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.  

[ebiggs1]

"Great minds?"

[ebiggs1]

"I recently paired it with the RF 1.4x extender ... and the results were excellent.  The drawback ..."

Here's the thing you are adapting or converting or whatever you call it, something that wasn't designed to do something to something else. It can work but there is always a price to pay. The best, the very best is native focal length. End of story.

This goes for extension tubes or add-on filter adapters or diopters or even EF to RF adapters. You are still making something do something it wasn't designed to do. You never get the same level of return.

[justadude]

"Great minds?"


Or as my friends and I like to say "Slightly twisted minds think alike". 😂

[ebiggs1]

""Slightly twisted minds think alike". 

Say, I represent that remark! 

[desaigj]

Thanks again.  Would you say that in decent light conditions, the RF 600mm or RF 800mm, f/11 might be a good alternative?  I love the RF 100-500mm and would like to continue using it so switching to the 200-800mm is something that I am hesitant to do right now.  Thanks again.  

[justadude]

"I love the RF 100-500mm and would like to continue using it so switching to the 200-800mm is something that I am hesitant to do right now." 

Speaking for myself... when I suggested the RF 200-800mm, I didn't mean switching from the RF 100-500mm.  I meant "in addition to".  That RF 100-500mm is a keeper!  Use the 100-500mm when you don't need the extra reach, then grab the 200-800mm during the times that you do need it.

I could be wrong, but I think Ernie meant the same thing.  

If you were to go with either the 600mm or 800mm instead, personally I would go with the 800mm.  If you think about it, the extra 100mm on the 600mm isn't that much extra reach.  You are simply going to need better light, and higher ISO with one of these two lenses.  

[March411]

Great information Newton, pretty accurate review of the 200-800mm!

[ebiggs1]

"... when I suggested the RF 200-800mm, I didn't mean switching from the RF 100-500mm."

Actually, I would sell the 100-500mm to offset the cost of converting to the 200-800mm. If you do go that route then the 600mm or 800mm prime are a non-factor you don't need either. If on the other hand if you just love the 100-500mm so much, I would go for the Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM Lens. But why would you want to go two lenses when the one zoom, 200-800mm, will do both? (and give you 600mm, too)

IMHO, 400mm is about the shortest FL for wildlife, of course depending on what wildlife you want to photograph. You don't need as huge FL lens to shoot elephants as you might if you want to do small birds. Keeping this thought the 100-500mm is only giving you an extra 100mm of FL  (compared to the 400mm minimum) while the 200-800mm is giving you 400mm more.

I have a 150-500mm super zoom form Sigma and I do like that lens a lot. It is super sharp reasonably fast AF, but at times I feel the 500mm limit is limiting me and wishing for more FL.

For a long, long time, very long time, I have wondered why or who at Canon makes the decisions they make. For years I lobbied, to no avail, for Canon to make a 150-600mm f5 super zoom. They never did and let Sigma and Tamron totally dominate that market. Huge market everybody has one!  Why they stopped the 100-500mm at 500mm instead of 600mm, who knows. Not that it is a bad lens it isn't it is infact a fine lens. It is just 100mm too short. IMHO, of course as always.

So my friend you have a decision, a choice to make, which direction do you proceed? 

[March411]

The one thing to mention about the RF600mm and RF800mm @ F11 morning and evening shooting is going to be a little more challenging as these lenses aren't going to perform well in low light. The RF200-800mm will give you more light, 1 stop @ 800mm and 2 stops @ 600mm. While it is $1000 (or a little more) then the other two mentioned it won't matter if it sits in your bag or cabinet because you don't have good light. Like Gary I own both the RF100-500mm and Rf200-800mm. If I head out in the morning or evening and the skies are gray I grab the 100-500mm, clear skies the 200-800mm. I have a 1.4x extender that I pretty much always keep in my bag and only recently used it because I couldn't get any closer to my subject at Yellowstone. The results on the 200-800mm were fairly decent, clear day and some post helped the image. It's good to have one in your bag when you really want to grab an image but just don't have enough focal length. 

Aperture Range Rf200-800

• 200–267mm: f/6.3
• 268–454mm: f/7.1
• 455–636mm: f/8.0
• 637–800mm: f/9.0

R5 - 1/100 @ f13 ISO 2000
Lens RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x @ 1120mm

[desaigj]

Thanks.  Super complicated!  How about trying to mount my RF 100-500mm on the R7 for the extra reach?