Lens dilemma for the r5

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
Staale Junior Member • Posts: 44
Lens dilemma for the r5

My r5 is finally on the way, but I'm getting cold feet regarding the 800mm f11. 6m minimum focusing is going to be a pain.

I see the 100-500 is getting decent reviews but here comes the mental block for it.

In short I'm a camera flousy. I see something shiny and iI want it. But an expensive lens... I want milage out of it

A bit of background. I started out with a Canon 40D and a Sigma 120-300 F2.8. Then I upgraded later to 5D Mark Iii.

When the GH4 came out I jumped ship. But with metabones adapter I could keep using my nice Sigma.. great. I also got a Sony a6300 and a viltrox. Works fine as well.

Back to now... Getting RF lens doesn't seem to fit my flousiness for camera models.. unfortunatly the sigma now only gives me blurry shots, must have dropped it in my sleep

Price wise.. if I can afford the RF 100-500 why not get a second hand Canon 500 F4 II. They seem to be about the same price and the benefit is that I can mount that to any camera.

99% of my pictures are birds and small mammals.. so 2m or further with 500mm as minimum starting point. At least with F4 I can throw on a teleconvertor and still have relatively fast movement.

Any lens suggestions or thought welcomed...

If I had the money I think the Canon 400mm F2.8 III would be my choice.

Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS R5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Sony a6000 Sony a6300
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 1,609
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

Staale wrote:

My r5 is finally on the way, but I'm getting cold feet regarding the 800mm f11. 6m minimum focusing is going to be a pain.

I see the 100-500 is getting decent reviews but here comes the mental block for it.

In short I'm a camera flousy. I see something shiny and iI want it. But an expensive lens... I want milage out of it

A bit of background. I started out with a Canon 40D and a Sigma 120-300 F2.8. Then I upgraded later to 5D Mark Iii.

When the GH4 came out I jumped ship. But with metabones adapter I could keep using my nice Sigma.. great. I also got a Sony a6300 and a viltrox. Works fine as well.

Back to now... Getting RF lens doesn't seem to fit my flousiness for camera models.. unfortunatly the sigma now only gives me blurry shots, must have dropped it in my sleep

Price wise.. if I can afford the RF 100-500 why not get a second hand Canon 500 F4 II. They seem to be about the same price and the benefit is that I can mount that to any camera.

99% of my pictures are birds and small mammals.. so 2m or further with 500mm as minimum starting point. At least with F4 I can throw on a teleconvertor and still have relatively fast movement.

Any lens suggestions or thought welcomed...

If I had the money I think the Canon 400mm F2.8 III would be my choice.

I have the Sigma 120-300f2.8 just like you. That is lovely lens but six + pounds I have the EF 400mmf2.8 L IS USM (Mk I) and it is twelve + lbs. I have the Sigma 150-600 C that is four + lbs as well as the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II weighing three + lbs. All are lovey with the weight being a big factor on how and when it can be used. Only the Sigma 150-600 (with 1.4X or 2X TCs) and the EF100-400 (with 1.4X or 2X TCs). All lenses work well with the EOS R and do autofocus with all combinations but the EOS 5DIV does not support the 2X TCs on some of the smaller aperature lenses. I expect the R5 I preordered July 9 will support all lenses and work even better than the EOS R. The EOS R is more accurate focus camera that I have and does so with all these lenses. EF 400mmf2.8 L IS USM (Mk I) was all the money I was willing to sink into a new lens and I bought it used.  The Mk III is lovely, weight much less but still not light.  The 400mmf2.8 MkIis not practical to hand hold and can be used on a tripod with gimbal or a monopod but it is a beast.

I would get the 100-500 and see how it goes before the 400f2.8 unless you are crazy like me.   I am not at all sure a big lens like the 400f2.8 Mk I or Mk II is light enought to be a purchase before the RF100-500mm or the EF 100-400mmMk II (I do not recommend the EF 100-400mmMk I lens.   I hated that lens which had push pull zoom and was not as sharp as the Mk II)    The EF 400f2.8mm is sharp including the Mk I.  The newer models have more coating reducing flare, but flare has not be a major problem for me.

