RF100-500 or EF 500mm F4

Chris Wolfgram said:

R2D2 said:

The 600 and 800 f/11 lenses are certainly two other lenses the OP can be looking at (he is reach-limited like you). They are much too limiting IMHO for other types of shooting though.

Click to expand...

I have often said, they are totally limited to exactly what I shoot 95+% of the time

Click to expand...

Like I said, you and the OP both have the same requirement (reach), and could utilize both of these lenses.

Chris Wolfgram said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

I need the versatility of the zoom myself

Click to expand...

I just got back from a 4500 mile photography trip. Took 12,000 shots. I think maybe 5 times I could have got some full body shots of larger birds if I could have zoomed out... But instead, I got some fantastic head shots, a couple of which actually made it to my Flicker page

Click to expand...

Very nice pics! But you and I have different priorities obviously. On my excursions I also shoot lots of other flora and fauna that require either much closer MFDs or wider FOVs. Something that the zoom can provide much more readily. I only put that out there for the OP to consider, esp if he will be shooting other subjects with said lens.

Chris Wolfgram said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

However there really is a very large gap between an f/10 or f/11 lens and the big 500 f/4. Admittedly you might not realize that until you’ve shot with it for a while. The bokeh (and character) are simply in another league. And keep in mind that the OP does not have a lot of (compositional) options to maximize background blur (see samples from his previous threads). IMHO increasing DOF control will absolutely impart a more professional look.

R2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And I still stand by this statement as well.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.

ChrisLeong said:

R2D2 said:

However there really is a very large gap between an f/10 or f/11 lens and the big 500 f/4. Admittedly you might not realize that until you’ve shot with it for a while. The bokeh (and character) are simply in another league. And keep in mind that the OP does not have a lot of (compositional) options to maximize background blur (see samples from his previous threads). IMHO increasing DOF control will absolutely impart a more professional look.

R2

Click to expand...

Thank you for noticing my work mate.

Click to expand...

No, thank YOU for posting samples (in a previous thread). It really helps for others to know your specific needs! :-D

Good luck in your quest!

R2

R2D2 said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

R2D2 said:

The 600 and 800 f/11 lenses are certainly two other lenses the OP can be looking at (he is reach-limited like you). They are much too limiting IMHO for other types of shooting though.

Click to expand...

I have often said, they are totally limited to exactly what I shoot 95+% of the time

Click to expand...

Like I said, you and the OP both have the same requirement (reach), and could utilize both of these lenses.

R2D2 said:

R2D2 said:

I need the versatility of the zoom myself

Click to expand...

I just got back from a 4500 mile photography trip. Took 12,000 shots. I think maybe 5 times I could have got some full body shots of larger birds if I could have zoomed out... But instead, I got some fantastic head shots, a couple of which actually made it to my Flicker page

Click to expand...

Very nice pics! But you and I have different priorities obviously. On my excursions I also shoot lots of other flora and fauna that require either much closer MFDs or wider FOVs. Something that the zoom can provide much more readily. I only put that out there for the OP to consider, esp if he will be shooting other subjects with said lens.

R2D2 said:

R2D2 said:

However there really is a very large gap between an f/10 or f/11 lens and the big 500 f/4. Admittedly you might not realize that until you’ve shot with it for a while. The bokeh (and character) are simply in another league. And keep in mind that the OP does not have a lot of (compositional) options to maximize background blur (see samples from his previous threads). IMHO increasing DOF control will absolutely impart a more professional look.

R2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And I still stand by this statement as well.

R2

Click to expand...

+1 on the difference in bokeh between the lenses. I have thousands of pictures where me and my wife took the same pic standing side by side. I am using the 500 F4, and she is using the RF100-500. IMO, the bokeh in my images is much better than my wifes RF100-500 images. But, both of our images are still good. At the end of the day, we both like the images we capture, and we both like the kit that we chose (my wife hates the size/weight of the big white primes - she says she will never own one because of that).

There are pluses and minuses to each one of these super telephoto lenses - each person needs to decide what works best with them. A lens that sits in the closet unused is not the right lens for that person.

Shawn

Shawn1519 said:

R2D2 said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

R2D2 said:

The 600 and 800 f/11 lenses are certainly two other lenses the OP can be looking at (he is reach-limited like you). They are much too limiting IMHO for other types of shooting though.

Click to expand...

I have often said, they are totally limited to exactly what I shoot 95+% of the time

Click to expand...

