First attempt at photographing birds with R, and a question about lenses

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens 745-101 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

for $899 and cost of a monopod, this may be your best bet

Alastair moved to the RF mount very recently, so it might be a bit to early for suggestions like this.

2Kg, 268mm..................

see link

Re: EOS RP, Super Telephoto Options: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'll take "fairly decent job" for 1/3 the price for BIF

Alastair, like me, is not into expensive lenses

I didn't mean price/performance ratio, I meant size & weight.

Well, it's Alastair making choices here, but my bet would be he isn't going to accept 2Kg & 27mm.

Dlee13 wrote:

Although it may not be as useful for birds, one of the main reasons I went for the Tamron over the Sigma is it has a (expensive but great quality) tripod collar but the Sigma isn’t designed to support one.

That's a downside.

I also personally prefer Tamron zooms over Sigma’s.

I would like to have in camera corrections. Not sure if this Sigma has it.

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens 745-101 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

for $899 and cost of a monopod, this may be your best bet

Alastair moved to the RF mount very recently, so it might be a bit to early for suggestions like this.

2Kg, 268mm..................

see link

Re: EOS RP, Super Telephoto Options: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'll take "fairly decent job" for 1/3 the price for BIF

Alastair, like me, is not into expensive lenses

I didn't mean price/performance ratio, I meant size & weight.

Well, it's Alastair making choices here, but my bet would be he isn't going to accept 2Kg & 27mm.

Thanks for all the suggestions. You're right that size and weight is a big consideration for me. More weight than size really. I'm now torn between one of the 100-400 options (probably Tamron) and the Sigma 150-600. As I see it, the 150-600 is much more of a specialty lens, whereas I could see myself using the 100-400 a fair bit on both my M6II and my R. It might work fairly well on either for outdoor sports (mostly running for me, but I've always wanted to have a go at lacrosse or football (the kind with the feet), as well as birds. I see the 150-600 as something that's mostly for birds, and I just don't know how much I'm likely to do that. I find lugging around my 70-200 plus 2X extender a bit of a pain, and the 150-600 is even heavier and longer. I have a monopod, which I bought many years ago, when my first 70-200 was the unstabilized F4 version. I've barely used it since getting my first stabilized 70-200. A compromise would be to use my 1.4X extender on the 100-400 when I really need the extra reach. I know I would lose a stop over the 150-600 that way (and get 560 instead of 600), but I've found my Kenko Pro 1.4X to give excellent results, and I've never noticed any slowdown in AF from it. The 1.4X is also pretty small and light. It would be F9 at 560mm, which is still 2/3 stop faster than the 600 F11.

Ah well, lots to think about. Since looking at the two 100-400 options (Tamron and Sigma) and the Sigma 150-600 on Adorama, I've been getting emails from them at least twice a day, reminding me to buy! I expect I'll do some more mulling over. If anything more occurs, feel free to chime in. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's used the Tamron 100-400 on the R or M6II (or both). Someone reported that the AF on the Tamron is a lot better on the R6 than on the M5. But my two cameras are in between those two for AF. Both the M6II and the R have much better AF than the M5, but not as good as the R6. From the various reports I read, I'm guessing that they are closer to the R6 than the M5. I know that my M6II was a huge step up from my M6, which is at least as good as the M5, and I find the R to be pretty similar to the M6II in AF.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens 745-101 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

for $899 and cost of a monopod, this may be your best bet

Alastair moved to the RF mount very recently, so it might be a bit to early for suggestions like this.

2Kg, 268mm..................

see link

Re: EOS RP, Super Telephoto Options: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'll take "fairly decent job" for 1/3 the price for BIF

Alastair, like me, is not into expensive lenses

I didn't mean price/performance ratio, I meant size & weight.

Well, it's Alastair making choices here, but my bet would be he isn't going to accept 2Kg & 27mm.

