So My Long Term Plan - Lens & Camera Goals

[Far-Out-Dude]

So my long term plan over next 3 years is this:

1: I will be getting a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens later this month, this will connect to my Canon M50 for taking pictures of wildlife, particularly wild turkey and whitetail deer. It will also be used for landscape and birding.

2. Next April I want to get a new camera, something better for the lens. I am disabled but think I can save between $1500.00-2500.00 depending on how much I am willing to go without. I once built a computer by going a month and a half out of a 4 month period without eating (Not all at once) and think I can still do the same.

3. If my GF has not left me by then I want to get the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens by April 2025 which will be a main landscape lens.

Now a big question I have is should I trade the EF model (100-400mm) in for the mirrorless model when I get the camera, is there any difference in performance to warrant such an action?

Thoughts on this?

[Far-Out-Dude]

Is this the one you refer to? If so it is still up. I will reply here above it. I did not know that it would not work well with wildlife, I figured inside of 40 yards for a deer sized animal maybe a wild turkey it would work well in the darker woods at dusk and dawn because of the high 2.8 F/Stop making it a double duty lens for me, landscape and wildlife

30-40 yards is something I am used to setting up for in hunting anyway, I used to bow hunt a lot and never shot over 30 yards on a deer and as a turkey hunter I am always within that same range. Most of my turkey shots are from while turkey hunting, I get them with the camera then decide if my body is up to hauling and cleaning one that day and if I feel it is I move the camera to avoid blowback  and shoot the turkey with a gun. That said last year I could have shot many with the gun but chose to go after one bird in particular and passed up at least 10 shots that would have had a turkey riding home with me. I am not going to kill a game animal unless I am going to take it home and eat it. I was after the one in back all season, never seen another with that copper color before. Perhaps what I may do is save up for a camera as I had planned and then trade the 70-300 and the 100-400 in for the RF 100-500 that you mention at that point. I like the idea of having to camera setups though.

Hmmm... The reason you gave for getting a 70-200 initially is not what you are saying now and that changes things.

First, a disclaimer:  I don't know the exact situation as regards your shooting environment, but personally, I would not go for the 70-200L IS USM MkIII for wildlife range.  It's a beautiful lens, but massively heavy and a very short focal length for that application - which is why I didn't use it for my wildlife work.  You have to ask yourself what the probability is that a deer will come within relatively close proximity of your hide under those conditions, and with the light in the right direction to give any illumination at dusk or sunrise.  The 70-200 range is great for events and portraits, and even for some landscape applications, but in my experience (of around 40 years), it is way too short to capture wildlife.   I shoot well beyond that, and the 100-400L IS USM MkII is a lens I have, but consider the minimum, especially given your mobility may be compromised you can't quickly maneuver to adjust your composition or lighting conditions.  I usually shoot more towards the 600mm range, using the Sigma 150-600c or 60-600s lenses.   Given the performance of the new R-series MILCs, they (generally) handle higher ISO values much better than DSLRs or M-series cameras, especially the full-frame R series units.

If you really want the 70-200 range, you can get a lens refurbished by Canon, and it comes with a warranty, so you can feel confident in the quality of the product.  Although currently out of stock - that changes continuously, here is an idea of a listing for such a lens:  Shop Canon Refurbished EF 70–200mm f/4L IS II USM | Canon U.S.A., Inc.

We need to go back to your first post in this thread.  The question you posed was "should I trade the EF model (100-400mm) in for the mirrorless model when I get the [R-series] camera, is there any difference in performance to warrant such an action?"   The EF 100-4000L MkII is a better lens optically than the RF 100-400, but is massively heavier and much, much more expensive.  If you were going to get an equivalent to the EF unit in an RF range, then currently you would be looking at the RF 100-500, which is a brilliant optic (I have one) but expensive, although you can get refurbished ones.  The advantage that either RF lens will have is that the IS in the lens will work with an R-series body offering IBIS. 

What body will be available is hard to say looking a year ahead, the line-up has changed considerably in a short time and will likely do so gain.  Canon are projected to bring out an average of 8 new lenses per year for the next four years, so it is pushing things to give advice on what optics and bodies will be around in a year's time.

Another way of approaching the whole issue is to save your funds now and wait to get a balanced R-series body and appropriate RF glass in a year's time.  

cheers, TREVOR

Before you ask us, have you looked in the manual or on the Canon Support Site?
"All the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris

[Tronhard]

Hi Danny:
Thanks for responding!   I was referring to a post that contained links to reviews of the RF 100-400 and the EOS R6MkII.  It was quite a long post and I still can't see it.

[Danny]

I've checked everything you've authored within the past few months that references those products and didn't find anything that matched what you're describing.  I've also checked our spam filters and our "employees-only" back end and didn't find anything there matching that.  I'm not sure what might have happened here.  If you need more help on this, feel free to DM me.

=Danny.

[Tronhard]

It's odd... I saw it posted, and then edited it to correct some grammar, and then it vaporized.  I am just relieved that it was not deleted for links to external resources, such as reviews.   I shall have another go to write the thing again, later!
Thanks for your extensive efforts to research this.

