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?

[amfoto1]

No worries! Take care of yourself and get back with us when you can, with any thoughts or questions..

Since you mention using a gimbal head, I don't believe the RF 100-400mm has a tripod mounting ring, which may present a bit of a problem.

On the other hand, the EF 100-400mm II that you're considering does have a tripod ring... but the design of the removable foot on it is not conducive to fitting an Arca-compatible lens plate, which is necessary when using a gimbal. I replaced the foot on mine with one from Hejnar Photo, to be able to use it on my gimbal heads. This foot has the Arca-style dovetail built right in. (I wish Canon would do that with their lenses, the way both Tamron and Sigma do now.) The Hejnar replacement foot also attaches more securely than the OEM thumbscrew. There are several other manufacturers offering similar replacement feet for this lens: I know Kirk Photo and Really Right Stuff do... there may be others.

Neither of these zooms are ideal for use on a gimbal, because they aren't fully internal focusing and/or internal zooming. In other words, they change length a bit in use, so the equilibrium doesn't remain perfect the way it does with a fully IF and/or IZ lens. This is a relatively minor thing, though. Doesn't stop me from frequently using the 100-400mm II on a gimbal head (usually the Wimberley Sidekick). Some of my sporting events last 8 or 10 hours and that 3.5 lb. lens on a 2.5 lb. DSLR seems to get heavier after an hour or two! 😗

Two more lenses that might interest birders, in particular, the RF 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11 lenses both have built-in tripod mounts. However they don't rotate to allow re-orientation of the camera from landscape to portrait.  Kirk Photo and Really Right Stuff are both making brackets for these lenses that allow the camera and lens orientation to be changed, but they both work by unmounting and remounting the camera and lens in the other orientation. I think it's just a matter of time until someone comes up with a "hinged" mounting bracket that makes it quick and easy to change the orientation with these lenses. If no one ever makes a bracket like that, maybe I'll rig one up myself (no rush though... I don't have either of those lenses yet... or even an R-series camera to use them upon).

As this is Canon's website, I'm a little hesitant to mention them, but there are also Tamron and Sigma 100-400mm lenses offered in EF mount. AFAIK, these also can be adapted for use on either M-series or R-series cameras. The Tamron lens doesn't come with a tripod mounting ring, but one is sold separately for it. The Sigma doesn't even have option of fitting a tripod mounting ring. I'd also note that these lenses are up to 2/3 stop slower (dimmer) than the Canon EF 100-400 II. The Sigma in particular starts out 1/3 stop slower and then stops down even more very quickly as it's zoomed. For example, the Sigma has an f/5 to f/6.3 variable aperture. It is f/5 only until 112mm, where it stops down to f/5.6. Then it closes down another 1/3 stop to f/6.3 at 235mm and stays there the rest of the zoom range. The Canon EF lens starts out at f/4.5, stops down to f/5 from 135mm to 311mm, then is f/5.6 through the rest of the zoom range. So while the size and weight of the Sigma lens might appeal, there are several reasons it might not be the best choice. The Tamron is probably a better choice, so long as the tripod ring is fitted to it. It's also a little brighter than the Sigma... although not as bright as the Canon lens.

Finally, most of the EF to EF-M and some of the 3rd party EF to RF lens mount adapters also have a tripod mounting point (which might be removable). However, this doesn't rotate the way I'd need it to, if it were to be used on gimbal. The setup can only be either landscape orientation or portrait all the time., unless a bracket like those mentioned above were used. To me that's not ideal. I probably shoot the different orientations pretty close to 50/50 (another reason I really wish the R7 had option to fit a battery grip, for the secondary/vertical controls those provide).

***********

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

[Far-Out-Dude]

Okay first off I would like to say thank you very much to each of you for the help. If I do not reply to something it does not mean I did not read it, in all honesty it means what you said is above my level of understanding at this time.

I have interests in several forms of photography, never knew I was interested in landscape till one day at a falls I took a picture after watching a video about "Freezing time" and went out and gave it a try. So landscape is one that I am very much into. I have had an interest in wildlife photography the longest though I never had a lens that I could use for it until last year and now want a better one. I also have an interest in Macro but have not been able to kneel since 1988 when I was in the back seat of a car that hit a tree at 90MPH 144.841KPH for those I see are not using Imperial measurements. So Macro that is interest to me is pretty much out but I am also interested in Astrophotrography and after I get a better landscape lens that will be the next major lens I go for.