Mobility is a great virture and I use the EF 100-400mm mk II more than any of these other similar zooms. It does 1X and 2X TCs quite nicely.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R +37 more
poppyjk
poppyjk Contributing Member • Posts: 892
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

I have the R5 and tried the RF 800 f11 but am returning that lens.

Viewed at 100% the RF 800 is very slightly better than the EF 100-400 II with 2X TC on 4 of 5 shots.  BUT the lack of zoom and the MFD made the decision for me.  The focus capability of the R5 makes the 100-400 II w/2X TC a pleasure to use.

-- hide signature --

"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
You have my express consent to edit any of my images that I post on DPR.

 poppyjk's gear list:poppyjk's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II USM +5 more
Nigge Regular Member • Posts: 197
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5
1

If you can get a used 500 II for just slightly more than the 100-500 it seems as an easy choice. 
Here it would be closer to double price.

 Nigge's gear list:Nigge's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +6 more
RDM5546
RDM5546 Senior Member • Posts: 1,609
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

poppyjk wrote:

I have the R5 and tried the RF 800 f11 but am returning that lens.

Viewed at 100% the RF 800 is very slightly better than the EF 100-400 II with 2X TC on 4 of 5 shots. BUT the lack of zoom and the MFD made the decision for me. The focus capability of the R5 makes the 100-400 II w/2X TC a pleasure to use.

The nearest focus distance is quite close for the EF 100-400mm II and with a 2X to 800mm this is a useful long working macro lens for skiddish little creatures.   I have a 100mmf2.8L macro but I rarely use it despite being an excellent  f2.8 prime.  When shooting wildlife changing lenses and carrying extra weight is a pain.   The RF 800mm lens has a close focus of 19.7ft which is a lot farther away (6X) for the nearest focus by comparison to the EF 100-400mm II with 2X TC.

 RDM5546's gear list:RDM5546's gear list
Canon G5 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R +37 more
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,584
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5
1

Staale wrote:

My r5 is finally on the way, but I'm getting cold feet regarding the 800mm f11. 6m minimum focusing is going to be a pain.

I see the 100-500 is getting decent reviews but here comes the mental block for it.

In short I'm a camera flousy. I see something shiny and iI want it. But an expensive lens... I want milage out of it

A bit of background. I started out with a Canon 40D and a Sigma 120-300 F2.8. Then I upgraded later to 5D Mark Iii.

When the GH4 came out I jumped ship. But with metabones adapter I could keep using my nice Sigma.. great. I also got a Sony a6300 and a viltrox. Works fine as well.

Back to now... Getting RF lens doesn't seem to fit my flousiness for camera models.. unfortunatly the sigma now only gives me blurry shots, must have dropped it in my sleep

Price wise.. if I can afford the RF 100-500 why not get a second hand Canon 500 F4 II. They seem to be about the same price and the benefit is that I can mount that to any camera.

99% of my pictures are birds and small mammals.. so 2m or further with 500mm as minimum starting point. At least with F4 I can throw on a teleconvertor and still have relatively fast movement.

Any lens suggestions or thought welcomed...

If I had the money I think the Canon 400mm F2.8 III would be my choice.

If I can find a 500mm f/4 mk2 in decent shape for the same price as the 100-500 I’ll buy two of them.  That would be a fantastic price.  I mostly see well worn mk1’s selling for that kind of money.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

MedicineMan999
MedicineMan999 Senior Member • Posts: 2,278
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

Staale I can only suggest you consider a 400DOii, because, well that's the big white I plan on using with the R5  (when it ever gets here). Lots of good reports for that combo here and at Fredmiranda.

I understand the allure of the 400/2.8......everything as you know excepting weight. I was on a trip in Panama, me with the DOii and another shooter with the 400/2.8. He was monopod bound everywhere he took it...what a pain in the canoe. But that F2.8 is dreamy eh

I had the 500 IS ii but at my age it was too heavy to enjoy frequently, but I can still wield the 400DOii and one reporter at FM (who has all the EOS glass of significance) states that the R5 + 2.0TCiii +R5 is the best he's seen with that lens for AF speed/tracking.

Just another to throw into the mix.

