RF 100-500mm vs R7 and 100-400mm for someone with an R6

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
robgendreau Forum Pro • Posts: 10,221
RF 100-500mm vs R7 and 100-400mm for someone with an R6

I had an interesting discussion with a friend like me who has an R6.

I have an RF 100-400mm and love it and we noted some other praises for the lens in other threads here. He needs something for outdoors photography from mountain bikers and such sports to wildlife. He was interested in my 100-400 experiences, but it just wasn't long enough, so considering the 100-500mm.

But in talking it dawned on us that the 100-500mm is more money than an R7 and 100-400, which gets you a 600mm equiv reach if a bit slower, etc. ($2800US vs $1500+$600).

You get weatherproofing and sturdier build, and some speed with the added 100-500.

But with the R7 you get a bit more reach, spend less, and get a backup body (he does sports, so he might use both an R6 and R7 for fast changes from close to far shots). I'd guess better AF on the R6, but again not sure that outweighs the benefit of he backup body, if that's a need.

It's a compromise for sure, but as I haven't use either the R7 or 100-500 I couldn't offer much in the way of practical experience, I do  know the 100-400mm meets my needs, but the addition of the R7 does seem to make sense.

Anyone go this route with an R7 and 100-400mm? or maybe a similar crop/body lens combo vs a bigger, longer, more expensive lens? We're probably missing something in the thought process here, as usual.

Canon EOS R6 Canon EOS R7
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