One lens I have looked at that I liked the pictures I have seen from for the M series lenses is the 32mm Prime, it seemed to have a nice combination of magnification and width that it would work rather well for landscape, that would be between the 100-400 and the camera, I have never had a prime lens and would like to try one after all I have heard. I would have to get it on payments though.

Now I won my M50 and have been slowly getting lenses as I go along, this is what I currently have.

Canon eos M50
Canon EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM Came with camera
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Bought with last Stimulus check. Use both for wildlife & landscape
Canon EF-S 18 55 macro 0.25m 0.8ft was a gift from a friend and one of my favorite lenes
Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens Only one I actually saved up for and one I often use on landscape

So I gave that information to maybe help fill gaps that may help you help me better.

The EF-100-400 is going to actually be purchased for me, it is a done deal as was agreed upon with the Mennonite I drive for, he is buying it for me in the next two weeks for driving him for next to nothing the last several years so this is a lens I will definitely be getting. After that I am completely open to any and all suggestions, I want to be able to save and get a better camera, one with better I think it is called focus tracking for wildlife.

For wildlife I take pictures of wild turkey, whitetail deer and anything else I can including birds in flight.

For landscape I take many pictures of lakes, waterfalls, fall leaves, Winter which is my favorite time of year, and pretty much anything else. I would like to take some sports shots as well just for the learning experience, hockey and American Football would be the two main things but may try some basketball or baseball as well.

The person above this post mentioned the way the lens would mount to my gimbal, I spoke with Wimberly and they suggested their P-10 lens plate mounted in reverse to put that lens on their gimbal. I have purchased some items for the lens over the last few months to protect it, mostly from Lenscoat mainly their RainCoat 2 Standard Camera Cover and the Lens Cover for Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS II (Black) I will also be ordering their RainCap Large (Black) & Hoodie Lens Hood Cover (Large, Black) My thought with the Lens hood cover is that I can take the lenscap off the end when I get in the blind early morning and then put that on to cover the lens and remove it silently when something comes out and not allow dirt, moisture and bugs to get on the lens.

Somebody brought up the Sigma & Tamron 150-600mm lenses, I gave very serious thought to these lenses, very serious thought but after looking at hundreds of pictures online, reading & watching many reviews online some of which I understood, much I did not I felt the best looking pictures I saw came from the Canon lens so when I was asked by the Mennonite which I wanted I let him know and he said that was fine, I then made sure he understood the costs and he still said it was fine so that is what I will be getting and I already have the Canon EF-EF-M adapter. Oh I have also purchased the Tiffen 77mm Digital Essentials Filter Kit which comes with a protective UV lens, Polarizing filter and Neutral Density Filter. I understand that there are better but this is what I can afford right now. I know some may find the Polarizing filter and Neutral Density Filter odd for this lens but I do like to shoot landscapes and waterfalls with my 70-300mm lens I have now and think I will use this for the same.

Oh someone had asked which M50 I have and it is the first model but it sat in the box for a year before it got any real use because I knew so little I did not know I could not talk long distance shots with the 15-45mm lens the kit came with until the day I took the picture below. This is the video of the camera gear I won, it is not a sales thing so I think I am safe to share it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHKJ9NYinwo&list=PLbBlHxGJ9l9zG8ax6zcywwd37BKKFm1Q_&index=2Picture that got me started in landscape

[amfoto1]

Hi, checking back in again on this discussion and I see a lot has been added.

First, I'm pleased to hear you're getting the EF 100-400mm II lens. That's really nice of that person to help you out like that. But,be aware the 100-400mm is considerably larger and more than double the weight of the 70-300mm you have. The lens you have is roughly 1.5 lb., while the 100-400mm II is about 3.5 lb. You will not be able to mount the camera directly to a tripod with this lens attached. If you were to do so, using the 1/4" threaded socket in the bottom of the camera, the weight of the 100-400m will very likely damage the lens mount of the camera and/or rip the mounting socket out of the bottom of the camera. You MUST use the tripod mounting ring on the lens itself and attach that to a tripod.

