R5 or 500 PF?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
lokatz
lokatz Senior Member • Posts: 2,299
R5 or 500 PF?

Well, I never thought I could be tempted away from Nikon, but I have to admit, the R5 looks very attractive. I have several great Nikon bodies, but since I like shooting birds and BIF, Nikon's ML offerings remain, how shall I put it, a bit underwhelming, though great for landscapes and similar things that don't move much. AF-wise, the Z7 II is not in the same league with the R5. The upcoming Z9 may be there, but at a hefty price delta (which is not my biggest concern) and with an integrated grip I don't really want. Whether it'll offer animal eye AF that really works is another thing that remains to be seen.

Problem is, Canon has nothing to offer, at least to my knowledge, that can hold a candle to Nikon's 500mm f/5.6 PF lens. At 3 pounds and substantially smaller than any other 500mm lens, this thing is easy to handle, easy to hand-hold, easy to focus, and sharp like a knife. Most of my shooting is done on longer hikes, so 4+-pound lenses are simply out of the question for me (been there, done that, sold the lens again). The 500 PF would be very hard to give up.

Does the lens matter more, or is it the body that makes the difference? My experience says 'both'; otherwise, this would be an easy choice.

What am I missing on the Canon side? Are there any good wildlife lenses that are better than the ok-but-apparently-not-stellar R 100-500 AND won't break my back?

 lokatz's gear list:lokatz's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Canon EOS R5 Nikon Z7 II +31 more
Canon EOS R5 Casio Exilim EX-Z9 Nikon Z7 II
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow