Best focal length combination for wildlife photography

[desaigj]

Hi All

I have two camera bodies - EOS R5, Mark II and EOS R7.  I mostly use it to photograph birds and mammals.  My primary lens is the RF 100-500mm.  It is an excellent lens, but of late I have realised that I can do with a bit more reach especially for bird photography.  I recently paired it with the RF 1.4x extender (which I got on rent) and the results were excellent.  The drawback of using this combination, however, was that I lost the ability to use the lens at the shorter focal length under 420mm.  I also have a kit lens and a RF 100mm macro but both of these are not entirely suitable for the type of photography that I do.  I am now thinking of whether I buy the RF 1.4x extender and use it with the RF 100-500mm but to do that I will also need to buy another lens to cover the focal lengths under 420mm.  The two options that I could think of was to get a 70-200mm lens and pair it with the RF100-500 with the 1.4x extender or to keep the 100-500mm as is and get a RF 600 mm or 800mm both f/11 and use this with the other body.  Any thoughts or comments will be much appreciated.  Many thanks.  

[kaditey995]

Hello!

For bird photography, the RF 100‑500mm with the 1.4x extender gives excellent reach and image quality, but you lose the 100–420mm range. The RF 600mm or 800mm f/11 primes are lightweight and affordable for long reach, though limited in low light and background blur. Pairing a 70‑200mm with the extender setup covers the full range but adds cost and weight. A practical approach is to keep the 100‑500mm as is and add the RF 600mm f/11 on your second body, giving you both flexibility and dedicated super‑telephoto reach. 

[desaigj]

Thanks very much. 

[justadude]

If it's more reach that you want, have you considered the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 lens?  A lot of people that own it really love it for wildlife.  I know the RF 800mm f/11 is nice as well, but you might miss not having the reach between where your 100-500mm ends, and the 800mm starts.

Personally, I've never been too happy with extenders just because of the drawbacks.

[ebiggs1]

Any of that can work but the best and easiest solution would be to get the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM and be done wit it. No FL limitation, no tel-cons. Reasonable f-ratio, not too heavy and it is a very good lens.

[justadude]

LOL - looks like we both suggested the same thing at the exact same time. Great minds?

[desaigj]

Thanks very much, seems like the RF 200-800mm is the way to go!  

[desaigj]

Thanks very much. 

[FloridaDrafter]

---

@desaigj wrote:

Thanks very much, seems like the RF 200-800mm is the way to go!  

---

I photograph just about anything that presents itself while I'm out shooting (northeast Florida), mostly birds, insects, and plants. Primarily, I use the RF 200-800 on an R5 and the RF 100-500 on an R5 II.

Something you won't hear mentioned about the 200-800 is it's lack of built-in lens corrections and fewer element coatings, unlike the 100-500L. Just one example, the 200-800 has 17 elements in 11 groups whereas the 100-500L has 20 elements in 14 groups, so the latter is much better SOOC when camera/post corrections are disabled which equates to way less time in post. The 200-800 was designed to be corrected in camera or post or both, so depending on the way you shoot (time of day), the amount of time you are willing to allocate to post, and the results you are happy with, it may not be a concern, just be aware so there are no surprises. Despite it's price tag and FL, it is still a "consumer" grade lens and I'm not saying that in a bad way 🙂

I may not be the typical shooter because the majority of my shots are under forest canopy, mornings, and evenings. Lighting is always a challenge and, lets face the facts, the 200-800 at f/9 is a dark lens and even the outstanding low light abilities of the R5 series at high ISO, it's still a balancing act. It does better on our R6 series cameras, but I prefer the the higher res R5's.

I do not have regrets buying the 200-800 and it's a fun lens, but it's relegated to mid-day shooting when there is lots-o-light 🙂

Cedar Waxwing: R5 mark II with RF 200-800 from 60 feet. This image was processed in DPP 4 then cropped, framed, sharpened, and lighting adjusted in Topaz Photo 4. During this 10 minute session, I captured over 350 images which is typical for me. My keeper rate is well over 90% and I keep and edit them all (you just never know when you are going to get that "special" pose) so a days shooting with the 200-800 often turns into marathon post sessions. I have three 4TB and four 2TB NVMe external drives, all USB C and fast enough to work from.

Yellow-throated Warbler: R5 mark II with RF 200-800 from 20 feet.Since I was closer, editing didn't have to be as strong, still needed it, just not as intense with the sliders 🙂 I was under forest canopy for this one so light was poor.

Osprey: R5 with 100-500 and 1.4X telecon which gave me 700mm. Shot from 120 feet. This image took very little post and even with the telecon is far sharper and vibrant SOOC over the 200-800, I just gave up 100mm.

Herring Gull: R5 with 100-500 and 1.4X telecon. Shot from 150 feet.

I do believe the RF 200-800 is good enough if you are prepared to deal with it's shortcomings. As I said, it's a fun lens to have. Between the 2, I use the 100-500 (without the telecon) more because it's sharper and renders better, I just have to position myself better or crop a little closer. But as you probably know, the high-res, stacked, R5 II cuts you some slack in that area 🙂

Newton

[desaigj]

Thanks very much for the very comprehensive reply, Newton.