Yes, in your opinion.Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!
In other people's opinion, getting a zoom is much more useful.
Upvote
0
Yes, in your opinion.Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!
Because a zoom lens like this would essentially be like having 2 or 3 top of the line lenses, making it far more versatile than a prime. Why anyone would buy a prime for 20k really boggles my mind as you are so limited in your subject distance!Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!
Better to use a 500mm lens and zoom with your feet than to use a 1200mm lens + 2x TC. I mean, you may need Google maps to plot out the differential distance, but it gives you more flexibility with framing!Why anyone would buy a prime for 20k really boggles my mind as you are so limited in your subject distance!
The best lens I had had was the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF - loved it. Then, I got the RF 100-500mm, and it was even better - almost as sharp, so much more versatile and would focus so much closer.Better to use a 500mm lens and zoom with your feet than to use a 1200mm lens + 2x TC. I mean, you may need Google maps to plot out the differential distance, but it gives you more flexibility with framing!
Actually, with Canon's new Digital Teleconverter (rumored to be 8x in the next camera), who needs long primes at all?
The old EF 200-400 1.4x was at this pricepoint years ago.Why on earth would anyone spend $20k on a non prime lens? Anything even approaching $10k would be rediculous in my opinion!
The R5 + RF 100-500 is an excellent setup for birding. What this lens might offer (it’s just patent at this point, and few patents become real lenses) is mainly a wider aperture. That means lower ISOs / faster shutter speeds. It also means less diffraction softening, which can be a minor issue with the R5 / R7 and a TC on the 100-500. Being a ‘great white’ the image quality will be technically better, but what is detectable on test charts often makes less to no difference in real-world use (the 100-500 is a very good lens).This might be lengthy so I apologize. This is my first post on here ever. I am a birder who has slowly and slowly turned into a photographer. Started with a point and shoot to take ID shots in order to study for identifying birds. Got a 70d with 100-400 1 lens, then 7 mark 2 with 100-400 ii, then a 5dmarkiv, then finally an r5 with 100-500 (current set up). The more I advance with photography the less I feel about a birder lol. I have photographer envy when I see some of the insane images on IG etc and have some desire to get better and better at photography. I now shoot only in raw and use pure raw and lightroom classic to process photos (still a LR novice). I have flirted with the idea of getting the rf 600mm f4 but feel when I do that I will cease being a birder from just a movement point of view. Also, if I get the 600mm it seems like you also have to get a tripod and a head and a flash and a flash etc Yada Yada yada...seems like a lot. Not to mention the price tag is like the GDP of a small nation. Nevertheless this lens in this thread (200-500 with 1.4) seems amazing in theory and maybe the final step in my photography journey. I was hoping someone on here could state some of the obvious benefits over the 100-500. What could I expect. Will this lens almost certainly need a tripod? Would a cotton carrier be enough. Could I use it while birding and moving a lot? Would the photo quality be a marked increase from the 100-500? Thank you all and apologies in advance for the lengthy rambling post! Appreciate you all and have always learned a lot reading you guys responses on here
How you use it and what you can get out of it depends on how strong you are. It's too heavy for me, a keen opportunistic birder, to walk around with, but younger stronger guys and gals could cope with it, and a monopod would help. The IQ of the 100-500 is very impressive. A 200-500mm f/4 will have advantages in low light, 1 2/3rd stops, and should take extenders better in terms of combating diffraction, but the 100-500mm takes the 1.4x and 2x TCs very well.This might be lengthy so I apologize. This is my first post on here ever. I am a birder who has slowly and slowly turned into a photographer. Started with a point and shoot to take ID shots in order to study for identifying birds. Got a 70d with 100-400 1 lens, then 7 mark 2 with 100-400 ii, then a 5dmarkiv, then finally an r5 with 100-500 (current set up). The more I advance with photography the less I feel about a birder lol. I have photographer envy when I see some of the insane images on IG etc and have some desire to get better and better at photography. I now shoot only in raw and use pure raw and lightroom classic to process photos (still a LR novice). I have flirted with the idea of getting the rf 600mm f4 but feel when I do that I will cease being a birder from just a movement point of view. Also, if I get the 600mm it seems like you also have to get a tripod and a head and a flash and a flash etc Yada Yada yada...seems like a lot. Not to mention the price tag is like the GDP of a small nation. Nevertheless this lens in this thread (200-500 with 1.4) seems amazing in theory and maybe the final step in my photography journey. I was hoping someone on here could state some of the obvious benefits over the 100-500. What could I expect. Will this lens almost certainly need a tripod? Would a cotton carrier be enough. Could I use it while birding and moving a lot? Would the photo quality be a marked increase from the 100-500? Thank you all and apologies in advance for the lengthy rambling post! Appreciate you all and have always learned a lot reading you guys responses on here
Thanks both of you for such a wonderful response. I am trying to get "better" photos but don't want to stop being a birder either lol. Included a link for my Flickr to show how im progressing. I am wondering how all the hot shots on IG get all those insane tack sharp shots with perfect perches and backgrounds lolHow you use it and what you can get out of it depends on how strong you are. It's too heavy for me, a keen opportunistic birder, to walk around with, but younger stronger guys and gals could cope with it, and a monopod would help. The IQ of the 100-500 is very impressive. A 200-500mm f/4 will have advantages in low light, 1 2/3rd stops, and should take extenders better in terms of combating diffraction, but the 100-500mm takes the 1.4x and 2x TCs very well.
