First attempt at photographing birds with R, and a question about lenses

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens 745-101 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

for $899 and cost of a monopod, this may be your best bet

Alastair moved to the RF mount very recently, so it might be a bit to early for suggestions like this.

2Kg, 268mm..................

see link

Re: EOS RP, Super Telephoto Options: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'll take "fairly decent job" for 1/3 the price for BIF

Alastair, like me, is not into expensive lenses

I didn't mean price/performance ratio, I meant size & weight.

Well, it's Alastair making choices here, but my bet would be he isn't going to accept 2Kg & 27mm.

Thanks for all the suggestions. You're right that size and weight is a big consideration for me. More weight than size really. I'm now torn between one of the 100-400 options (probably Tamron) and the Sigma 150-600. As I see it, the 150-600 is much more of a specialty lens, whereas I could see myself using the 100-400 a fair bit on both my M6II and my R. It might work fairly well on either for outdoor sports (mostly running for me, but I've always wanted to have a go at lacrosse or football (the kind with the feet), as well as birds. I see the 150-600 as something that's mostly for birds, and I just don't know how much I'm likely to do that. I find lugging around my 70-200 plus 2X extender a bit of a pain,

Funny. Your extender made me think of getting an EF 70-200 f/2.8 for my R in stead of my 50-100mm f/1.8 on M, as an extender enables you to skip an extra long reach zoom. Yes, that means I would lug around a heavy lens, but for candid portraits it's a very useful lens to lug around...... and candid portraits is the most important purpose in my photography.

yep, you need 70-200 f2.8

the reason there is a million hits on the following video

How to control your background with a 70 - 200 telephoto lens - YouTube

and the 150-600 is even heavier and longer. I have a monopod, which I bought many years ago, when my first 70-200 was the unstabilized F4 version. I've barely used it since getting my first stabilized 70-200. A compromise would be to use my 1.4X extender on the 100-400 when I really need the extra reach. I know I would lose a stop over the 150-600 that way (and get 560 instead of 600), but I've found my Kenko Pro 1.4X to give excellent results, and I've never noticed any slowdown in AF from it.

I think that's a great solution, especially given the fact you already own the extender.

The 1.4X is also pretty small and light. It would be F9 at 560mm, which is still 2/3 stop faster than the 600 F11.

And less diffraction as well. On the R it wouldn't be a big problem yet, but f/9 on your M6mkII is waaay better than f/11.

Ah well, lots to think about. Since looking at the two 100-400 options (Tamron and Sigma) and the Sigma 150-600 on Adorama, I've been getting emails from them at least twice a day, reminding me to buy! I expect I'll do some more mulling over. If anything more occurs, feel free to chime in. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's used the Tamron 100-400 on the R or M6II (or both). Someone reported that the AF on the Tamron is a lot better on the R6 than on the M5. But my two cameras are in between those two for AF. Both the M6II and the R have much better AF than the M5, but not as good as the R6. From the various reports I read, I'm guessing that they are closer to the R6 than the M5. I know that my M6II was a huge step up from my M6, which is at least as good as the M5, and I find the R to be pretty similar to the M6II in AF.

The subject tracking of the M6mkII should be more sticky?