Like I said, you and the OP both have the same requirement (reach), and could utilize both of these lenses.

Shawn1519 said:

Shawn1519 said:

I need the versatility of the zoom myself

Click to expand...

I just got back from a 4500 mile photography trip. Took 12,000 shots. I think maybe 5 times I could have got some full body shots of larger birds if I could have zoomed out... But instead, I got some fantastic head shots, a couple of which actually made it to my Flicker page

Click to expand...

Very nice pics! But you and I have different priorities obviously. On my excursions I also shoot lots of other flora and fauna that require either much closer MFDs or wider FOVs. Something that the zoom can provide much more readily. I only put that out there for the OP to consider, esp if he will be shooting other subjects with said lens.

Shawn1519 said:

Shawn1519 said:

However there really is a very large gap between an f/10 or f/11 lens and the big 500 f/4. Admittedly you might not realize that until you’ve shot with it for a while. The bokeh (and character) are simply in another league. And keep in mind that the OP does not have a lot of (compositional) options to maximize background blur (see samples from his previous threads). IMHO increasing DOF control will absolutely impart a more professional look.

R2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And I still stand by this statement as well.

R2

Click to expand...

+1 on the difference in bokeh between the lenses.

Click to expand...

Again, jmpo, but the difference in bokeh between an F4 and say an F8, or even F11, has SO much more to do with the separation of the subject and the BG, than it does the aperture of the lens.

I have a bunch of shots on my Flickr page, in which the BG is a 100% blur. The Woodpecker shot above is pretty close to that. But then I don’t think the amount of detail in the other shot here hurts the shot (distracts from the subject) at all either. I could have easily softened the sticks in the bottom left, or the whole BG for that matter (in a completely undetectable way) if I knew this would have been a discussion lol

I’m not saying that an F4 won’t help with softer BG’s, but almost never will it be a make it, or break it kind if difference. Now, the separation between the subject and BG can, and more often does make that kind of difference.

Shawn1519 said:

I have thousands of pictures where me and my wife took the same pic standing side by side. I am using the 500 F4, and she is using the RF100-500. IMO, the bokeh in my images is much better than my wifes RF100-500 images. But, both of our images are still good. At the end of the day, we both like the images we capture, and we both like the kit that we chose (my wife hates the size/weight of the big white primes - she says she will never own one because of that).

There are pluses and minuses to each one of these super telephoto lenses - each person needs to decide what works best with them. A lens that sits in the closet unused is not the right lens for that person.

Shawn

Click to expand...

--
Every day in the field is a blessing. Nice photos, of beautiful birds and wildlife are just a bonus.
No time or attention given for negativity or trolls.

Chris Wolfgram said:

Shawn1519 said:

R2D2 said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

R2D2 said:

The 600 and 800 f/11 lenses are certainly two other lenses the OP can be looking at (he is reach-limited like you). They are much too limiting IMHO for other types of shooting though.

Click to expand...

I have often said, they are totally limited to exactly what I shoot 95+% of the time

Click to expand...

Like I said, you and the OP both have the same requirement (reach), and could utilize both of these lenses.

Chris Wolfgram said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

I need the versatility of the zoom myself

Click to expand...

I just got back from a 4500 mile photography trip. Took 12,000 shots. I think maybe 5 times I could have got some full body shots of larger birds if I could have zoomed out... But instead, I got some fantastic head shots, a couple of which actually made it to my Flicker page

Click to expand...

Very nice pics! But you and I have different priorities obviously. On my excursions I also shoot lots of other flora and fauna that require either much closer MFDs or wider FOVs. Something that the zoom can provide much more readily. I only put that out there for the OP to consider, esp if he will be shooting other subjects with said lens.

Chris Wolfgram said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

However there really is a very large gap between an f/10 or f/11 lens and the big 500 f/4. Admittedly you might not realize that until you’ve shot with it for a while. The bokeh (and character) are simply in another league. And keep in mind that the OP does not have a lot of (compositional) options to maximize background blur (see samples from his previous threads). IMHO increasing DOF control will absolutely impart a more professional look.

R2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And I still stand by this statement as well.

R2

Click to expand...

+1 on the difference in bokeh between the lenses.

Click to expand...

Again, jmpo, but the difference in bokeh between an F4 and say an F8, or even F11, has SO much more to do with the separation of the subject and the BG, than it does the aperture of the lens.