[Danny]

It sounds like it would have passed muster.  Links to reviews and how-tos are fine by us.  Aside from those that lead to inappropriate or irrelevant material, the links we frown upon are the ones that lead right to a potential point of sale (except for those on our own site).  Too many of those and the Canon Community Forum could turn into a bazaar or a swap meet and we want to avoid that.

Thanks again for your continued contributions, and we now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread!

=Danny.

[Tronhard]

Good One!!!

[ebiggs1]

Ernie is thinking that you will get the RF 100-400 when you get an R-series body.

Thanx, Trevor. Yes the logical upgrade is the R series line.

[amfoto1]

---

@Far-Out-Dude wrote:

So my long term plan over next 3 years is this:

1: I will be getting a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens later this month, this will connect to my Canon M50 for taking pictures of wildlife, particularly wild turkey and whitetail deer. It will also be used for landscape and birding.

2. Next April I want to get a new camera, something better for the lens. I am disabled but think I can save between $1500.00-2500.00 depending on how much I am willing to go without. I once built a computer by going a month and a half out of a 4 month period without eating (Not all at once) and think I can still do the same.

3. If my GF has not left me by then I want to get the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens by April 2025 which will be a main landscape lens.

Now a big question I have is should I trade the EF model (100-400mm) in for the mirrorless model when I get the camera, is there any difference in performance to warrant such an action?

Thoughts on this?

---

Taking your steps or questions one at a time...

1. The EF 100-400mm IS USM "II" lens is excellent. It's very sharp, fast focusing, has very good IS and is very well built (the guys at Lensrentals.com like to take things apart and when they did that with this lens they called it the "most well built zoom we've ever seen"). All that said, it's a 3.5 lb. lens and will feel somewhat unbalanced on a compact camera like an M50. I'm not saying it's unusable on that camera... just be prepared that it's probably going to take a little while to become accustomed to it.

I have used this lens for a number of years with a pair of 7D Mark II that have battery grips and each weigh about 2.5 lbs each, incl. grip, dual batteries and memory cards... IMO my 7DII and the 100-400mm II balance well together. I also have an M5 that's similar in size and weight to an M50.... and have never used that lens on it. In fact I struggled a little to get comfortable using the M5 even with smaller lenses (four primes: 12mm, 22mm, 56mm, 85mm). I use it mostly as a street photograph/travel camera, occasionally for portraits, but added an L-bracket to make it a little larger (my hands and I aren't large). I use the DSLRs as sports, wildlife and occasionally landscape or architecture. As you know, the EF lenses can be adapted for use on either the M-series Canon or R-series Canon mirrorless cameras. I will be converting to R-series myself, eventually. So I've been asking around about the performance of the EF 100-400 II adapted onto those cameras and all users I've talked or corresponded with say it works great on them. But, again, there's the question of balance. The new R50 is almost identical size and weight as M50 (Mark II, but that's not all that different than original, if that's what you have). The R10 isn't much bigger. But I plan to go with a couple R7 and while they are a little bigger, they still are a lot smaller and lighter than 7DII. And I find it very unfortunate Canon didn't design the R7 to accommodate the BG-R10 battery grip used by the R6 and R5 models. This would have made for a slightly larger R7 footprint and possibly increased cost a little. IMO that would have been well worth it. Some sport shooters just don't want to spend upwards of $5000 on a camera with a built-in grip and/or who want the option to remove the grip when their job involves a 10 mile hike. I'm also a little concerned that the R7 has such a different control layout. I'm sure I could become accustomed to it, but because I expect to use the APS-C R7 cameras alongside a full frame model like the R5, to facilitate moving back and forth between them I would prefer cameras that have same general control layout (the way Canon 7D-series and 5D-series have, for example). 

2. All that aside, the R7 meets so many of my needs and would be such a solid upgrade in other ways that I will probably just suck it up and deal with the "issues" noted above. Of the current R-series, it's probably the camera you should be looking at, too. For one, it's priced right at the lowest end or your range, so you might be able to get it faster and not need to skip as many meals or eat so much Ramen and rice cakes.  Also, among the current R-series only the R5 has higher resolution than the R7... It's APS-C, but 32.5MP. That should make it quite capable for landscape and architecture, while still having the speed and "free 1.6X teleconverter" for wildlife and sports photography.

3. I have two EF 70-200mm lenses... It's one of my most used, shooting sports. So I bought a backup. One is f/2.8, the other is f/4. For one, there's a LOT of overlap with a 100-400mm lens. While I still use them quite a bit, I definitely use my 70-200s less since getting the 100-400mm. If I were working from a clean sheet and building a system, with the 100-400mm in my bag I might completely forego a 70-200mm... instead getting a 24-70 f/2.8 (which I have, as well as a lighter weight 28-135mm for those long hikes), or maybe a 24-105mm f/4... or an 18-135mm or 18-150mm with an APS-C camera. These pairings just make more sense to me, versus 70-200 and 100-400.