Assuming you have a quick release platform on the tripod (all gimbals and gimbal mounts use them), you will need a lens plate OR a replacement foot, like those offered by RRS, Hejnar Photo, Kirk Photo and a few others. Wimberley makes good products...  I use several. However, rather than having two screws to loosen, one of which is the original OEM thumbscrew that tends to loosen very easily, I recommend spending an additional $18 to fully replace the tripod mounting foot of the lens. Hejnar Photo's costs $70, is longer than the Wimberley P-10 plate that costs $52, and the Hejnar foot is attached with a single, socket headed bolt that stays secure! (Put a little blue Locktite on it, if concerned. But mine has never loosened, unlike the OEM foot which repeatedly loosened and can't be tightened with a wrench.)

Regarding the Lenscoat for the 100-400mm II... I recommend you return it and get your money back. I'm a fan of Lenscoats, use them on a couple other lenses and have their pads on my tripod legs as well. But I was very disappointed in the Lenscoat for the 100-400mm. The problem is that much of the surface area of the 100-400mm is rings that rotate and the front barrel slides in and out as you zoom. As a result, most of the Lenscoat for this particular lens is basically unusable. The front barrel cover piece has to be removed most of the time, can only be used when the zoom is set to 400mm. The portions of the Lenscoat that cover the focus ring, zoom ring, zoom tensioning ring and tripod ring all really need to be glued onto the lens to be practical. The only part of the Lenscoat that I bought that's being used is the short piece that covers the hood. And even that's not ideal. It makes it hard to find the button that releases the hood so it can be set up or reversed for storage. It also covers the little door at the base of the hood that slides open to access a filter on the lens, such as a circular polarizer that rotates to adjust it. I've also used Hoodies on some lenses. If it's the correct size that's snug enough to stay in place,  the padded neoprene Hoodie will be difficult to fit over the padded neoprene Lenscoat cover on the lens hood! Even more bothersome, I predict the Lenscoat will pull off the hood every time you remove the Hoodie, unless you glue the Lenscoat in place!

I agree that the Canon EF 100-400mm is a better choice than the 3rd party 100-400mm or 3rd party 150-600mm lenses. No need for 2nd thoughts about it. On an APS-C camera like you're using, 400mm is already a whole lot of telephoto lens! And if you need any more, the EF 100-400mm II works very well with a Canon EF 1.4X II or III teleconverter (I am not sure if it will be able to autofocus on an M50... does anyone know? There is "light lost" to any teleconverter... one stop with a 1.4X... so the f/5.6 at 400mm "becomes" 560mm f/8 when a 1.4X is added to the lens.)

Now let's talk filters. Honestly, I wouldn't consider using uncoated, lower quality filters like those Tiffen (Tiffen does make some higher quality, not knocking the brand). It makes no sense to put an uncoated, cheap filter in front of a $2000 lens! And there is no need for a "protection" filter on the 100-400mm lens. The hood that comes with it is nice and deep, doing a better job of protection than any thin piece of glass ever could. Those UV filters served a purpose with film (much of which was overly sensitive to UV light, causing color casts in images)... But there is almost no need for UV filters with digital cameras. There's UV filtration built into the cameras. On very rare occasions, a UV filter might help reduce distant haze in a digital shot... but it often can be corrected in post processing. .

I do have high quality, multi-coated UV "protection" filters for all my lenses. But they're stored in my bag until actually needed. I install these filters on my lenses when shooting at the beach, because of sand and salt air. I'd rather clean a filter than the front element of my lens! I also might install them if out shooting in a sandstorm, right next to motocross track or out at a paintball battle. Those things don't happen very often, so my UV filters really don't get very much use. They are probably on my lenses less than 1% or 2% of the time I'm shooting. If I didn't have them, I simply wouldn't shoot out in sandstorms and paintball battles!

A 2-stop neutral density filter might be useful for video, but is pretty weak for a lot of still photo uses. A 5 or 6-stop ND filter is more commonly used for still photography, to allow for longer exposures or larger apertures to be used in moderately strong daylight. A 6-stop or ND 1.8 filter "shifts" the exposure range nicely, to be able to choose the shutter speeds of several seconds for motion blur effects or to use very large lens apertures for shallow depth of field/strong background blur effects. This is a fairly specialized type of filter. Personally I occasionally use them for a landscape shot or a portrait. As such, I only buy them in sizes needed for the lenses I use for those purposes. I am sure I use ND less than 1% of the time, too.

