Those with the 100-500, how has it been for wildlife?

[Lanner]

My main questions are this:
1. Is 500mm enough length? This is my primary concern coming from a Sigma 150-600.
2. Do you feel restricted by f/7.1?
3. How is the image quality at the various focal lengths? Is it sharp? Are there obvious issues?

I shoot with the Canon R5 Mark II and am using a Sigma 150-600 with an adapter (with control ring). I want to shoot wildlife, primarily birds and am struggling to find a good lens option that isn't too expensive (Im not willing to spent like $10k lol).

[March411]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I guarantee you, you will be 100 times, no 1000 times happier with the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens on your R series camera(s).

---

ebiggs nailed it, the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM is very nice lens with an even better price point. I would also add that outside of the IQ the lens, the lens is an easy carry and the 5.5 stops in combination with your R5 Mk II IBIS will be a great match.

[TomRamsey]

You've proven your words with results, well done.  Especially with the great detail on the red-winged blackbird.

[ebiggs1]

"I have a fairly decent stable of Sigma lenses that perform every bit a good as the Canon counterparts on both my DSLR's ..."

As well as I do plus some Tamron lenses and I totally agree. You would not want to bet your life on the difference. And the very much advancements in editing software like Photoshop 2025. I think especially true with the Tamron G2 series.

I did not take to the Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens although I came close. I still prefer my Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens which has seen lots of use by me. But I am still all DSLR and if buy today it would be the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Lens without second thought.

My thought is nobody buys a super zoom for the short end so 60mm or even 150mm isn't a selling point to me. Canon very much more wise, IMHO, set that at 200mm. However if they had done a 300-800mm and perhaps given us another half stop in return, I would be good for that.

I can probably count the number of times I needed or used the 1500mm FL on my Sigma Sport on one hand. But in defense of folks that do use the short end more than I, I have the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens which I sometimes carry or have at least it is close.

[ebiggs1]

I have a good friend who worked with me at Hallmark. He has the fantastic and beautiful Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. We are always going on about which is the better lens and of course IQ is at the top of the list. Build is similar so that's not an issue and, yes, I will give a bit of IQ to the big Canon but it is a prime it should win. But it does not have the ability to zoom down to 120mm. And again I would not want to live on the difference in IQ.

Both are a fixed f2.8. Both are big and both are heavy. Both are very expensive.