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

Kokopelli_Rocks wrote:

I sold my other outdoor prime lenses and kept the Canon RF 100-500. I had used my EF 300 f4 IS for sports and it was great, but stopped using it after I bought my 100-500. Same was true with my EF 400 f5.6 lens. Great lens, just was no longer using the lens.

I bought the Sigma 150-600 c last year, right after I bought my R5. I liked the lens, but it is much heavier and bigger the the Canon. You also have a small AF focal area on the R5 with the Sigma. Sigma also makes a Sports version of the lens, but it is even heavier. I recently sold my Sigma 150-600.

Great to hear from someone who has used both lenses and knows the score.

I did keep my EF 70-200 f2.8 II for indoor sports. I thought about upgrading to the RF version, but the lens is expensive.

Same.

I have tried using the lens for other needs, but for me I find the lens too short for wildlife and outdoor sports and not wide enough for landscapes.

Same. I have been told that my 70-200mm f/2.8 is better for portraits than the 24-105mm f/4 I have been using. Waiting to test this theory OR invest in a killer RF portrait lens.

This year might be my daughter's last year for basketball. If so I will probably sell the lens.

Amazing how well they hold value. Am I crazy or did Canon actually raise prices about $100 across the board? The RF and EF lens prices David Busch quotes in his 1.5-2 year old book on R6 are $100 lower that street prices today. I used CamelCamelCamel extension (as I do with most Amazon products) to explore price history on the 100-500 and it shows that the price went from $2,699 in May 2021 to $2,799 in Oct 2021 to what it is now. Crazy stuff.

If you are actively shooting sports both indoor and outdoor I would keep the EF 70-200 f2.8 and add the RF 100-500 (if you can afford the lens).

In the movie "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" a group of friends are going in on a risky high stakes bet. They ask their friend if he can afford the money he is putting up. He says: "That depends. I can if I am going to see it again." Same here. I can afford it as long as I use it a lot and get killer photos. Chances are good for that. The end goal would be to learn to trust my gear enough to start taking fewer photos thus saving time, which, as we know, is money. As it is, I take 2000 photos where 1000 are good and 200 are great, so it would be ideal to take closer to 200 in the first place. An old-timer who shows up to our football games says he takes 400 photos per game. I don't know how that is possible. Experience and top gear I guess.

I just returned from a week in Yellowstone and the 100-500 was amazing.

Would love to see the photos. I clicked on https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_rf_100-500_4p5-7p1_is_usm/sample-photos and ... some photos are alright and then are some great photos but taken with a different lens that somehow got mixed in. And not a lot of photos altogether.