Thanks for all the suggestions. You're right that size and weight is a big consideration for me. More weight than size really. I'm now torn between one of the 100-400 options (probably Tamron) and the Sigma 150-600. As I see it, the 150-600 is much more of a specialty lens, whereas I could see myself using the 100-400 a fair bit on both my M6II and my R. It might work fairly well on either for outdoor sports (mostly running for me, but I've always wanted to have a go at lacrosse or football (the kind with the feet), as well as birds. I see the 150-600 as something that's mostly for birds, and I just don't know how much I'm likely to do that. I find lugging around my 70-200 plus 2X extender a bit of a pain,

Funny. Your extender made me think of getting an EF 70-200 f/2.8 for my R in stead of my 50-100mm f/1.8 on M, as an extender enables you to skip an extra long reach zoom. Yes, that means I would lug around a heavy lens, but for candid portraits it's a very useful lens to lug around...... and candid portraits is the most important purpose in my photography.

and the 150-600 is even heavier and longer. I have a monopod, which I bought many years ago, when my first 70-200 was the unstabilized F4 version. I've barely used it since getting my first stabilized 70-200. A compromise would be to use my 1.4X extender on the 100-400 when I really need the extra reach. I know I would lose a stop over the 150-600 that way (and get 560 instead of 600), but I've found my Kenko Pro 1.4X to give excellent results, and I've never noticed any slowdown in AF from it.

I think that's a great solution, especially given the fact you already own the extender.

The 1.4X is also pretty small and light. It would be F9 at 560mm, which is still 2/3 stop faster than the 600 F11.

And less diffraction as well. On the R it wouldn't be a big problem yet, but f/9 on your M6mkII is waaay better than f/11.

Ah well, lots to think about. Since looking at the two 100-400 options (Tamron and Sigma) and the Sigma 150-600 on Adorama, I've been getting emails from them at least twice a day, reminding me to buy! I expect I'll do some more mulling over. If anything more occurs, feel free to chime in. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's used the Tamron 100-400 on the R or M6II (or both). Someone reported that the AF on the Tamron is a lot better on the R6 than on the M5. But my two cameras are in between those two for AF. Both the M6II and the R have much better AF than the M5, but not as good as the R6. From the various reports I read, I'm guessing that they are closer to the R6 than the M5. I know that my M6II was a huge step up from my M6, which is at least as good as the M5, and I find the R to be pretty similar to the M6II in AF.

The subject tracking of the M6mkII should be more sticky?

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens 745-101 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

for $899 and cost of a monopod, this may be your best bet

Alastair moved to the RF mount very recently, so it might be a bit to early for suggestions like this.

2Kg, 268mm..................

see link

Re: EOS RP, Super Telephoto Options: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'll take "fairly decent job" for 1/3 the price for BIF

Alastair, like me, is not into expensive lenses

I didn't mean price/performance ratio, I meant size & weight.

Well, it's Alastair making choices here, but my bet would be he isn't going to accept 2Kg & 27mm.

Thanks for all the suggestions. You're right that size and weight is a big consideration for me. More weight than size really. I'm now torn between one of the 100-400 options (probably Tamron) and the Sigma 150-600. As I see it, the 150-600 is much more of a specialty lens, whereas I could see myself using the 100-400 a fair bit on both my M6II and my R. It might work fairly well on either for outdoor sports (mostly running for me, but I've always wanted to have a go at lacrosse or football (the kind with the feet), as well as birds. I see the 150-600 as something that's mostly for birds, and I just don't know how much I'm likely to do that. I find lugging around my 70-200 plus 2X extender a bit of a pain,

Funny. Your extender made me think of getting an EF 70-200 f/2.8 for my R in stead of my 50-100mm f/1.8 on M, as an extender enables you to skip an extra long reach zoom. Yes, that means I would lug around a heavy lens, but for candid portraits it's a very useful lens to lug around...... and candid portraits is the most important purpose in my photography.

Yes, the 70-200 is great for candid portraits. I use it a lot for that too. Βut I also find I can get good candids just by taking so many pictures from closer with a shorter lens (like the 56 on my M6II) that people forget I’m there. It helps to shoot with the screen at waist level and to use silent shutter.

and the 150-600 is even heavier and longer. I have a monopod, which I bought many years ago, when my first 70-200 was the unstabilized F4 version. I've barely used it since getting my first stabilized 70-200. A compromise would be to use my 1.4X extender on the 100-400 when I really need the extra reach. I know I would lose a stop over the 150-600 that way (and get 560 instead of 600), but I've found my Kenko Pro 1.4X to give excellent results, and I've never noticed any slowdown in AF from it.

I think that's a great solution, especially given the fact you already own the extender.

The 1.4X is also pretty small and light. It would be F9 at 560mm, which is still 2/3 stop faster than the 600 F11.

And less diffraction as well. On the R it wouldn't be a big problem yet, but f/9 on your M6mkII is waaay better than f/11.