I have a bunch of shots on my Flickr page, in which the BG is a 100% blur. The Woodpecker shot above is pretty close to that. But then I don’t think the amount of detail in the other shot here hurts the shot (distracts from the subject) at all either. I could have easily softened the sticks in the bottom left, or the whole BG for that matter (in a completely undetectable way) if I knew this would have been a discussion lol

I’m not saying that an F4 won’t help with softer BG’s, but almost never will it be a make it, or break it kind if difference. Now, the separation between the subject and BG can, and more often does make that kind of difference.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the 600mm F11 works great for you. You have some great photos. I have never knocked that lens. But, in every instance, a 500mm F4 (or 700mm F5.6 with 1.4x) WILL ALWAYS provide better bokeh than a 600mm at F11. I dont mind the size/weight of the 500 F4, so the 500mm F4 mk ii is the better lens for me. And if I want to go smaller size, I have the EF 100-400 mk ii (or I could steal my wifes RF 100-500 lol).

Will either one make or break a shot? nope, absolutely not. Again, it is all about needs and how the equipment will be used. The 600 F11 is a great, small compact lens that doesnt cost much $$$. The RF 100-500 is a little larger/heavy, but does provide zoom, but cost more $$$. The big white primes will provide the best image quality, but are not very portable (if you cant get the camera gear to the photo location, then that is a missed photo), and cost insane $$$ amounts. Canon has done a good job in giving their customers several super telephoto options at various price points.

Chris Wolfgram said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

I have thousands of pictures where me and my wife took the same pic standing side by side. I am using the 500 F4, and she is using the RF100-500. IMO, the bokeh in my images is much better than my wifes RF100-500 images. But, both of our images are still good. At the end of the day, we both like the images we capture, and we both like the kit that we chose (my wife hates the size/weight of the big white primes - she says she will never own one because of that).

There are pluses and minuses to each one of these super telephoto lenses - each person needs to decide what works best with them. A lens that sits in the closet unused is not the right lens for that person.

Shawn

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Shawn

Shawn1519 said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

Shawn1519 said:

R2D2 said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

R2D2 said:

The 600 and 800 f/11 lenses are certainly two other lenses the OP can be looking at (he is reach-limited like you). They are much too limiting IMHO for other types of shooting though.

Click to expand...

I have often said, they are totally limited to exactly what I shoot 95+% of the time

Click to expand...

Like I said, you and the OP both have the same requirement (reach), and could utilize both of these lenses.

Shawn1519 said:

Shawn1519 said:

I need the versatility of the zoom myself

Click to expand...

I just got back from a 4500 mile photography trip. Took 12,000 shots. I think maybe 5 times I could have got some full body shots of larger birds if I could have zoomed out... But instead, I got some fantastic head shots, a couple of which actually made it to my Flicker page

Click to expand...

Very nice pics! But you and I have different priorities obviously. On my excursions I also shoot lots of other flora and fauna that require either much closer MFDs or wider FOVs. Something that the zoom can provide much more readily. I only put that out there for the OP to consider, esp if he will be shooting other subjects with said lens.

Shawn1519 said:

Shawn1519 said:

However there really is a very large gap between an f/10 or f/11 lens and the big 500 f/4. Admittedly you might not realize that until you’ve shot with it for a while. The bokeh (and character) are simply in another league. And keep in mind that the OP does not have a lot of (compositional) options to maximize background blur (see samples from his previous threads). IMHO increasing DOF control will absolutely impart a more professional look.

R2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And I still stand by this statement as well.

R2

Click to expand...

+1 on the difference in bokeh between the lenses.

Click to expand...

Again, jmpo, but the difference in bokeh between an F4 and say an F8, or even F11, has SO much more to do with the separation of the subject and the BG, than it does the aperture of the lens.

I have a bunch of shots on my Flickr page, in which the BG is a 100% blur. The Woodpecker shot above is pretty close to that. But then I don’t think the amount of detail in the other shot here hurts the shot (distracts from the subject) at all either. I could have easily softened the sticks in the bottom left, or the whole BG for that matter (in a completely undetectable way) if I knew this would have been a discussion lol

I’m not saying that an F4 won’t help with softer BG’s, but almost never will it be a make it, or break it kind if difference. Now, the separation between the subject and BG can, and more often does make that kind of difference.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the 600mm F11 works great for you. You have some great photos. I have never knocked that lens. But, in every instance, a 500mm F4 (or 700mm F5.6 with 1.4x) WILL ALWAYS provide better bokeh than a 600mm at F11. I dont mind the size/weight of the 500 F4, so the 500mm F4 mk ii is the better lens for me. And if I want to go smaller size, I have the EF 100-400 mk ii (or I could steal my wifes RF 100-500 lol).

