Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

[Lanner]

My main questions are this:
1. Is 500mm enough length? This is my primary concern coming from a Sigma 150-600.
2. Do you feel restricted by f/7.1?
3. How is the image quality at the various focal lengths? Is it sharp? Are there obvious issues?

I shoot with the Canon R5 Mark II and am using a Sigma 150-600 with an adapter (with control ring). I want to shoot wildlife, primarily birds and am struggling to find a good lens option that isn't too expensive (Im not willing to spent like $10k lol).

[shadowsports]

Greetings ,

There's a few shots from my trip to Alaska here 

RF 100-500

Bella Eagle Eye

Hubbard Glacier

Others have posted fantastic shots too, but I don't know if they were using a 100 500.  I took that glacier photo with my 100-500 as well.  

[March411 · Accepted solution]

Hello Lanner,

I use the RF100-500 on an R6 Mk II and an R5. It is a great hiking lenses and does a nice job hand held with the combined IS/IBIS. The only occasions where I feel any challenges are early dawn and dusk, the lens obviously needs light. To your point though it is probably the best lens at this price point, a fixed f4 is going $10K or more and at f4 is still going to be somewhat challenge.

I also have the RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM and it is also a very nice lens at it's price point. When the ISO increases I use DXO or Topaz to wash the noise and still get very good detail shooting up to 12800 ISO.

Either of these lenses will serve you well in most wildlife settings. But like any lens, including the high cost L series there are always some limitations.

Significant crop (distance) , overcast day R6m2 500mm f7.1 1/2500 ISO 5000

R6m2 f7.1 1/2000 ISO 800

R5 RF200-800 f9 1/640 ISO 200

[Tintype_18]

I have the Sigma Contemporary 150-600mm lens. I find it to be good but requires a monopod or tripod due to the weight.

[ebiggs1]

"I shoot with the Canon R5 Mark II and am using a Sigma 150-600 with an adapter (with control ring)."  "Is 500mm enough length? This is my primary concern coming from a Sigma 150-600."

IMHO, I would take the Siggy. I hate to give up FL. I have not personally used the Canon RF 100-500mm which I am sure it is a wonderful lens. I do own and use a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM Lens and, yes, it works well but I still feel the lost 100mm is something I really want. I would rather see you buy the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens if you feel the need for a different lens but going down in FL would not be my first choice. The old saying, you can never have too much focal length rings true.

Otherwise just use the 150-600mm. By the way if you think you may not need the big Canon after the trip you can sell it on and probably not lose much money investment. It should sell easily, I've done that a lot.

[Lanner]

My major issue with the 150-600 is that obviously it is not built to be used with the R5 Mark II, and as a result, I often miss the focus on otherwise good photos. And I promise you, its not me whose missing the focus as the camera is clearly focussing on the eye of the bird or whatever the subject is. The lens is just not able to take full advantage of that and therefore misses the focus. 

I will definitely look into the 200-800mm though, as I agree that one of my worries was the loss of focal length. The f/9 is a tad worrisome though, especially for wildlife. I could just use lower focal lengths in that case so its certainly not a major deterrent lmao

[March411]

Lanner, just so you some point of reference I grabbed this shot today. I'm in Chicago and it was overcast, I grabbed this frame in between showers. I used my R6m2 and the RF200-800 and it just so happened that I shot @ f10

RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM @ 800mm with a 50% crop - f10 @ 1/500 - ISO 500

[TomRamsey]

Disclaimer, I do not have the Sigma 150-600 or the RF 100-500, but I have an opinion the native mount Canon lens will outperform the Sigma in every way, which may make the 100mm somewhat moot.  BUT, the Canon lens with a TC would give you more reach.  Myself, I have the RF200-800 and R6 II, I bought into Canon specifically to get this lens for wildlife.  I was not as hesitant on the lens because most of my shooting is in the salt marsh, on the beach, or in a long leaf pine savanna, where the canopy is not as dense as a deciduous forest.  The photo below was taken on a very foggy day, 800mm, 1/1000, f8, ISO 25600, and run through Denoise in Lightroom.  I probably would not have bought the lens if my primary shooting was in dense forests, but now I think that may have been OK anyway, especially with the low klight ability of the R6II.  This is just my opinion without having an actual  comparison

Great Egret in the Fog

[March411]

I'm sorry Tom but I am going to have to respectfully disagree. I have a fairly decent stable of Sigma lenses that perform every bit a good as the Canon counterparts on both my DSLR's and MILC.

These images are from my Sigma EF 60-600mm, the thing is a beast hand held on my R6m2 and these images are pretty much SOOC.

I did update the firmware when I moved to MILC as Canon support suggest. The focus was fast and clean on BIF or bird simply roosting. I do use the can EF to RF adapter but this lens as well as all the others perform excellently. On my R3 with the larger battery the EF 60-600mm sings. I can post images off of my 5D Mk IV that are just as clean. Sigma fills a gap in Canon's lineup with some very nice lenses.

[ebiggs1]

Sounds like you answered your own question.

"The f/9 is a tad worrisome though, especially for wildlife."

Although the numbers may look large in f-stop land it isn't. The different between the Tammy and the Canon isn't even a stop. I will offer, but perhaps not a help to you, the G2 model of that lens is a lot better than the original which I put it in fourth place behind the G2, the SIgma S, the Sigma C, and perhaps even below the Sigma 150-500mm.

I guarantee you, you will be 100 times, no 1000 times happier with the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens on your R series camera(s).