I also don't really consider a 70-200mm a "landscape lens". Sure, it can be used for that at times. It's somewhat of a specialized type of landscape shot that uses a telephoto. A more general purpose landscape lens, for me, is something in the wide to normal range... a 16-35mm on full frame, 10-22mm on APS-C.

I also don't need f/2.8 for landscape (or most architecture). f/4 or even smaller is fine, since I'm usually stopping down for these shots anyway. Not to mention, the f/4 lenses can be sharper corner to corner, smaller, lighter and often significantly less expensive as well! By the way, the 70-200mm f/4 I bought to back up my 70-200mm f/2.8 actually ended up getting more use. The f/4 lens is about 1/3 smaller and lighter, and I found I was usually stopping the f/2.8 lens down a bit anyway. If needed, I still have the f/2.8 (and other "fast" lenses). But for regular use, large apertures aren't always necessary... and may be a wasted expense.

4. You also asked about swapping to the RF 100-400mm once you transition to an R-series camera. That's certainly an option. It's not an L-series build like the EF 100-400 II is, but seems a very good lens none-the-less. Image quality, from all I've seen, is reasonably comparable... Although to me the EF lens appears to win at the long end of the zoom range (judge for yourself... https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1572&Camera=1508&Sample... ). At 400mm the EF lens also is a full stop brighter... f/5.6 versus the RF lens' f/8. This may be more of a concern when it comes to background blur effects, instead of worries about focusing and exposure. The R-series cameras can focus in lower light, can simulate exposure to brighten up their electronic viewfinder, and typically have higher usable ISO than the older DSLRs. The RF lens is a LOT smaller and lighter. It would probably balance better on smaller, lighter cameras. It's very affordable, as well.

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR

[Tronhard]

Great response Mike.   Like you I used the EF 100-400MkII with the large DSLRs and battery grips - for the extra energy reserve, balance and the portrait controls.  Shooting in portrait mode without the controls the grip offers is easy enough with a small, light lens, but get up to the heavy stuff and it's very awkward.   When I went to the R-series bodies I chose the R5 and R6 bodies and was able to get battery grips for them.  While it has many good points, for me, the R7 was a bit of a disappointment as a flagship APS-C body, not least because there is no battery grip available.   I shall stick with the current R bodies, but when an R5 MkII comes out or even an R1 (if ever) I might consider that.

In the post that evaporated I suggested, as I always do, that much depends on what is going to be produced.  Unless the OP is going to create large, detailed prints, I would say that something like the R6II might work for them, alongside a 100-400 - either retaining the EF MkII unit or getting the RF model, which (as you eloquently wrote) is much lighter but not an L unit. 
Here are a couple of reviews on the RF 100-400:
By Duade Paton, a bird photographer from Oz: RF 100-400, What A Ripper! 
By Gordon Liang of Cameralabs: RF 100-400 Review 

I had very much looked forward to the R7, but the lack of weather seal, no BSI stacked sensor (for a flagship ASP-C unit that was the killer) and the pretty pronounced pixel shift of the electronic shutter on high-speed FPS (one of its selling points), I decided it was not for me.  Perhaps they will come out with a MkII version that lets one use the BG-10 grip - common to the R5 and R6 that use the same battery - and have those missing elements.  Then I will consider carefully. 

All that said, I struggle with the logic of the OP's intentions.  If the idea is to get the EF 100-400MkII while they are using the M50 body, it will be heavily unbalanced. It will then leave them with the dilemma of deciding whether to retain that lens or dispose of it to get a fully compatible RF lens of the same focal length range, with the benefits in combining IS and other features that the native RF lenses offer. 

If it was me, I would avoid the 70-200 f/2.8 and EF 100-400 completely - I think we both agree the former is not a wildlife lens - and get something like a EF 70-300 IS USM MkII as an interim measure.  By not investing in the 70-200 and 100-400 (with significant overlap) they will be able to afford, when finances allow, an upgrade to a R-series body and RF lens. Right now we don't know what new models will be available as Canon is scheduled to release an average of 8 RF lenses per year for the next four years according to their announcement and there are doubtless other bodies in the pipeline.

For the OP's benefit, I enclose a link to my review of the 70-300mm lenses to demonstrate that they can work for wildlife and will be a much better balance and cheaper option with the M50 as an interim solution.  I would encourage them to look carefully at the results that the lens is capable to offer for wildlife - the rest is up to the photographer.

Canon EF 70-300 Lenses Overview 

[Far-Out-Dude]

I just wanted to let everyone know I have read their replies but am not going to reply in detail today, I am having problems with my back today and am not up to a long reply, I hope you will understand. I do want to quickly let you know that my wildlife photos are mostly done while in a blind off a Wimberley WH-200 Gimbal Tripod Head II which I bought for doing that last year, I can't hold up my 300mm for long because of back and shoulder problems so I do pretty much everything off the tripod or a piece of foam on the truck window. I do almost everything I can from the sitting position, standing is the single most painful thing for me to do.

I do see your points on the overlap and will reconsider that, It does makes sense and I thank you for pointing it out, I sometimes think with blinders on. I will reply more tomorrow if my back is doing better, I am sorry for being rude, it is not my intent.