Will either one make or break a shot? nope, absolutely not. Again, it is all about needs and how the equipment will be used. The 600 F11 is a great, small compact lens that doesnt cost much $$$. The RF 100-500 is a little larger/heavy, but does provide zoom, but cost more $$$. The big white primes will provide the best image quality, but are not very portable (if you cant get the camera gear to the photo location, then that is a missed photo), and cost insane $$$ amounts. Canon has done a good job in giving their customers several super telephoto options at various price points.

Shawn1519 said:

Shawn1519 said:

I have thousands of pictures where me and my wife took the same pic standing side by side. I am using the 500 F4, and she is using the RF100-500. IMO, the bokeh in my images is much better than my wifes RF100-500 images. But, both of our images are still good. At the end of the day, we both like the images we capture, and we both like the kit that we chose (my wife hates the size/weight of the big white primes - she says she will never own one because of that).

There are pluses and minuses to each one of these super telephoto lenses - each person needs to decide what works best with them. A lens that sits in the closet unused is not the right lens for that person.

Shawn

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Shawn

Click to expand...

Thank you. And I certainly never knock the Big Whites either, although if I were to ever buy one, it would be the 600 F4, or better yet, an 800 F5.6. Either way, they would both probably have a 1.4 or 2 X's TC on them at all times.

--
Every day in the field is a blessing. Nice photos, of beautiful birds and wildlife are just a bonus.
No time or attention given for negativity or trolls.

Shawn1519 said:

Very good points brought up in this thread. It comes down to 2 options 1) more portability with slightly less quality, or 2) less portability and slightly better quality.

Each person has to decide which is the better solution for them.

To help with the portability issues of the 500mm F4 mk II, I have the following to help out:

1) If I need to put the lens/camera in a backpack to carry, I think the Tamrac Anvil Super 25 backpack works well. it holds the lens with teleconverter and R5 (with battery grip) nicely. A monopod straps to it nicely also.

Camera Backpacks | Backpacks for Camera Lenses | B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

2) I have found the 500mm F4 mk ii works well with a monopod vs trying to hand hold it. I use a Robus RCM-439 Carbon Fiber Monopod with a Wimberley MH-100 MonoGimbal Head. This combo works well for me. I agree that a tripod is not very mobile, and that I wont walk around with a tripod/500mm F4 combo.

Click to expand...

I tried to use my 600 f4 with a mono the other day, but did not work well in the wind.

Shawn1519 said:

3) with the camera mounted to the monopod, I have found that the method of draping the camera/lens/monopod over my shoulder for walking around works good.

Shawn

Click to expand...

BirdShooter7 said:

Kokopelli_Rocks said:

AwesomelyBad said:

ChrisLeong said:

AwesomelyBad said:

ChrisLeong said:

Hi,

A noob question from me. I have a R7 and uses it alot for shooting wakeboarding at a park. With the recent shoots that i have done, i have been renting the RF100-500 to try it out, but 98% of all the photos are taken at the 500mm end.

Having have the option of purchasing a lens for myself, i find myself in a situation where i could get a RF100-500 new at about 15% cheaper than a used EF 500mm F4. Between this 2 choices that i have right now, which would be the most clever choice. Given that i love shooting animals n nature too. I may have the need to use a 1.4x TC on it too so that could be a factor in deciding.

I have a 17-55 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 for shorter focal length needs.

Click to expand...

Are you shooting handheld with the 100-500? Because the EF 500mm F4 weighs about three times as much based on the stats I’ve found (I’ve only ever shot with the 100-500). Honestly, for daytime wakeboarding, I doubt you’ll run into any problems with a TC on the 100-500; I use the 1.4x on mine and have been nothing but happy with it (except maybe the whole no TC support below 300mm limitation). But if you’re using a tripod/monopod, I can’t argue with the fact that the 500 F4 will capture more light and give you more subject separation if you want it.

Click to expand...

I last shot with the 100500 on a monopod as it was a long 4hrs of shooting under the sun. Haha.

Click to expand...