Ah well, lots to think about. Since looking at the two 100-400 options (Tamron and Sigma) and the Sigma 150-600 on Adorama, I've been getting emails from them at least twice a day, reminding me to buy! I expect I'll do some more mulling over. If anything more occurs, feel free to chime in. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's used the Tamron 100-400 on the R or M6II (or both). Someone reported that the AF on the Tamron is a lot better on the R6 than on the M5. But my two cameras are in between those two for AF. Both the M6II and the R have much better AF than the M5, but not as good as the R6. From the various reports I read, I'm guessing that they are closer to the R6 than the M5. I know that my M6II was a huge step up from my M6, which is at least as good as the M5, and I find the R to be pretty similar to the M6II in AF.

The subject tracking of the M6mkII should be more sticky?

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens 745-101 B&H (bhphotovideo.com)

for $899 and cost of a monopod, this may be your best bet

Alastair moved to the RF mount very recently, so it might be a bit to early for suggestions like this.

2Kg, 268mm..................

see link

Re: EOS RP, Super Telephoto Options: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I'll take "fairly decent job" for 1/3 the price for BIF

Alastair, like me, is not into expensive lenses

I didn't mean price/performance ratio, I meant size & weight.

Well, it's Alastair making choices here, but my bet would be he isn't going to accept 2Kg & 27mm.

Thanks for all the suggestions. You're right that size and weight is a big consideration for me. More weight than size really. I'm now torn between one of the 100-400 options (probably Tamron) and the Sigma 150-600. As I see it, the 150-600 is much more of a specialty lens, whereas I could see myself using the 100-400 a fair bit on both my M6II and my R. It might work fairly well on either for outdoor sports (mostly running for me, but I've always wanted to have a go at lacrosse or football (the kind with the feet), as well as birds. I see the 150-600 as something that's mostly for birds, and I just don't know how much I'm likely to do that. I find lugging around my 70-200 plus 2X extender a bit of a pain,

Funny. Your extender made me think of getting an EF 70-200 f/2.8 for my R in stead of my 50-100mm f/1.8 on M, as an extender enables you to skip an extra long reach zoom. Yes, that means I would lug around a heavy lens, but for candid portraits it's a very useful lens to lug around...... and candid portraits is the most important purpose in my photography.

yep, you need 70-200 f2.8

the reason there is a million hits on the following video

How to control your background with a 70 - 200 telephoto lens - YouTube

and the 150-600 is even heavier and longer. I have a monopod, which I bought many years ago, when my first 70-200 was the unstabilized F4 version. I've barely used it since getting my first stabilized 70-200. A compromise would be to use my 1.4X extender on the 100-400 when I really need the extra reach. I know I would lose a stop over the 150-600 that way (and get 560 instead of 600), but I've found my Kenko Pro 1.4X to give excellent results, and I've never noticed any slowdown in AF from it.

I think that's a great solution, especially given the fact you already own the extender.

The 1.4X is also pretty small and light. It would be F9 at 560mm, which is still 2/3 stop faster than the 600 F11.

And less diffraction as well. On the R it wouldn't be a big problem yet, but f/9 on your M6mkII is waaay better than f/11.

Ah well, lots to think about. Since looking at the two 100-400 options (Tamron and Sigma) and the Sigma 150-600 on Adorama, I've been getting emails from them at least twice a day, reminding me to buy! I expect I'll do some more mulling over. If anything more occurs, feel free to chime in. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who's used the Tamron 100-400 on the R or M6II (or both). Someone reported that the AF on the Tamron is a lot better on the R6 than on the M5. But my two cameras are in between those two for AF. Both the M6II and the R have much better AF than the M5, but not as good as the R6. From the various reports I read, I'm guessing that they are closer to the R6 than the M5. I know that my M6II was a huge step up from my M6, which is at least as good as the M5, and I find the R to be pretty similar to the M6II in AF.

The subject tracking of the M6mkII should be more sticky?

knutte wrote:

I'm not much of a bird shooter either and just went to Zion National Park and happen to spot not one but TWO condors! As I mostly shoot landscape I only took my EF70-200/f4 with a 1.4 extender and so wished I'd have something longer! I might go for the Rf600 just to have something long for those rare occasions and it's affordable. This shot was taken at about 1000-1200 feet distance so it's pretty crappy but I think it's decent considering the distance. Those condors have such a huge wingspan at around 3 meters, amazing and rare birds. Not sure if I had switched the IS over to setting #2 (panning), was so excited so didn't think about other settings, wasn't sure how long I'd have them in my EVF.

I like the perspective of the scene mixed in with these wonderful birds.

would suggest next time taking your iso and ss much higher