franbires

I am looking for some feedback as I am contemplating purchasing one of these lens, depending on my funds and availability. Currently, I have the R5 paired with the EF 100-400II. The reason I am thinking about this lens is I don’t have the reach for photographing eagles, ospreys and songbirds. In particular with songbirds, I’m finding myself cropping quite a bit while trying to get as close to my subjects as possible. Thank you in advance for your thoughts. Fran

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Fran, I've just added the EF 500 f/4L IS II, picking up a used copy. I used to rent this lens when needed, about once a year for the Chicago airshow. I claimed I didn't need to own it because it is so large and heavy. That remains true as I need my largest backpack to carry it around. I can only shoot it from a tripod with gimbal, even after a year back in the gym, again it's so large and heavy.

Given your EOS R5, you should be serious considering other options, including:

The RF 100-500L and both the RF 1.4x and RF 2x tele-extenders.
The RF 800.
The RF 600.
The RF 800 or 600 w/ the RF 1.4x and / or RF 2x tele-extenders.

Consider your shooting technique too. Obviously, we call have different access to different wildlife, but I make do with cameras at just 22MP and 24MP with extensive cropping, still obtaining screen-filling images of birds, etc.

Finally, rent before you buy, so you have full understanding of the size and weight of either the 500L or 600L Great Whites. Plan a long weekend or week to give yourself a full opportunity to handle one of the lenses and all the issues they might present to your usage.

franbires

Paul,
Just the type of feedback I needed. Thank you. I have been pondering this for some time and will not make a quick decision until I consider the 100-500 and look into renting a lens. I have a fall trip to Grand Teton coming up so that might be a great opportunity to rent something. Once again, thanks Paul. Appreciate it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

When talking telephoto 400 vs 500 is pretty insignificant.
400 vs 600 you will start to see a true difference in magnification.

DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri

Hi Fran,
My thoughts are two fold. Those are big, heavy lens. Too heavy for me. So I can not help on those.But, I like my RF100-500. It also plays very well with the RF 1.4. I also like the RF 800mmf11. Great for perched birds.Not great in my hands for BIF. Also plays very well with the RF1.4. If I had owned the 100-500 first, I probably would not have bought the 800. Going to keep both at this time. Both have a place for me at this time. Something else to consider, as you are focal length challenged on your main subjects, is the just released R7. 1.6 crop frame. I have had one too short a time to say for sure, but it is really looking good to me. You can see some examples of what I have got on all these combos, R5 and R7 on my Flicker page if you like. https://www.flickr.com/photos/dj63401/

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Using full frame for birding takes a very SERIOUS DEEP commitment - both monetarily and physically !

I have been using crop frame for many years now and it has served me well. I make decent sized prints and they look good. I have full frame also, but if I know I will be needing max magnification it is crop frame for me.

As you are finding out, on FF you need a minimum of 600mm with the ability to get to 840mm or more.

If you stay FF, as mentioned, the 100-500 with extenders is a lighter/cheaper option as are the 600 and 800 primes. As regards the 500/600 primes, if I were to go out birding on FF, I want 600mm on the camera with a 1.4X in reserve to get to 840. The 500 cannot do this ! !

Going to the R7 you could keep the 100-400 and add a 1.4X - easy-peesy. IMO, if shooting songbirds, you need to be physically very quick, fast and mobile and shorter focal lengths on crop frame allows you to do this and gives more DOF - which keeps most if not all the bird in focus instead of just the eyes - which appeals to me
.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Fran,

FWIW, the EF 100-400mm II works very well with the EF 1.4X II or III teleconverter, which would get you a bit more "reach". The combo is 140-560mm, but you lose a stop of light, so will be at f/8 at the long end of the zoom. You can pick up one of those teleconverters for under $300 used.

I have the original EF 500mm f/4 lens and it's fairly large and heavy. About 8 lb. Mine lives on a tripod. I've taken very few hand held shots with it over the years. And, frankly, I now use the EF 100-400mm II a lot more often, with a 1.4X II when a little more reach is needed. The original 600mm is even bigger and heavier.

