Shots from the back garden, R7 and RF 100mm Macro or 100-500L

A few shots from the past few days of some of the visitors to the wildflower garden we have growing in our yard.

The RF100mm Macro and RF 100-500L are both great choices for these, but the 100-500 can be easier to use as you get to keep some distance and with a nice short MFD it can get great shots of larger insects.

Very well done! Thanks for sharing!

I'm really impressed with these, thanks for posting.

It looks like you had the EF 100 and bought the RF 100. Is it worth it? I'm struggling with this decision. I have both types of cameras.

A200Eric wrote:

Very well done! Thanks for sharing!

Thanks!

PhotonCage wrote:

I'm really impressed with these, thanks for posting.

Thanks!

gmcooper wrote:

It looks like you had the EF 100 and bought the RF 100. Is it worth it? I'm struggling with this decision. I have both types of cameras.

"Worth it" really depends on how you use it. I went with the RF model because I wanted a higher level of magnification, and the 1.4x does make quite a difference compared to 1x of the EF model. For me anything else was more of a "nice to have". Things like no adapter needed, faster AF, better IS (though it's hard to quantify that as it really depends on the person and how they use it).

The SA control is something I don't like. I'll never use it and I find that it's something that I need to watch as the Lock switch has been bumped off before and the rung turned which caused some odd looking shots and initially I thought I had some fogging or haze on the front element. I don't like having to check that when I pull it out of my bag.

The overall image quality between the two is almost indistinguishable, at least to my eyes. They take sharp shots as long as the person using it is doing their job!

BlueRay2 wrote:

great set and nice work.

Thank you!

david31 wrote:

Great shots.

I am being advised to get a macro lens for a trip to Costa Rica but I am not convinced. I think a 100-500 would be more flexible and useful.

Do you have a shot using the 100mm macro and the 100-500 taken from the same distance? I am interested to see how the subject fills the frame. It's virtually impossible to get close to butterflies before they fly off so 100-500 seems a better choice. Stationary subjects that don't run away the 100 macro is probably the better choice.

What do you think?

If you're shooting from the same distance, the 100-500 would likely be the clear winner, unless you can get a lot closer then it's MFD allows, in which case the macro lens might be a better choice.

For larger insects, butterflies specifically, I almost always use the 100-500.  If using it with the R5 I'll even add the 1.4x extender, as long as there's enough light.  And while the macro lens has a much brighter wide-open aperture, you likely won't be able to shoot at 2.8 as the depth-of-field will be too shallow.  I usually stop down to at least f/5.6-f/8 unless stacking is an option.

If you could only choose one lens, then the 100-500 might be a better choice.  However if I was taking a trip there I would be packing both the 100-500 and the 100mm macro.

Thank you.

Sweet shooting as always!  Your lighting is always great!

R2