It's definitely a "handholdable with qualifications" lens. I do love the versatility of the 100-500 a lot; it's not the best at any one thing, but it's pretty good for birds, landscape, and even has a pretty great close focus distance and decent reproduction ratio (particularly with a teleconverter) for shots of larger insects or flowers. I've found that a good chunk of my favorite photos since I went RF have been with it.

Click to expand...

Main reason I never bought a used 500mm f4 was its size and weight. I find if gear is too heavy I don't use the gear. plus if something happens you can't get the 500 repaired by Canon or any 3rd party, a lot of money to pay for a potential paper weight.

Click to expand...

The mk2 is still serviceable through Canon. I believe it is supposed to be through 2028

Click to expand...

Agreed, but the II is significantly more used.

Kokopelli_Rocks said:

BirdShooter7 said:

Kokopelli_Rocks said:

AwesomelyBad said:

ChrisLeong said:

AwesomelyBad said:

ChrisLeong said:

Hi,

A noob question from me. I have a R7 and uses it alot for shooting wakeboarding at a park. With the recent shoots that i have done, i have been renting the RF100-500 to try it out, but 98% of all the photos are taken at the 500mm end.

Having have the option of purchasing a lens for myself, i find myself in a situation where i could get a RF100-500 new at about 15% cheaper than a used EF 500mm F4. Between this 2 choices that i have right now, which would be the most clever choice. Given that i love shooting animals n nature too. I may have the need to use a 1.4x TC on it too so that could be a factor in deciding.

I have a 17-55 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 for shorter focal length needs.

Click to expand...

Are you shooting handheld with the 100-500? Because the EF 500mm F4 weighs about three times as much based on the stats I’ve found (I’ve only ever shot with the 100-500). Honestly, for daytime wakeboarding, I doubt you’ll run into any problems with a TC on the 100-500; I use the 1.4x on mine and have been nothing but happy with it (except maybe the whole no TC support below 300mm limitation). But if you’re using a tripod/monopod, I can’t argue with the fact that the 500 F4 will capture more light and give you more subject separation if you want it.

Click to expand...

I last shot with the 100500 on a monopod as it was a long 4hrs of shooting under the sun. Haha.

Click to expand...

It's definitely a "handholdable with qualifications" lens. I do love the versatility of the 100-500 a lot; it's not the best at any one thing, but it's pretty good for birds, landscape, and even has a pretty great close focus distance and decent reproduction ratio (particularly with a teleconverter) for shots of larger insects or flowers. I've found that a good chunk of my favorite photos since I went RF have been with it.

Click to expand...

Main reason I never bought a used 500mm f4 was its size and weight. I find if gear is too heavy I don't use the gear. plus if something happens you can't get the 500 repaired by Canon or any 3rd party, a lot of money to pay for a potential paper weight.

Click to expand...

The mk2 is still serviceable through Canon. I believe it is supposed to be through 2028

Click to expand...

Agreed, but the II is significantly more used.

Click to expand...

And a failed mark 1 may well be a write off.... many copies now really quite old.

My take is go for the 500mm F4, especially for the 1.4 extender. Also, for wildlife, I think you could never be too close.

I only have a 100-500mm and I shoot marching band, which have a lot of movements and people at different distance. I have a 70-200mm on a second body as well, but it is still easier to quickly change range than swapping cameras. But F4 still helps for evening performances. So it is not strong case for 100-500mm for me.

I owned a 500 F4 for many years primarily for bird photography. It is an incredibly sharp lens, very fast auto focus, sharp wide open. However it was heavy, difficult to transport on airplanes, and only focused to 14 feet. When I purchased the R7 and read the reviews of the RF 100-500, I decided to purchase that lens and sold my 500 F4. The zoom is much more versatile, weighs only about 1/3 the weight of the 500, focuses to about 4 feet, and I still have my 500 focal length. Also it works quite well with the 1.4 RF converter. I do not regret this "trade" for one minute.

Went out for another shoot with the 100-500 on the R7 and it continues to impress me.

Chris Wolfgram said:

Shawn1519 said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

Shawn1519 said:

R2D2 said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

R2D2 said:

The 600 and 800 f/11 lenses are certainly two other lenses the OP can be looking at (he is reach-limited like you). They are much too limiting IMHO for other types of shooting though.

Click to expand...

I have often said, they are totally limited to exactly what I shoot 95+% of the time

Click to expand...