The $9000 EF 500mm f/4 "II" shed some weight, but is still 7 lb. The $13,000 EF 600mm f/4 "II" is actually ever so slightly lighter than the 500mm II. Of course, both of those would require an EF to RF adapter, as does your 100-400mm and the earlier EF 500 and 600. There isn't an RF 500mm f/4 yet. There is an RF 600mm f/4 (same $13,000 price tag), but it appears to just be the EF lens with a permanently attached EF to RF adapter... not a new design just for the R-series cameras.

The reason I'm suggesting alternatives is because there are rumors that with the next couple years Canon will be producing redesigned 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and 600mm f/4 lenses in RF mount... possibly using DO to help lighten them up considerably. It's all just smoke for now... but they already have 400mm, 800mm and 1200mm, so we know they are very serious about making some "big glass" for the R-series cameras.

Another option... spend $1500 for an R7. The APS-C camera is like having a built-in "free" 1.6X teleconverter. It puts 32.5MP on the subject, where using the APS-C crop with your R5 would turn it into a 19MP camera. The R7 with your adapted EF 100-400mm would "act like a 160-640mm", without the loss of any stops of light like you see with an actual teleconverter.

If budget allows (and it must if you are considering $9000+ lenses), also get the RF 100-500mm for use on the R7. $2900 and 3 lb., making it very hand holdable! On an R7 it will act like a 160-800mm would on full frame. Birders are loving this combo! There are various reviews on YouTube. I just watched a good thorough one by "Jan Wegener".... who also happens to use an R5. Another reviewer on YT is "Wild Alaska"... although his most recent is instead looking at the recently released, lightweight & compact, and relatively inexpensive RF 100-400mm instead ($650, 1.5 lb.)

Art Morris (Birds As Art) once said, "Birders never have enough lens." In other words, there will ALWAYS be subjects that are just too far away, too small in the viewfinder. If you have a 400mm you'll wish at times you had a 500mm or 600mm... Then you get one of those... and wish you had an 800mm or 1200mm! All the while there are diminishing returns because with each step up to a longer lens you're shooting through more and more atmosphere, which isn't kind to image quality.

500mm + 1.4X (700mm) on APS-C (equiv. to 1120mm full frame)...

Photolady2014 Loc: Southwest Colorado

I have both the 100-500 and the RF 600mm f4 that I use on the R5.

In Yellowstone I love the 600mm. I have a 1.4 and 2x I use on it. Mostly the 1.4 lives on the 600mm. I can not hand hold the 600mm. So I have the 100-500 for closer stuff and when I have to jump out and take the photo fast. If we are watching a bear at 100+ yards or coyote or wolf, the 600 on a tripod and gimbal come out. I have been seen running down the road to stay ahead of a bear with the 600 and tripod over the shoulder!

The crop ability of the R5 is amazing. I just posted bear photos of a mom grizzly and cubs. They were over 100 yards. They were at 1200 mm and heavy crop. Are they good enough for a large print, no but I will put them in a book I make every year. I posted baby bear antics today. This I have just a few minutes to jump out and take shots before traffic moved. 100-500 to the rescue. Plus this baby was a little closer.

600mm and 1.4 heavy crop

Hope this helps. If you have questions, feel free to PM me!

(Download)

recb

For birds and other wildlife, I used to use a 300 2.8 II L lens with a version III 2x extender. I felt this gave the greatest reach while still being light enough to handhold. Now I use the RF 100-500 with a 1.4 extender which gives more reach in a lighter package which provides awesome results. Of course there are tradeoffs such as wide open F10 vs. F5.6 and I miss the 6ft to 20ft focus setting, but those are minor when considering all the benefits for my use.

bsmith52 Loc: Northeast Alabama

If you consider the RF 800mm take a look at a guy on Flickr, Harry Calderbank. He shoots a lot with the lens on the Canon RP and gets amazing results, even using the 1.4 extender. Link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143119536@N04. Once there type in the search box at the top "rf 800mm"

franbires

I want to thank everyone who responded to my post titled “Canon 500mm vs 600mm.” All if you gave me a lot to think about and I really appreciate it. UHH is a tremendous resource. Thank you. Fran