Switching back to R5... help needed

I hope you read my whole post in Poland A1 will cost around 9500$ where R5 is almost 4000$ cheaper.

Also i mentioned trust. I had to send lot of camera gear to Sony service - sometimes the same thing twice. I don't feel like I can rely on it.

If my combo r3 + 200-600 was working always as expected and if I didn't have body replaced and later fixed twice and if I didn't have to send back the lens... You know - now it is working flawlessly but have no idea for how long.

Also I wanted an upgrade to newer body to get AF tracking as I find it very useful for what I am doing. And thats why I started this topic. I've checked prices for new bodies, checked what they offer and I want and what I don't want to have... Seems like A1 is perfect but the price in Poland is around 9000$ and for this price + price of my future-dream-lens: 400/2.8 i don't feel like i trust sony enough to invest such big money in this system. Believe me - I tried - I keep my gear in perfect condition, use only native Sony top-class lenses, fast cards...
Last thing is that - especially during winter time - when conditions are changing rapidly I started to miss shots due to the fact that i am not able to change settings after burst of shots... Its generally minor thing but again happens quite often

mKotar wrote:

Hi,

Currently I am a Sony shooter. Generally I shoot wildlife + live gigs so i have a pretty complete set of lenses:

- 16-35/2.8
- 24-70/2.8
- 70-200/2.8
- 200-600/2.8

+ A7r3 and A73
Background:

To be honest Sony has its advantages (like general AF performace, fact i own all needed glass...) but is still missing some important things to me. And I wanted and upgrade byt a9 is no go as it doesn't have antiflicker and very slow mechanical shutter, a92 is ok, but no bird-eye-af, only 24 mpix sensor, crappy menu and is more expensive that r5. There is alsos A7r4 but... 60+ mpix is little bit to much for me and I had some issues with 200-600 when checking couple of bodies in the camerashop - focusing was not accurate - even when using tripod. A1 is little too expensive for me.
There is also 2nd thing about Sony - I don't trust it in 100%. I had one of my body replaced by the service, 200-600 was fixed as it had some issues with consistent focusing, I am not telling about shutter and shutter button replacements - definitely way to much for such expensive gear. So in short words: good gear but i don't full trust it.

And here comes the R5...

It has some great features like bird-eye-af, 12fps mechanical, 20 electronic shutter, anitflicker and 45mpix sensor. I think that i would like to start my switch from the wildlife end and have couple of questions

- Is rolling shutter that bad on ES?
First about 200-600 replacement

- doest it make sense to go with Sigma 150-600 Sport or maybe Sigma 60-600 Sport or even Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
- can achieve 12fps on mechanical shutter with all these lenses (how is the sharpness) (and which version of 150-600 is better)
I am also considering: 300/2.8 IS or 300/2.8 IS mk2
- can i shoot 12fps mechanical shutter (version 1)
- how well it performs with TC 1.4 and TC 2 (version 2)
RF 100-500 - is little to short in long range and to dark - usually shoot around 400 - 600)
Other lenses are easy to replace 1:1 with RF versions.
Or maybe i should visit some specialist - overcome my lack of trust to sony and just wait and or get A1 in the future or a93 etc

I have be using electronic shutter on the R5. It is much less than the EOR R. The R6 is better but R5 measures only 16msecs. The A9 is faster at 9msecs which better and the A1 is supposed to 5 or 6msecs. I have shot more the 10,000 stills using the R5 ES. I love it and have found zero issues with rolling shutter in the real world. It is not problem for me and the ES is magnificent and works at 20 FPS will all my lenses old and new. I know if find some special case like bad lighting the R5 has 12 mechanical which really fast even when slow down for tracking or autofocsus. I zero concerns in my use for rolling shutter. I do not care about more than 20 fps. This is plenty fast form me and sometimes too fast producing too pictures to go through.