Like I said, you and the OP both have the same requirement (reach), and could utilize both of these lenses.

Chris Wolfgram said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

I need the versatility of the zoom myself

Click to expand...

I just got back from a 4500 mile photography trip. Took 12,000 shots. I think maybe 5 times I could have got some full body shots of larger birds if I could have zoomed out... But instead, I got some fantastic head shots, a couple of which actually made it to my Flicker page

Click to expand...

Very nice pics! But you and I have different priorities obviously. On my excursions I also shoot lots of other flora and fauna that require either much closer MFDs or wider FOVs. Something that the zoom can provide much more readily. I only put that out there for the OP to consider, esp if he will be shooting other subjects with said lens.

Chris Wolfgram said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

However there really is a very large gap between an f/10 or f/11 lens and the big 500 f/4. Admittedly you might not realize that until you’ve shot with it for a while. The bokeh (and character) are simply in another league. And keep in mind that the OP does not have a lot of (compositional) options to maximize background blur (see samples from his previous threads). IMHO increasing DOF control will absolutely impart a more professional look.

R2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And I still stand by this statement as well.

R2

Click to expand...

+1 on the difference in bokeh between the lenses.

Click to expand...

Again, jmpo, but the difference in bokeh between an F4 and say an F8, or even F11, has SO much more to do with the separation of the subject and the BG, than it does the aperture of the lens.

I have a bunch of shots on my Flickr page, in which the BG is a 100% blur. The Woodpecker shot above is pretty close to that. But then I don’t think the amount of detail in the other shot here hurts the shot (distracts from the subject) at all either. I could have easily softened the sticks in the bottom left, or the whole BG for that matter (in a completely undetectable way) if I knew this would have been a discussion lol

I’m not saying that an F4 won’t help with softer BG’s, but almost never will it be a make it, or break it kind if difference. Now, the separation between the subject and BG can, and more often does make that kind of difference.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the 600mm F11 works great for you. You have some great photos. I have never knocked that lens. But, in every instance, a 500mm F4 (or 700mm F5.6 with 1.4x) WILL ALWAYS provide better bokeh than a 600mm at F11. I dont mind the size/weight of the 500 F4, so the 500mm F4 mk ii is the better lens for me. And if I want to go smaller size, I have the EF 100-400 mk ii (or I could steal my wifes RF 100-500 lol).

Will either one make or break a shot? nope, absolutely not. Again, it is all about needs and how the equipment will be used. The 600 F11 is a great, small compact lens that doesnt cost much $$$. The RF 100-500 is a little larger/heavy, but does provide zoom, but cost more $$$. The big white primes will provide the best image quality, but are not very portable (if you cant get the camera gear to the photo location, then that is a missed photo), and cost insane $$$ amounts. Canon has done a good job in giving their customers several super telephoto options at various price points.

Chris Wolfgram said:

Chris Wolfgram said:

I have thousands of pictures where me and my wife took the same pic standing side by side. I am using the 500 F4, and she is using the RF100-500. IMO, the bokeh in my images is much better than my wifes RF100-500 images. But, both of our images are still good. At the end of the day, we both like the images we capture, and we both like the kit that we chose (my wife hates the size/weight of the big white primes - she says she will never own one because of that).

There are pluses and minuses to each one of these super telephoto lenses - each person needs to decide what works best with them. A lens that sits in the closet unused is not the right lens for that person.

Shawn

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Shawn

Click to expand...

Thank you. And I certainly never knock the Big Whites either, although if I were to ever buy one, it would be the 600 F4, or better yet, an 800 F5.6. Either way, they would both probably have a 1.4 or 2 X's TC on them at all times.

Click to expand...

I will probably break the internet with this comment (lol). The old 500/600/800 debate - it will never end. When choosing between these 3 lenses, you have to go with what works for you. I chose the 500 F4 mk ii because: 1) it fit my price point (used) compared to the other 2, along with availability. 2) my research on the lenses indicated that the mk ii versions of the 500/600 were actually a tad sharper than the 600 mk iii, but the 600 mk iii was smaller, lighter, and better IS and focus. It's a trade off.

In the end, it was the better lens for me. If I was to purchase another one in the future - maybe I would go with the 600/800 instead. And yes, my 1.4x is on the lens probably 75% of the time - dont lose that much image quality with the 1.4x, but I have noticed that image quality takes a noticeable hit with the 2x.

Shawn