EF 100-400 II or RF 100-500?

[charley672]

Should I save for the 100-500 or get the 100-400 II for $850? I am a wildlife photographer. My main setup right now is the Sigma 150-600 C on the R7.

[jrhoffman75]

What is the Sigma not doing for you?

[ebiggs1]

" I am a wildlife photographer."

OK the first point I want to make is do you use your SIgma at 600mm? If you don't or rarely and only use or need 400mm or perhaps 500mm then OK go for it. \However if you are a truly a wildlife photographer you want all the FL you can get and giving up 200mm or even 100mm isn't a good idea. Most would rather get a root canal then do that. I know I wouldn't do it or even consider doing it.

Yes, I know wanting to go RF lenses for your R7 is a good thing but the lens you want to go to should be the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens. Instead of giving up 200mm how about getting an additional 200mm. Yeah that's what I'm talking about. Remember the old adage no such thing as too much FL 

[March411]

---

ebiggs1 wrote:

Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens. Instead of giving up 200mm how about getting an additional 200mm.

---

Absolutely would be the direction I would go for wildlife. The RF100-500mm is a nice lens @ $2700 but for $1900 you'll pick up the extra 200mm ebiggs1 mentioned. While it's not as fast as the RF100-500mm I have had no issues grabbing the images I want early and late in the day. This shot is at a distance with around a 50% crop.

[shadowsports]

Greetings ,

I would not continue to invest in EF lenses. 

I still have my Sigma 150-600c but retired it years ago after purchasing the RF 100-500.  I also own the RF 200-800.  There Is only 1/3 of a stop difference between the sigma and RF 100-500.  There is only 2/3rds of a stop difference between the RF100-500 and RF 200-800 mm.  The RF 200-800 is actually f8.5 but is marketed as f9. Also, negligible.  What you will notice switching to RF glass is faster focus acquisition and improved subject tracking.  The sigma 150-600c does a pretty good job on the R7.  If you are a wildlife purist then the 200-800 is probably the way to go.  Only you can decide this.  You will at some point replace the R7 so buying RF makes more sense in the long run.  

John's point is a good one. Where people usually run into problems with the R7 and 150-600c are, leaving IS enabled when using a tripod.  Using servo AF versus one point when tracking fast moving subjects.  Or, trying to focus on a subject closer than the MFD for the set focal length.  You should definitely upgrade the lenses firmware using a USB dock.  

Ernie's point about having the most focal length is also true.  The R7 has more than enough megapixels for good crop-ability.  

 I've used my RF100-500 more than my 200-800 but I have to say the latter is very sharp.  I took some pictures of the moon with it and was very impressed with the IQ and detail of the craters. 

The 100-500 is also unbelievably sharp.  If you search my images for Hubbard Glacier and Bella the Alaskan eagle. You will see the level of detail is truly marvelous.

But go back to John's question, what is the 150-600c not doing for you now?  Then decide if spending $2,500 or $1900 is worth The performance improvements.  Neither lens will be a bad investment as both will move forward with you. 

[March411]

To Rick's point "What you will notice switching to RF glass is faster focus acquisition and improved subject tracking."

RF lenses have a 12-pin connection to the camera, while EF lenses have 8 pins. This allows RF lenses to communicate with the camera faster and more efficiently. While using an EF lens on an EOS R system camera with an adapter you may experience some limitations to continuous shooting and focus speed as the EF uses older communication protocols and the connection for data communication is limited to the 8 pins.

If you decide to keep the Sigma I would suggest updating the firmware if you haven't already. After updating several of mine it greatly improved the focus speed, the continuous shooting did not improve.