I know the RF 100-500 is a magnificent wildlife lens but I use wildlike mainly the EF 100-400mm Mk II with the 1.4X and 2X Canon Mk III TCs that I had before the mirrorless cameras ( 5D Mk IV and 7D mk II). I have the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary with the 1.4X and 2X Sigma TCs as a alternative lens. I like both but the Canon 100-400 II is usually my first choice even though the maximum FL is shorter than the Sigma. The 45MP of the R5 allows for more cropping than my earlier cameras.

I also have the EF 400mmf2.8L IS but is a monster. Do you really have a 200-600/2.8 as this also must be a bigger monster.   I have a Sigma 120-300mmf2.8 but use that more for outdoor sports that wildlife because I usually use it with a monopod.

RDM5546 wrote:

I know the RF 100-500 is a magnificent wildlife lens but I use wildlike mainly the EF 100-400mm Mk II with the 1.4X and 2X Canon Mk III TCs that I had before the mirrorless cameras ( 5D Mk IV and 7D mk II). I have the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary with the 1.4X and 2X Sigma TCs as a alternative lens. I like both but the Canon 100-400 II is usually my first choice even though the maximum FL is shorter than the Sigma. The 45MP of the R5 allows for more cropping than my earlier cameras.

I also have the EF 400mmf2.8L IS but is a monster. Do you really have a 200-600/2.8 as this also must be a bigger monster. I have a Sigma 120-300mmf2.8 but use that more for outdoor sports that wildlife because I usually use it with a monopod.

Does the the Sigma 120-300mm works well (resolution/speed) with the 1.4x and 2.x TC and there is any improvement using Canon TC instead of Sigma? I have never seen a comparison of  Canon vs Sigma tele converters with this lens.

So you have  EF 400mm f2.8L IS 1st gen ? Does it really slows down to 6-9 fps on mechanical shutter but you can use ES to get close to 20fps without noticeable rolling shutter?
How can you describe the usage of sigma 150-600? af speed, accuracy etc?
I've tested R5 + 100-400 EF mk2 + tc1.4 and to be honest it was terrible for me - lot of hunting, quite slow AF - definitely below the standards. Bare lens without TC worked great. TC paired with 600/4 mk2 worked also great.

GatanoII wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

I know the RF 100-500 is a magnificent wildlife lens but I use wildlike mainly the EF 100-400mm Mk II with the 1.4X and 2X Canon Mk III TCs that I had before the mirrorless cameras ( 5D Mk IV and 7D mk II). I have the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary with the 1.4X and 2X Sigma TCs as a alternative lens. I like both but the Canon 100-400 II is usually my first choice even though the maximum FL is shorter than the Sigma. The 45MP of the R5 allows for more cropping than my earlier cameras.

I also have the EF 400mmf2.8L IS but is a monster. Do you really have a 200-600/2.8 as this also must be a bigger monster. I have a Sigma 120-300mmf2.8 but use that more for outdoor sports that wildlife because I usually use it with a monopod.

Does the the Sigma 120-300mm works well (resolution/speed) with the 1.4x and 2.x TC and there is any improvement using Canon TC instead of Sigma? I have never seen a comparison of Canon vs Sigma tele converters with this lens.

I am happy with the extra reach over my EF70-200mmf2.8L IS III. The IQ is very good and about the same as 70-200mm. Heavier but can hand hold the SIgma 120-300mm and sometimes use tripod. When I had Canon 1.4X and 2X Mk III TCs then got the Sigma 1.4X & 2X TCs for specific use with the 120-300 and Sigma 150-600. I can not tell significant difference so far between the Canon and the Sigma TCs on these two Sigma telephotos. The Sigma 1.4X is better IQ and faster focus than 2X. The same with the Canon TCs on both. I got the Sigma TCs on sale for a good price so I thought I would give them a try. Now I use Sigma TCs on Sigma teles and Canon on Canon teles. Since they are not obviously worse matching lens with TC seems like it is reasonable. More over the colors of the TCs match the lens colors than way too. Sigma TCs are black.