 MedicineMan999's gear list:MedicineMan999's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-3 Panasonic FZ1000 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX80 Sony RX100 V +66 more
vubui New Member • Posts: 6
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

I haven’t had the chance to use it too much yet, just a few trips to the forest, but I already am in love with the 100-500mm after selling the 100-400mm II. It’s extremely handholdable, I removed the tripod collar and on both my R5 and R6 it feels perfect. With the IS + IBIS combo I’m getting sharp handheld photos at 500mm at 1/50 and below. Such a wonderful lens. But, of course, f/4 is in an entirely different world for low light. 1.6 stops of light is nothing to ignore. But that lens is a monster, so it depends on how and where you’re going to use them.

Kobus66 Contributing Member • Posts: 951
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

Had the 800, a great lens for all the reasons you know.

Exchanged it for 100-500 + 1,4. Very happy........... oooo but comes at a cost.

-- hide signature --

Kobus

PetteriJ Junior Member • Posts: 27
RF800 is a fine lens...

Hard to focus, but picture quality is more than adequate considering its price.

This is handheld, SOOC jpeg  w.

Handheld jpeg with R5, 1/640 ISO 6400

 PetteriJ's gear list:PetteriJ's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Canon EOS R Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM +9 more
Sabud Contributing Member • Posts: 633
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

Have the EF 500/4 IS II since new and love it. My R5 is in transit (UK) and the delivery will be next week

Rahto Senior Member • Posts: 1,093
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

I have my RF-800 and hood but no camera to use it with but to cut the minimum focusing distance I am going to try using extension tubes on it when in a bird blind. I have read some posts where this works well as long as you don’t need to focus to infinity. I have the 400mm 5.6L, the 100-400mmII L and a Sigma 150-600mm sport as well as both Canon converters so I should be able to make something work.

 Rahto's gear list:Rahto's gear list
Canon EOS D60 Pentax *ist DS Pentax K-7 Pentax K-3 Canon EOS 7D Mark II +54 more
Terry Danks Regular Member • Posts: 134
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

I love the RF800. My quarry is small birds exclusively. The MFD problem is really eliminated entirely with a 35mm extension tube. Fotodiox make the one I use and I am very happy with it. I don't miss the loss of infinity focus when pursuing small birds and it can always be removed for distant subjects.

The RF800 is just such a joy to use I don't miss the 600/4, the Gitzo and the Wimberly at all!

 Terry Danks's gear list:Terry Danks's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +5 more
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,584
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

Terry Danks wrote:

I love the RF800. My quarry is small birds exclusively. The MFD problem is really eliminated entirely with a 35mm extension tube. Fotodiox make the one I use and I am very happy with it. I don't miss the loss of infinity focus when pursuing small birds and it can always be removed for distant subjects.

The RF800 is just such a joy to use I don't miss the 600/4, the Gitzo and the Wimberly at all!

I’d love to see some of your photos from the lens.

Thanks

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,680
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

Terry Danks wrote:

I love the RF800. My quarry is small birds exclusively. The MFD problem is really eliminated entirely with a 35mm extension tube. Fotodiox make the one I use and I am very happy with it. I don't miss the loss of infinity focus when pursuing small birds and it can always be removed for distant subjects.

What’s your maximum focal distance with that combo?  I have tubes also.  Thx

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5
Terry Danks Regular Member • Posts: 134
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5
1

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Terry Danks wrote:

I love the RF800. My quarry is small birds exclusively. The MFD problem is really eliminated entirely with a 35mm extension tube. Fotodiox make the one I use and I am very happy with it. I don't miss the loss of infinity focus when pursuing small birds and it can always be removed for distant subjects.

The RF800 is just such a joy to use I don't miss the 600/4, the Gitzo and the Wimberly at all!

I’d love to see some of your photos from the lens.

Thanks

I have posted several. Please search my posts. Here's one, not especially great, taken just today. Converted from RAW. No enhancement or sharpening applied.

Taken at very nearly the 15 foot MFD with the 35mm Fotodiox tube.