My post crossed with Neuro's in the ether, which makes the same points. A 200-500 f/4 is technically better optically than a 100-500 f/7.1 but the trade off in loss of portability and increased difficulty of handling makes a 100-500mm f/7.1 the preferred choice for most of us who use a lens on bird hikes and going from hide to hide.
Some people set up backyard feeders with a ‘preferred’ perch (a single available branch a few meters from the feeder, with a distant and pleasing background). Some raptor shots are taken at rehabilitation facilities that are set up for that, with flight paths and live bait.I am wondering how all the hot shots on IG get all those insane tack sharp shots with perfect perches and backgrounds lol
For me, it‘s the thrill of the chase of finding new birds or opportunistically coming across them that drives my choice of gear - light and portable, versatile and sharp.Some people set up backyard feeders with a ‘preferred’ perch (a single available branch a few meters from the feeder, with a distant and pleasing background). Some raptor shots are taken at rehabilitation facilities that are set up for that, with flight paths and live bait.
The 200-400mm is heavy... I was really surprised as it is double the RF100-500mm and much more front heavy.They can do a 200-400 that is a lot lighter than the current one.
The front element in a 200-500 has to be much bigger, although it will switch to electronic manual focusing, which in itself will save weight, not including the technical advancements made in optical design. Manufactures have shifted weight more and more rearwards with their latest super telephoto designs. So it will be much easier to handhold, even if it does not weigh a lot less on a scale.
Price will be sky-high indeed.
Canon were happy to use extending lens designs for RF100-500 and RF70-200 but I am not convinced that the big whites will get the same treatment. I recall the fears of dust pumps from the older designs but that hasn't been the case so far.The old EF 200-400 1.4x was at this pricepoint years ago.
If no one ever had bought it, Canon would not make a patent for a redesign. After the typical price increase of the last RF lenses (in comparison to the EF ones) this might be also in 15k+ range.
And of course you can decrease the weight also on zoom lenses, both RF 70-200 are the perfect example. Yes yes, they now extends and are no internal zoom as the EF ones anymore, I know. But maybe this is here also the case?
This might be lengthy so I apologize. This is my first post on here ever. I am a birder who has slowly and slowly turned into a photographer. Started with a point and shoot to take ID shots in order to study for identifying birds. Got a 70d with 100-400 1 lens, then 7 mark 2 with 100-400 ii, then a 5dmarkiv, then finally an r5 with 100-500 (current set up). The more I advance with photography the less I feel about a birder lol. I have photographer envy when I see some of the insane images on IG etc and have some desire to get better and better at photography. I now shoot only in raw and use pure raw and lightroom classic to process photos (still a LR novice). I have flirted with the idea of getting the rf 600mm f4 but feel when I do that I will cease being a birder from just a movement point of view. Also, if I get the 600mm it seems like you also have to get a tripod and a head and a flash and a flash etc Yada Yada yada...seems like a lot. Not to mention the price tag is like the GDP of a small nation. Nevertheless this lens in this thread (200-500 with 1.4) seems amazing in theory and maybe the final step in my photography journey. I was hoping someone on here could state some of the obvious benefits over the 100-500. What could I expect. Will this lens almost certainly need a tripod? Would a cotton carrier be enough. Could I use it while birding and moving a lot? Would the photo quality be a marked increase from the 100-500? Thank you all and apologies in advance for the lengthy rambling post! Appreciate you all and have always learned a lot reading you guys responses on here