I have never seen a detailed comparison test either. I am fairly sure the Sigma TCs were designed for the Sigma f2.8 prime tele lenses and not zooms like the 120-300 tele and the Canon for the Canon f2.8 prime tele lenses. With both my Canon and Sigma stopping down one stop for the 1.4X and two stops for the 2X seems to better than wide open but the improvement is small and needs lots of light. I have a EF400mmf2.8L IS and this excellent sharp prime does well with both 1.4X and 2X Canon Mk III TCs wide open. It my heaviest lens at 12 lbs and my most amazing magical image rendering lens.

I usually shoot the 400mmf2.8 using a gimbal on tripod.

I have been buying Canon glass for 39 years and sold on a few that I really did like.   Now I have many EF lenses and six RF lenses.   Most of my 20+ EF lenses work better on my R and R5 for most cases but will keep my 5D MkIV and 7D2 DSLRs forever.

Thx for the answer.

The diff between r5 and a1 is around 4k$ in my Country and also I mentioned lack of trust for Sony due to way too much tech issues.

mKotar wrote:

Thx for the answer.

The diff between r5 and a1 is around 4k$ in my Country and also I mentioned lack of trust for Sony due to way too much tech issues.

The R5 is a magnificent camera a real advance over the 5D Mk IV in most ways.  I expect to use both side by side in many cases in the field.   Both are excellent for widlife and the 5D still has lots of competitive life left.

RDM5546 wrote:

GatanoII wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

I know the RF 100-500 is a magnificent wildlife lens but I use wildlike mainly the EF 100-400mm Mk II with the 1.4X and 2X Canon Mk III TCs that I had before the mirrorless cameras ( 5D Mk IV and 7D mk II). I have the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary with the 1.4X and 2X Sigma TCs as a alternative lens. I like both but the Canon 100-400 II is usually my first choice even though the maximum FL is shorter than the Sigma. The 45MP of the R5 allows for more cropping than my earlier cameras.

I also have the EF 400mmf2.8L IS but is a monster. Do you really have a 200-600/2.8 as this also must be a bigger monster. I have a Sigma 120-300mmf2.8 but use that more for outdoor sports that wildlife because I usually use it with a monopod.

Does the the Sigma 120-300mm works well (resolution/speed) with the 1.4x and 2.x TC and there is any improvement using Canon TC instead of Sigma? I have never seen a comparison of Canon vs Sigma tele converters with this lens.

I am happy with the extra reach over my EF70-200mmf2.8L IS III. The IQ is very good and about the same as 70-200mm. Heavier but can hand hold the SIgma 120-300mm and sometimes use tripod. When I had Canon 1.4X and 2X Mk III TCs then got the Sigma 1.4X & 2X TCs for specific use with the 120-300 and Sigma 150-600. I can not tell significant difference so far between the Canon and the Sigma TCs on these two Sigma telephotos. The Sigma 1.4X is better IQ and faster focus than 2X. The same with the Canon TCs on both. I got the Sigma TCs on sale for a good price so I thought I would give them a try. Now I use Sigma TCs on Sigma teles and Canon on Canon teles. Since they are not obviously worse matching lens with TC seems like it is reasonable. More over the colors of the TCs match the lens colors than way too. Sigma TCs are black.

I have never seen a detailed comparison test either. I am fairly sure the Sigma TCs were designed for the Sigma f2.8 prime tele lenses and not zooms like the 120-300 tele and the Canon for the Canon f2.8 prime tele lenses. With both my Canon and Sigma stopping down one stop for the 1.4X and two stops for the 2X seems to better than wide open but the improvement is small and needs lots of light. I have a EF400mmf2.8L IS and this excellent sharp prime does well with both 1.4X and 2X Canon Mk III TCs wide open. It my heaviest lens at 12 lbs and my most amazing magical image rendering lens.

I usually shoot the 400mmf2.8 using a gimbal on tripod.