 Terry Danks's gear list:Terry Danks's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +5 more
Terry Danks Regular Member • Posts: 134
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

R2D2 wrote:

Terry Danks wrote:

I love the RF800. My quarry is small birds exclusively. The MFD problem is really eliminated entirely with a 35mm extension tube. Fotodiox make the one I use and I am very happy with it. I don't miss the loss of infinity focus when pursuing small birds and it can always be removed for distant subjects.

What’s your maximum focal distance with that combo? I have tubes also. Thx

R2

About 80 feet? Haven't measured. Frankly, surprisingly far.

 Terry Danks's gear list:Terry Danks's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +5 more
Terry Danks Regular Member • Posts: 134
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

My main complaint about the RF800 is the focus limit switch. It ONLY locks out MFD to 20m. For small birds, this is precisely the opposite of desired!

Still, nothing is perfect. I still love the lens and feel, when they catch on, EVERY bird photographer will have one of these! Sure, they'll still love the Big Whites but this lens is ridiculous . . . in the best way possible! And yes, I've owned and used "big teles" for many years!

 Terry Danks's gear list:Terry Danks's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +5 more
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,584
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

Terry Danks wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Terry Danks wrote:

I love the RF800. My quarry is small birds exclusively. The MFD problem is really eliminated entirely with a 35mm extension tube. Fotodiox make the one I use and I am very happy with it. I don't miss the loss of infinity focus when pursuing small birds and it can always be removed for distant subjects.

The RF800 is just such a joy to use I don't miss the 600/4, the Gitzo and the Wimberly at all!

I’d love to see some of your photos from the lens.

Thanks

I have posted several. Please search my posts. Here's one, not especially great, taken just today. Converted from RAW. No enhancement or sharpening applied.

Taken at very nearly the 15 foot MFD with the 35mm Fotodiox tube.

Thanks, I have seen the ones you posted already, was interested in seeing more, thanks for sharing the goldfinch shot!

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

highdesertmesa Regular Member • Posts: 230
Re: Lens dilemma for the r5

Staale wrote:

My r5 is finally on the way, but I'm getting cold feet regarding the 800mm f11. 6m minimum focusing is going to be a pain.

I had the RF 600 + 1.4x and the MFD of just under 15' was much better. But the biggest drawback to the f/11 lenses is not f/11 or the MFD, it's being limited to a small area in the center where AF works. Even with perched birds and the animal eye-AF of the R5/6, you may not be able to get the composition you want without leaving the bird in the center of the frame. This can be partially negated by shooting in crop mode all the time, where the AF area then fills the frame top to bottom, and you only lose a little bit on the left and right.

I see the 100-500 is getting decent reviews but here comes the mental block for it.

In short I'm a camera flousy. I see something shiny and iI want it. But an expensive lens... I want milage out of it

I can't think of a lens outside of it's predecessor, the 100-400 II, that you would get more mileage out of than the 100-500.

A bit of background. I started out with a Canon 40D and a Sigma 120-300 F2.8. Then I upgraded later to 5D Mark Iii.

When the GH4 came out I jumped ship. But with metabones adapter I could keep using my nice Sigma.. great. I also got a Sony a6300 and a viltrox. Works fine as well.

Back to now... Getting RF lens doesn't seem to fit my flousiness for camera models.. unfortunatly the sigma now only gives me blurry shots, must have dropped it in my sleep

Price wise.. if I can afford the RF 100-500 why not get a second hand Canon 500 F4 II. They seem to be about the same price and the benefit is that I can mount that to any camera.

The cheapest 500 f/4 II on eBay is almost double the price of the 100-500. And think about how long the 500 f/4 II will be by the time you add the 1.4x and the EF adapter to it and how it will balance on the camera. Are you ok with being limited by a monopod? The 100-500 is hand-holdable all day long.

99% of my pictures are birds and small mammals.. so 2m or further with 500mm as minimum starting point. At least with F4 I can throw on a teleconvertor and still have relatively fast movement.

Any lens suggestions or thought welcomed...

If I had the money I think the Canon 400mm F2.8 III would be my choice.

If I already had an EF big white, I'd love using it on the R5/6, but for a hobby, I can't fathom throwing that much money toward an EF lens when any day now Canon could surprise us with an RF version that will drive down the value of the EF it replaces.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads