Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Sigma 150-600 vs RF 100-500 vs 200-800
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Feb 21, 2024 23:13:06   #
Basil Loc: New Mexico
 
MountainDave wrote:
You already have a great camera. Why not invest in better glass? The R7 <snip> If you watched Wegener's videos, you already know the 100-500 is a better lens overall. However, I was very impressed with the performance of the 200-800, especially for the money. I shoot a lot of small birds and rarely need more than 500mm on my R5. Long shots result in atmospheric distortion and haze, so I find them unappealing anyway.
I have a 1.4X but seldom use it. The R5/100-500 combo weighs 5 lbs and I can carry it for miles comfortably. The R5/200-800 is probably around 7 lbs. I also use the 100-200 range quite a bit. The eye detect and tracking is like cheating. Almost every shot is precisely focused. It also has a short minimum focus distance and….
You already have a great camera. Why not invest in... (show quote)


You make a compelling case for the RF100-500.

Reply
Feb 21, 2024 23:27:43   #
User ID
 
Basil wrote:
Without listing all the specs of each (most Canon shooters probably already know the specs), if you have or had the Sigma 150-600 with an R5 or R6, which of these three options would you choose, if you wanted to keep expenditures under $2k) and why?

1. Keep the Sigma and use the money to buy a R7 as a second body
2. Sell the Sigma and put the money towards the RF100-500
3. Keep the Sigma, don't buy a second body, but instead buy the RF 200-800

Which would you choose and why? Curious.
Without listing all the specs of each (most Canon ... (show quote)

I like "2" cuz the issue of a second body seems to be left fuzzy and unresolved.

Reply
Feb 22, 2024 02:02:10   #
Canisdirus
 
clint f. wrote:
That seems very unlikely to me but I’ve been wrong before. Wouldn’t it be counter productive to make images that are degraded on their cameras for any reason because people have a 50-50 chance of believing it is the camera. Not a great business plan. The better plan would be to have the engineers make their respective brand lenses even better.


Oh all of the big three companies do this.
The third party lens manufacturers aren't going to say.

But all non native long lenses will lag behind native...

Reply
 
 
Feb 22, 2024 02:30:28   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
Basil wrote:
Money isn’t a problem per se, but I just set a limit for myself not to spend over $2,000 (additional out of pocket). Your assumption is correct that this will be mainly for birds and to a lesser extent general wild life. As I mentioned in another reply, the Sigma is good but I’m sure the keeper rate would be better with one of the RF mounts.
My current gear (for birds) is the R5 with the Sigma 150-600.


Well in that case since you have a FF body with birds you will need all the reach you can get. Unless you have somewhere to shoot up close like a blind. So that would be the 200-800, but it is bigger, heavier and at f/8 slower than the 100-500 at f/7.1. Which is why it is over $500 less than the 100-500. Do you tend to do your birds in brush/shade or open sunny places?

I do most in my own yard over feeders in sun, clouds, rain etc. so I can shoot off a tripod out the door of the family room and I can use fill flash with one of the Better Beamer flash extensions.

Reply
Feb 22, 2024 02:37:37   #
clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa
 
Canisdirus wrote:
Oh all of the big three companies do this.
The third party lens manufacturers aren't going to say.

But all non native long lenses will lag behind native...


Do you have evidence of that?
Lag behind in technology? Not sure I’m following.

Reply
Feb 22, 2024 07:40:52   #
Canisdirus
 
clint f. wrote:
Do you have evidence of that?
Lag behind in technology? Not sure I’m following.


It's just the reason why third party lenses don't have as fast an AF than native lenses.

AF control is in the camera...not the lens. Native gets no speed limit...third party gets a speed bump.

As for evidence...I thought this was fairly common knowledge.

Just look around...you will find the data. I never looked because I buy native...moot point for me.

Reply
Feb 22, 2024 09:13:41   #
Jimmy T Loc: Virginia
 
Basil wrote:
You make a compelling case for the RF100-500.


In a pinch don't forget that you can select 1.6x (crop) mode for extra reach.
Yes CHG_CANON, I realize that you are discarding pixels. Close to what you discard in post by cropping.
However, it could mean the difference between getting the shot or not.
I like the performance of my Canon R5 w/CanonRF 100-500 lens.
Even when I shoot this setup in crop mode there is very little need for Topaz Photo AI, but it is always available and it will do the job if needed.
Clarification/Disclosure: 85% of my shots are within 100 yards. I seldom shoot wildlife.
Just in case you missed it: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-500mm.htm
Remember, all UHH'ers can spend your $$$, but you have to make your choices work. . .
Best Wishes,
JimmyT Sends


Reply
 
 
Feb 22, 2024 09:35:40   #
Canisdirus
 
Jimmy T wrote:
In a pinch don't forget that you can select 1.6x (crop) mode for extra reach.
Yes CHG_CANON, I realize that you are discarding pixels. Close to what you discard in post by cropping.
However, it could mean the difference between getting the shot or not.
I like the performance of my Canon R5 w/CanonRF 100-500 lens.
Even when I shoot this setup in crop mode there is very little need for Topaz Photo AI, but it is always available and it will do the job if needed.
Clarification/Disclosure: 85% of my shots are within 100 yards. I seldom shoot wildlife.
Just in case you missed it: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-500mm.htm
Remember, all UHH'ers can spend your $$$, but you have to make your choices work. . .
Best Wishes,
JimmyT Sends

In a pinch don't forget that you can select 1.6x (... (show quote)


Cropping going in limits you...if you can shoot FF instead. You can frame your image with much more versatility shooting FF and cropping later.

Reply
Feb 22, 2024 10:47:10   #
Basil Loc: New Mexico
 
Canisdirus wrote:
It's just the reason why third party lenses don't have as fast an AF than native lenses.

AF control is in the camera...not the lens. Native gets no speed limit...third party gets a speed bump.

As for evidence...I thought this was fairly common knowledge.

Just look around...you will find the data. I never looked because I buy native...moot point for me.

My Sigma AF is not bad. I suspect (without proof) the differences are due more to the much newer and better focus motors in today’s RF lenses

Reply
Feb 22, 2024 11:18:21   #
MountainDave
 
The AF in all my EF lenses worked better on the R5 to varying degrees. However, the RF lenses work better still so I would conclude there are improvements in cameras and lenses. BTW, my EF 135 2L gained the most. That lens was transformed. The 100-400 L II showed minimal improvement which was a disappointment and one the reasons I went for the 100-500.

Reply
Feb 22, 2024 13:34:44   #
clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa
 
[quote=Canisdirus]It's just the reason why third party lenses don't have as fast an AF than native lenses.

AF control is in the camera...not the lens. Native gets no speed limit...third party gets a speed bump.

As for evidence...I thought this was fairly common knowledge.

Show me evidence that major brands intentionally cause their cameras to make a non native lens performance degrade. The lens has limitations inherent to design, it’s not a conspiracy by the camera manufacturers

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.