I have been buying Canon glass for 39 years and sold on a few that I really did like. Now I have many EF lenses and six RF lenses. Most of my 20+ EF lenses work better on my R and R5 for most cases but will keep my 5D MkIV and 7D2 DSLRs forever.

Interesting, thanks for the detailed explanation of your experience with Sigma TC.

I like my Canon 70-200mmf2.8II, so as the 120-300mm has simialr IQ it seems interesting  and if it can keep up with AF speed of the R5 I could be tempted by this lens especially if it can also work well at 600mm using the 2x TC.

How does the 120-300mm + 2X TC compares to the Sigma 150-600mm at 600mm, I see you have both and the 120-300mm with the 2X TC is also 1/3 of a stop faster at 600mm, but does it have similar sharpness and contrast? does the AF and frame rate are impacted with the presence of the TC?

GatanoII wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

GatanoII wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

I know the RF 100-500 is a magnificent wildlife lens but I use wildlike mainly the EF 100-400mm Mk II with the 1.4X and 2X Canon Mk III TCs that I had before the mirrorless cameras ( 5D Mk IV and 7D mk II). I have the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary with the 1.4X and 2X Sigma TCs as a alternative lens. I like both but the Canon 100-400 II is usually my first choice even though the maximum FL is shorter than the Sigma. The 45MP of the R5 allows for more cropping than my earlier cameras.

I also have the EF 400mmf2.8L IS but is a monster. Do you really have a 200-600/2.8 as this also must be a bigger monster. I have a Sigma 120-300mmf2.8 but use that more for outdoor sports that wildlife because I usually use it with a monopod.

Does the the Sigma 120-300mm works well (resolution/speed) with the 1.4x and 2.x TC and there is any improvement using Canon TC instead of Sigma? I have never seen a comparison of Canon vs Sigma tele converters with this lens.

I am happy with the extra reach over my EF70-200mmf2.8L IS III. The IQ is very good and about the same as 70-200mm. Heavier but can hand hold the SIgma 120-300mm and sometimes use tripod. When I had Canon 1.4X and 2X Mk III TCs then got the Sigma 1.4X & 2X TCs for specific use with the 120-300 and Sigma 150-600. I can not tell significant difference so far between the Canon and the Sigma TCs on these two Sigma telephotos. The Sigma 1.4X is better IQ and faster focus than 2X. The same with the Canon TCs on both. I got the Sigma TCs on sale for a good price so I thought I would give them a try. Now I use Sigma TCs on Sigma teles and Canon on Canon teles. Since they are not obviously worse matching lens with TC seems like it is reasonable. More over the colors of the TCs match the lens colors than way too. Sigma TCs are black.

I have never seen a detailed comparison test either. I am fairly sure the Sigma TCs were designed for the Sigma f2.8 prime tele lenses and not zooms like the 120-300 tele and the Canon for the Canon f2.8 prime tele lenses. With both my Canon and Sigma stopping down one stop for the 1.4X and two stops for the 2X seems to better than wide open but the improvement is small and needs lots of light. I have a EF400mmf2.8L IS and this excellent sharp prime does well with both 1.4X and 2X Canon Mk III TCs wide open. It my heaviest lens at 12 lbs and my most amazing magical image rendering lens.

I usually shoot the 400mmf2.8 using a gimbal on tripod.

I have been buying Canon glass for 39 years and sold on a few that I really did like. Now I have many EF lenses and six RF lenses. Most of my 20+ EF lenses work better on my R and R5 for most cases but will keep my 5D MkIV and 7D2 DSLRs forever.

Interesting, thanks for the detailed explanation of your experience with Sigma TC.

I like my Canon 70-200mmf2.8II, so as the 120-300mm has simialr IQ it seems interesting and if it can keep up with AF speed of the R5 I could be tempted by this lens especially if it can also work well at 600mm using the 2x TC.

