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?

[Tronhard]

Hi:
Given your limited budget I would consider the following possiblities:
Don't get the 70-200 f/2.8 lens (you don't specifiy which version), instead look for the 70-200 f/4,L IS USM MkII.  For landscape work it is extremely unlikely that you will need to get down to f/2.8, and you can save a lot of money and weight in doing so.  I had both lenses (the f/2.8 MKII IS USM) and rarely used it.  I go the f/4 MkII unit and it is gorgeous - beautiful images and very light and easy to handle.  You will need to get a tripod ring for it, but you can use the MkI original or a compatible (I got one on e-bay very cheaply and it works fine).  I prefer the EF version over the RF lenses of similar FL: 100-400 and 100-500) because they extend and will have some bellows effect, dragging air and potentially dust onto your mirrorless sensor.   The EF 70-200 units do not extend, so offer some more protection.

As to the 100-400L - if you are getting the MkII version, it is optically a great lens and arguably better than the RF 100-400 which is not an L-series lens.  Again I have this lens and tried it on my R5 and R6 cameras for both scenic and wildlife shooting via the EF-RF adapter with no issues.  You will benefit from the fact that many EF lenses are coming onto the market as folks move across to RF native lenses but honestly they work fine, especially for landscape, which you indicate is your intended genre.
Since you will obviously 
 

[Far-Out-Dude]

Thank you much for the reply, a lot of good information there. The 70-200 I am looking at is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens and I would be buying new, I have just had horrible luck buying electronics of any kind used so I prefer not to buy used at all unless it is somebody in the area or a shop in the area and I am not to keen on that idea either to be perfectly honest. The other reason I was considering the 2.8 is that I may sit inside the woods in a blind in the early morning or as the sun is going down and try to get pictures of deer, so the extra low light performance would help, I think?

Two other lenses I have thought on though I just started thinking on these are the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens for a more walking around closer range landscape lens as that would be a different I think the proper term would be focal plane for landscape pictures. The other thought was the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens but again these last two are really new thoughts and I have to do more research online about them before I would even consider them seriously.

[Tronhard]

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.  

[Far-Out-Dude]

Well the way I am getting the lens is a Mennonite I drive for (Think Amish with electricity) is the one that is getting it for me for driving for him for so long, I have to get the lens before he changes his mind. lol I will edit this in a bit, just had company walk in. Lens I am using now is the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM by the way.

[ebiggs1]

If I had a M50, I would not buy any EF lenses. There is the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Lens you know?

[Far-Out-Dude]

I do not think there is an adapter to make a RF lens work with the M series camera's, am I wrong about this?

[Tronhard]

That is correct. I think that like me, Ernie is thinking that you will get the RF 100-400 when you get an R-series body.

[Tronhard]

I had posted at some length, with links to reviews, my suggestions for a lens strategy.  For some reason it has been removed - IF the ADMIN DID THIS PLEASE LEAVE A NOTE TO EXPLAIN WHY.  There was no offensive material in that post as far as I know!

[Danny]

Hi, Trevor!  Are you referring to this post?  If so, it was never removed and just appears in a different part of the thread.  Sometimes, where a post shows up depends what sorting option you've chosen.  At the upper right part of the page, just above the announcements box, there's an options menu that lets you choose how items are sorted in a given thread.

If it's a different post, let us know and we'll see what might have happened to it.

=Danny