A circular polarizer is by far the most useful filter with digital. It is the one filter that's difficult to duplicate in post-processing. A C-Pol can serve many purposes... reducing reflections, deepening the blue of the sky, making clouds "pop", increasing color saturation of foliage and more. They even have some uses for portraiture. There is some "light loss" when using a C-Pol. It ranges between approx. 1 and 2 stops, depending upon how much of the filter's effect has been dialed in. I use C-Pol far more often than any other type of filter. But even with them there are times to NOT use them, too. Sometimes a reflection is an important part of the image. And if trying to photograph a rainbow, a C-Pol will make it "disappear"! A C-Pol also serves no purpose when shooting directly a sunrise or sunset. The polarization effect is strongest when the filter is aligned 90 degrees from the strong light source, in this case the sun. The filter effect tapers off to nothing when it's 180 or 0 degrees from the light source. Pointing the camera at a light source is 0 degrees! All any C-Pol can do when shooting a sunrise or sunset is increase risk of flare artifacts in your images. Better quality, multi-coated filters minimize this, but it's still a possibility.

ANY filter you use should be high quality optical glass and multi-coated to minimize flare issues. Never compromise because a filter will effect every image shot through it... a lower quality filter can negate the effort to find and the money spent on a quality lens. This is especially true with multi-layer filters like C-Pol. Yes, some of the filters with these features can be quite expensive. In the past I would have recommended B+W F-Pro or XS-Pro circular polarizers for their excellent, German, Schott glass and multi-coatings. But they've recently gone up in price significantly. They also make high quality UV and ND filters, but the pricing on those has always been close to the same as every other manufacturers', who offer similar quality.

This got me shopping around. Eventually I came across K&F Concepts filters, made in China. They claimed to use the same Schott glass and have "nano" multi-coatings (which are usually 15, 16 or more layers.... more resistant to water, dust, finger oils and easier to clean}. They sounded good and I could by two for less than the price of one B+W filter! So I did and So far I'm impressed with the two K&F circular polarizer filters I got. They are the the Nano X which aren't their most expensive now, but were the "top of the line" last year. It appears they are now using Japanese optical glass in them, which I'm sure is fine. They were a little stiff turning at first, but that's better than loose and they seem to be getting a little easier.

In this K&F Nano-X series a 55mm C-Pol that fits your 11-22mm lens costs $36 bought direct from the Kent Faith store in Hong Kong. For sake of comparison, the same size B+W "Basic MRC" C-Pol costs $80 (8-layer multi-coating) and their top-of-the-line "Master" C=Pol filter is selling for $130 (16-layer nano multi-coating).

I see you're looking at some other lenses. I really don't think you need any more, for what you want to shoot. The 11-22mm and 15-46mm should be fine for landscape and general "walk around" purposes. Your 70-300mm will be fine for a lot of sports, but for really large fields like baseball the 100-400mm might be needed. That longer telephoto zoom will be great for birds and wildlife, too.  

If it were me, I'd get C-Pol filters for the 11-22mm and 15-45mm lenses, then I'd get lens hoods for any that I don't already have (the 100-400mm is an L-series lens, so it will come with a hood). If you wanted neutral density filters for long exposure landscape shots, get them for the 11-22mm and 15-45mm lenses, as those are most likely the lenses you will use that way.

Here are links to the K&F filters I mentioned, if you are interested:

• 55mm K&F nano-multi-coated C-Pol... $36
• 55mm K&F multi-coated 6-stop ND..... $27.

You'll find the 49mm size used by your 15-45mm there too, at even lower prices. But I would think the 11-22mm would be the priority lens to use with these filters. 

Shooting sports and wildlife with the telephotos, you will not have time to be messing around with filters and can't often can't afford to lose the light they absorb, making higher ISOs or slower shutter speeds necessary.

