amfoto1 wrote:
Full frame mirrorless cameras don't save very much weight...
7D Mark II... 2 lb. (with battery and memory card)
5D Mark IV... 1.76 lb. (body only)
Canon R5... 1.62 lb. (w/battery & memory)
Sony A7 III... 1.43 lb. (don't know if that incl. batt/memory)
So, at best, the camera change would save you about 1/2 lb. or 8 oz.
And full frame cameras need full frame lenses.
Canon has been doing some innovative things with their RF lenses. The new RF 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11 are pretty amazing and even affordable (but also are f/11!). They're using diffractive optics to help keep them reasonably compact and lightweight.
Canon and Nikon 800mm f/5.6 lenses are around 10 lb. and $13,000 to $16,000, respectively. The RF 800mm f/11 is under 3 lb. and $900.
Canon, Nikon and Sony 600mm f/4 lenses weigh 6.7 lb., 8.4 lb. and 6.7 lb. respectively, and each costs upward of $12,000. The RF 600mm f/11 is just over 2 lb. and $700.
The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 also lost a lot of weight and size (when retracted), by no longer being internal focusing.
Canon EF, Nikon F-mount and Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 each weigh about 3.15-3.25 lb. The RF 70-200mm f/2.8 is close to a pound lighter, at 2.35 lb.! They all cost between $2400 and $2600, except the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM III, which is now selling for $1900.
Canon has a new RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM lens coming soon that looks like a great choice for wildlife and - in spite of the add'l 100mm - at 3 lb. is over a half pound lighter than the EF 100-400mm "II". The RF 100-500mm isn't in stores yet, but is expected soon and will cost $2700.
Sony has an interesting 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 OSS lens that also would be great for wildlife and costs under $2000. But compared to some of the above mirrorless lenses, is fairly hefty at over 4.5 lb. However, it's considerably lighter than 600mm f/4 and 400mm f/2.8 super telephotos.
Sony offers a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OSS lens too... $2500 and at about 3 lb., the same weight as the Canon RF 100-500mm or less than a half pound lighter than the Canon EF 100-400mm II.
There's also a Sigma 100-400mm available in e-mount ($950), which is surprisingly light at 2.7 lb. (Sigma lenses typically are bigger & heavier than similar lenses from other makers). Apparently this lens is not yet available for Canon R-series mirrorless, but I imagine it eventually will be. (They offer a different 100-400mm for Canon EF mount DSLRs).
Unfortunately... wildlife photography = large, heavy, expensive lenses... especially with full frame cameras. Instead of full frame, you might consider downsizing to an APS-C mirrorless. Sony and Fuji are probably your best bets, as they have the most comprehensive systems. With one of their APS-C cameras, you could use a 200mm lens instead of 300mm on full frame... or a 300mm lens instead of a 500mm on full frame.... or a 400mm instead of a 600mm on FF. Of course, you could also use the APS-C Canon 7DII in similar manner, but the weight savings won't be as great.
One possible drawback with lighter and smaller APS-C mirrorless is that they don't balance very well with moderately large telephotos. If you plan to use 300mm and longer lenses on it, you might want to steer clear of the smallest APS-C mirrorless and possible make a point of getting one that can optionally be fitted with a battery grip, to better balance with big lenses when needed.
Full frame mirrorless cameras don't save very much... (
show quote)
WOW!! You’ve really done your homework! Sounds like Canon is the clear winner for the OP. It’s not really a fair comparison for same size lens but way different f-stop i.e. (your words):
“Canon, Nikon and Sony 600mm f/4 lenses weigh 6.7 lb., 8.4 lb. and 6.7 lb. respectively, and each costs upward of $12,000. The RF 600mm f/11 is just over 2 lb. and $700.“
The cost and weight differences are significant, though and if the RF 600mm f/11 does the job, then I say, GO FOR IT.
Very informative post. I shoot Sony full frame and the Sigma 100-400 you mentioned MIGHT be a better option than Sony’s G-master 100-400 Lens. Cost difference is significant!