How does the 120-300mm + 2X TC compares to the Sigma 150-600mm at 600mm, I see you have both and the 120-300mm with the 2X TC is also 1/3 of a stop faster at 600mm, but does it have similar sharpness and contrast? does the AF and frame rate are impacted with the presence of the TC?

The center of the image (ignoring corners) is sharp using the 120-300 and both TCs. The Sigma 2X is not as good as the 1.4X though. I stop them down if at all possible a little and use noise processing in post.

In comparison with EF70-200mmf2.8L III and TC 2X III for 400mm/f5.6 equivalent I can not guess how that compares with my Sigma 120-300 with Sigma 2X for 600mmf5.6 since i have never tried side by side.  Both combinations are usuable and seem to get better up to 2 stops down from wide open if you have enough light for f16!    Depth of field increases from stopping too and it somes helpful for these longer FLs.

I would strongly recommend renting the Sigma 120-300f2.8 with TCs before you buy them.   This configuration does zoom 2.5X which is nice to find the subject sometimes but I but the EF600mmf4L IS is a overall sharpest and bester lens though expensive.   However, I like the Sigma 120-300mmf2.8 for high school football and I also use the EF70-200mmf2.8L III for high school football to.   Wildlife is a second use for me.  I also use the EF 100-400L IS II for wildlife with the Canon 1.4 and 2.0X III TCs.   It is lighter and gets to 200-800mm equiv.

Quick question:

how many fps you get on mechanical shutter with 120-300 and did you calibrate/update this lens with sigma dock?

Is AF performance close to EF 70-200/2.8 mk2 ?

thanks

mKotar wrote:

Quick question:

how many fps you get on mechanical shutter with 120-300 and did you calibrate/update this lens with sigma dock?

Is AF performance close to EF 70-200/2.8 mk2 ?

thanks

The Sigma 120-300f2.8 EX fps is around 7fps mechanical (flashing white H++) and it uses 100% of sensor for focus area (not 80% or 60% of some lenses).

I have the Sigma Doc but never calibrated or updated this lens. I worked well so I saw not need. This is the EX version I have that predates the newer "Sport" version which may focus faster. It is weather sealed better too. I would likely get Sport if I were buying it again. The EX optics are very good though so no reason for me to upgrade.

Maybe tweaking the firmware would speed up the FPS but I am happy since I use electronic shutter much of the time anyway. Electronic shutter is 20 fps. No observed rolling shutter in the R5 so far. My EF400f2.8 is awesome at 20 fps using the electronic shutter too.

RDM5546 wrote:

mKotar wrote:

Quick question:

how many fps you get on mechanical shutter with 120-300 and did you calibrate/update this lens with sigma dock?

Is AF performance close to EF 70-200/2.8 mk2 ?

thanks

The Sigma 120-300f2.8 EX fps is around 7fps mechanical (flashing white H++) and it uses 100% of sensor for focus area (not 80% or 60% of some lenses).

I have the Sigma Doc but never calibrated or updated this lens. I worked well so I saw not need. This is the EX version I have that predates the newer "Sport" version which may focus faster. It is weather sealed better too. I would likely get Sport if I were buying it again. The EX optics are very good though so no reason for me to upgrade.

Maybe tweaking the firmware would speed up the FPS but I am happy since I use electronic shutter much of the time anyway. Electronic shutter is 20 fps. No observed rolling shutter in the R5 so far. My EF400f2.8 is awesome at 20 fps using the electronic shutter too.

I have been using the 1.6X crop mode for increasing the reach.   The R5 puts out 20MP images in crop mode and the quality is excellent.   The Move crop mode allow you to increases the reach with very good 4K IQ IMHO so the the Sigma 120-300f2.8 and 2X TC using 4K video crop is very good quality and has 960mmf5.6 reach in 4K video with no thermal time limits in the movie crop mode!!   This combination is relatively lightweight 4K hand holdable or easy to use on tripod/monopod which much better for video stability.