bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

One of ongoing decisions that I deal with when I travel is "What lens do I take with me?". I read about that same decision here on this forum frequently. Granted, the type of photography I enjoy and indulge in is much different than many people on UHH; I almost exclusively photograph birds with my cameras. Landscapes, etc, are all taken with my iPhone. These are two shots taken from virtually the same vantage point in very similar, if not identical lighting, conditions. One, the Red Kite, was taken by wife with an R6, 100-500 mm zoom with a 1.4 extender, at 420 mm. It was shot at 1/2000 sec, f/11.0 (almost wide open), ISO 4000, EC of -.3. The second, a Raven, was shot on the same perch, from virtually the same angle, by me, using an R5, 600 mm f/4.0 II lens. It was shot at 1/2000 sec, f/4.0 (wide open), ISO 500, EC of -.3 (should have been 0 or even +.3).
Range was approximately 25 feet.
I do understand the increase of DOF simply by the difference in f/stop, but the point is that the very heavy (difficult to travel with) 600 mm lens is capable of shooting at f/4.0 and the lighter (much easier to travel with), 100-500 mm + 1.4 extender is only capable of shooting at f/10.0 when zoomed out.
Are both shots acceptable? They certainly are to me, but if I want a "wall hanger" picture, there is no doubt in my mind which lens I will pick up.
Does the 100-500 have other advantages beside size, weight and cost? Certainly, but if only IQ is my criteria, there is no question about it. I still lug this giant lens wherever I go to photograph birds.

(Download)


(Download)

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

Both great shots.

BArthur3

Very nice shots with spot on focusing -- and a useful and appreciated description of gear used and analysis involved.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

OK, I am in grumpy old retired teacher mode.
If you want the RF100-500 to shoot more wide open than f/10 - leave the extender off! It won't be an f/4 at 500 but f/7.1 works in most daylight circumstances and the difference between 500mm and 600mm is actually not a lot unless the subject is small or really far away. Then the 600mm f/4 with the 1.4x becomes an 840mm f/5.6, if you get a 2x for it it will still be an f/8. And since your are lugging the big sucker around, add a sturdey monopod rated to use as a walking/hiking staff and when you need a rest instead of looking for a safe/clean spot to set the rig down you just let the monopod take the weight while you rest your arms/neck/shoulders.

You also might consider the R7 or R10 (I have an R7+EF to RF adapter on pre-order) and then your 100-500 will have the AOV of an 800mm. Add the 1.4x and you have 1120mm at f/10 which will work on nice bright days.

I favor shorts or pants with cargo pockets and a photographer vest with lots of pockets so I usually carry my 1.4x III in case I need it. My usual out and about bird lens are 100-400L mk2 or 70-300L if I know I can get closer and want to save weight. I also have a Kenko 1.4x that will function everything with the 70-300L which predates the 1.4x III and therefore doesn't have all functions. If I know I can sit up with a tripod and not have to carry stuff a lot I have a Tamron 150-600 G2 with the 1.4x they made just for it and a couple of other Tamron lenses. None of my dslr's will AF with that combo but the R7+adapter will according to a couple of articles I skimmed while surfing the net. That is a rig for very good light only. And the G2 with 1.4x does get good IQ off a tripod in good light.

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

[quote=robertjerl]

OK, I am in grumpy old retired teacher mode.

Points well taken.
A couple of things. First, my wife was taking pictures of Great Bustards some distance off; hence the 1.4 extender. This Red Kite flew up quickly and unexpectedly, so no time to do anything but zoom out and shoot.
Second, I may have worded this topic poorly; my purpose was not an apples to apples comparison, but rather to show that if IQ is the sole criteria for selecting one image over another, then the primes win. Because often I am taking photographs in places that I will never visit again, I want the best picture I can get (I know that IQ is not everything). That is my justification for lugging a large, heavy lens (and tripod) around.
I love the 100-500; it provides good images and great versatility. I too have the R7 on order. Hopefully that will work well with the 100-500, but no matter-it will never replace the image quality of the prime 600 on the same camera.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

My wife and kid calls the long lens bazooka and would always tease me when I bring it out.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

[quote=bajadreamer]

I sort of had all that figured and agree with you. I don't have anything like the RF-600 f/4 and probably never will (unless I win the lottery). I have too many other things to spend money on that I would have to give up to afford one. Let's see, helping our daughter in Medical School - can't think of giving that up for a while, reading-I read a LOT-no. And our middle child Jon is special needs (30 but mentally a bright 5yo) and will probably be with us until we both die. Can't stop feeding and caring for our pets either.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

[quote=bajadreamer]

At first I was somewhat wondering what you were really asking. Now that you have cleared it up for me I can only suggest taking the 600mm f4 IF sharpness is your main or at least important criteria.

Sharpness is also a criteria of mine. I value it above most other values in a photo especially with birds.

Dennis

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

I compared the two downloaded pictures two ways - zoomed, but at the same image size, and zoomed to the same percentage. The kite is significantly sharper both ways in all three viewers I used. Were I to choose just on that basis, I would choose that lens. The size, weight and probably cost comparisons make the choice easy, though I probably would not use the extender. The only question I might pose is - you're comparing lenses, but not on the same camera; I don't know how much difference that will make!

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Fantastic images!!!

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

Both images are superb and clearly in focus, but I think I like the blurry background produced by your wife's lens a lot better than the nondescript background produced from your 600mm.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Both photographs are nice but suffer from hue contamination.
--Bob

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I see no difference.
I would definitely go with the far more versatile 100-500mm.

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

I agree.

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

Thank you. I worded this topic poorly. My goal was not a direct comparison of lenses or cameras, but merely to note that the quality of image produced by the prime lens justified its inclusion in my travel kit. The lens is a pain in the butt to travel with, whether it be on a plane, the backseat of a car or on my shoulder, but I feel the gain is worth the pain.