Maybe later you might get quality UV filters for all your lenses. But I would make them pretty low priority. They just aren't necessary very often. The lens hoods will do a better job protecting your lenses, and can't possibly do any harm to image quality, in fact will reduce risk of flare issues. Plus, it's even more important to use a hood when using a filter... to protect the filter! So get the hoods first, prioritize the most important couple filters and get those, then add any other filters sometime later, one or two at a time..  .

***********

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]

The information you have given is very helpful and clarifies a few things for me.  Considering you have just got going with the M50 and have accumulated that collection of lenses, plus the EF 100-400, and this whole project is seen as a relatively long term one - by your own words.  I honestly suggest you stick with what you have (100-400 included), save your funds and look to see what is on the market when you are ready.  The range of lenses and bodies could well have changed dramatically in a year or so - it has in the last year, for sure.

When you do decide to get an R-series body, I would recommend a unit that has some weather proofing and has good low-light performance, (with reference to winter shooting and indoor shooting respectively), which at the moment would tend me to go in the direction of the R6 MkI or MkII.  I note that at this stage you have not specified exactly what the output is - mostly digital display, on-line, small-medium prints, or very large, detailed prints: that can be significant.  But that is now, as I say, thinks may look a lot different in a year or so.  In the meantime, get to know your current gear - don't get any more M-series lenses - the platform is dying, but you may choose to keep the M-series gear for its compactness and lightness as a separate system.   The gear is only part of the result, the critical factor is how well you know your technology and technique and that comes down to practise, practise, practise...

[Far-Out-Dude]

Thank you much. Is there any prime lens that would perform as the 32mm EF-M lens I mention? I really would like to see why people tote the prime lenses so much. I forgot to mention that my sister Alesia died on December 20th, she had some form of Canon DSLR that I am supposed to get but I have no clue what model it is. I left to get away from everyone the day after she died, I had been wanting to shoot this location for several months and decided to drive out there and I took this picture, I think it is one of my best.

[Tronhard]

This is an image to be proud of, and I hope it retains positive connections for your departed sister.

I would suggest finding out what gear she has left you, it might be very useful, depending upon its type.

[Far-Out-Dude]

I know it is a DSLR, not the model of it though. I know she did not have a lot though. I am not expecting a $1000.00 camera, maybe a $500.00 one max and I mean at time of purchase, not what it is worth now. Thank you for the compliment, I intend to get it printed on metal, the walls in my house are old lathe and plaster and things tend to fall off. Ex brother in law just sent me a picture of a Fujifilm Camera. I will say right now he is playing a game, my sister and I used to talk about being able to share my 300mm EF lens because she also had a Canon. I am not surprised, he probably sold it to get the money, no scruples at all. I will make the best of it.

[Far-Out-Dude]

Oh somebody had mentioned balance with the M50 and the 100-400 I have been able to balance the 70-300mm rather well for the most part in each of it's positions, when shooting wildlife I tend to get it set for the 300mm position and then turn, raise and lower as needed on the gimbal. I had the thought of maybe buying the SmallRig M50 /M50 II /M5 Cage (Upgraded) version and because it has so many holes in it maybe attaching some weight to the back, another thought had been a grip but I am not even sure they make them for the M50 I would love to be able to get an R5 with a grip, a friend that is a professional photographer let me hold his and it was quite comfortable with the grip on it he also let me try his Tamron 150??-600mm lens on the camera and I know it is more than I can hold on my own and get a picture. Any ideas to attach weight to the back of the M50 on the gimbal would be appreciated. I have to go to bed, it is 4:00 in the morning and I have to be up in 4 or 5 hours so I have to leave but will reply tomorrow when I get home. Thank you again.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

We will all be interested to hear what camera you will be inheriting.  I am sorry for your loss.  I had a similar experience last year which was unexpected. 

I'm not sure adding weight to your camera is desirable.  The cage idea sounds like a better idea.

I think I'd hold of making any purchases until I knew what I was getting.  

[Far-Out-Dude]

The only reason for the cage would be to try to add some weight to balance the camera better on the gimbal. I do not do videos really at all, in the roughly 3 years I have had the camera I have taken 2 or 3 videos so there is no need for a video type setup which is the only other reason that I am this time am aware for using a cage other than the possible idea of adding weight as I had mentioned. I thank you for the idea though.