are exceptions.

The RF 100-500 is another lens that offers stunning performance.  As with any Canon L series, it offers everything Canon's does best.  Fast AF, great IS and is very easy to handle (even hand held).  Like the 70-200 it offers superior, razon sharp image quality and reach beyond 200mm.  

I feel your "next" lens choice (because there is always one more) 🤣 will depend on what you plan to shoot most.  How close will you be to your subjects?  What are the lighting conditions likely to be?  F2.8 is great for gathering light, but your DOF will be more narrow and if your subject(s) are deep what's in front or in back might not be as sharp wide open.  If all you want is a beautiful portrait, and the background to melt away, the 70-200 f2.8 is hard to beat.

If you will have good lighting (plan to shoot mostly outdoors) and need the reach beyond what 200mm can give you the RF 100-500 is equally remarkable.  It doesn't offer the same narrow DOF, or melt-away but you will not notice this usually unless the background is directly (right) behind your subject.   

Tell us more about the type of photography you do or plan to do with the next lens and others can help further narrow your decision.

[Nicrkoz1]

I currently shoot landscape and wildlife photography. I have a couple shoots later this year where I am following a couple of hunters on their hunt. I just finished up a veteran photography course that involved landscape, wildlife, and photojournalism. I had some moments where the 100-500mm was great to use for photojournalism in the setting I was using it. I feel like with hunting I will be closely working with the subjects. Hope this helps! Also, thank you for the response, that provided a lot of information! 

[ebiggs1]

"I am on the fence about the 70mm-200mm and the 100mm-500mm, both seem to have pros and cons."

Yes they do and they are not comparable so a choice between the two isn't a good idea. They are designed for totally different situations. You may decide on which to buy first but if the need is there you need both.

[March411 · Accepted solution]

Nicrkoz1, welcome to the site!

I have the R6 MII, own a 24mm-70mm, a 70mm-200mm and added the 100-500mm. My photography is fairly broad shooting sports, landscape, street and wildlife. Since picking up the 100-500mm my 70-200mm is collecting dust, the two other lenses are always in my pack when I leave the house as well as the 100mm macro.

I find the gap between the 24-70mm and the 100-500mm negligible and so there hasn't been an instance where I was out shooting and wished I had the 70-200mm.

The 100-500mm is a a great lens but has limitations, it will need more light then a 2.8. That being said I recently used it for indoor basketball, pushed the ISO and grabbed some beautiful images but the gym had good lighting. The focus on this lens is fast and my hit rate during the game I would guess was somewhere around 70%. The weight of this lens is so easy to carry all day but that's coming from a guy that carries a Sigma 60-600 which is like carrying a bucket of rocks.

If you want to extend your range you would not go wrong with purchasing the 100-500mm.

That being said, still love the 70-200mm, that used to be my go to lens for basketball.