Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 as an upgrade to 70-200mm f/2.8 for sports?

atolk wrote:

I successfully upgraded my trusty 6D to R6. I have shot several swim meets and a baseball game with the R6 + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II + EF x1.4 converter + EF-R adapter.

Overall, I would say the camera + lens performed about as expected; my expectations were high. In good light, swimming photos were amazing with lots of keepers. In bad light, there was a lot of garbage and a lot of post processing for the keepers. I was still messing with AF settings, and part of it is my fault.

For high school daytime baseball AF performance and overall sharpness was solid, not exceptional, but AE was outstanding compared to both 6D and Sony a6500 I have used in the past.

I found two limitations with my setup. One, it seems the best selling photos (if I am ever to sign up with MaxPreps) are photos with lots of athlete's face. The most desirable photo of a pitcher it seems is head to waist, not head to feet. I can't get that with my 200mm x 1.4=280mm. Everyone wants facial expressions, smiles, reactions, no matter the sport -- football to swim, and I seem to be shooting all of them these days except for track and golf, but that's all to come I am sure.

Two, the 20fps electronic shutter speed that seemed an overkill on paper (as in "too many frames to look at in post") and the much more practical 12fps mechanical shutter did not materialize on practice. Both the David Busch book on R6 and the thread here where I was getting R6 lens advice mentioned that the non-RF lens will reduce the fps, but I had no idea the reduction would be this severe. I am estimating 3-5 fps. I did not get a single frame out of about 800 attempted of a bat connecting with the ball.

Two additional observations. 1/1000s is probably too slow for baseball (at least for batting) and f/4 (the f/2.8 lens with x1.4 teleconverter stops down to f/4) is too shallow to shoot the dugout and any fist-bumps/hand-shakes/hugs, basically anything involving more than one player.

With all that said my eyes are on the $2,899 RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS. It shows 5 stars on Amazon, but when zoomed in, it's more like 4.9 with a couple of people giving a flippant one star and a thoughtful three stars based on some perceived design flaws. Also some of the sample galleries from the reviews reflect better on the lens than on the photographer.

I think the 100-500 will be killer for baseball, soccer, lacrosse and swimming. I think it may be less useful for basketball, but could work for volleyball. I think it will also be killer for early evening early fall football and may even hold up later into the game if the high ISO performance of R6 is as advertised.

Great lens. I can only share one experience. I shot a nigh-time football game with with a 7D and 300 F4 IS. That night I learned what the meaning of a fast lens was. What I would have given for one more stop. The shots turned out fine but I really had to work on NR. However toady with all the great 3rd party NR software not big an issue. So if you need speed that is something to consider.

My only question is: isn't there a Sigma or another respected lens for half the price? If so, it is probably an EF mount. Am I right in understanding that at present there are no third-party RF lenses? Is there an expectation that there will be?

Don't think there are any 3rd party RF lenses out yet.

I think buying a non-RF lens to go with an R camera is a bit shooting oneself in the foot. No need to throw out existing EF lenses if they work well, but one should probably go all in on RF going forward.

What are your feelings and advice, both specific and philosophic? I am a fan of both.

How deep are your pockets? Good deals on used EF glass. I sold everything and went all mirrorless. Flange design places the rear lens closer to the sensor which improves IQ. 12 pins instead of 8 for faster glass to camera transmission to speeds. No adapters to deal with. It's the future and I'm glad I did it.