Buying question - Lens and adapter for M62 or add an R10?

[JustUs7]

What we want: More telephoto reach.

What we have: EOS M6 II (plus three lenses - 32 f/1.4, 11-22, and 18-150) and we also have an RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 (purchased for my RF mount camera - I’ve since purchased the 100-500 and have four other RF lenses. 16, 35, and 85 consumer primes and the 24-240).

What we’re pondering: Do we get the EF-EF-M adapter and purchase the Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II USM and use on the M6II? Or keep the RF 100-400 and pick up an R10? With the R10 + RF 100-400 being a sharp and relatively light weight kit.

Cost isn’t that far off getting one body vs one adapter and one lens. And the weight is actually in favor of the 100-400. And the improved AF is of interest.

 

[David Berry]

My suggestion:

• Keep it simple.
• I’d choose similar bodies.

… David

 

[Archibald]

What RF body do you already have?

If you want reach, buy an R7 and put the 100-500mm on it. The R7 will put more pixels on the subject than the R10.

Those other lenses are irrelevant to your objectives.

 

[MSH411]

A would agree with David.

If you owned the EF lens already the adapter would be the way to go but you have enough RF lenses to support a second body.

 

[chipman]

My years in electronics taught me -
When price is not a consideration, new tech is better than old tech,
and -
KISS: body and lens is better than body, lens, and adapter.
As with all internet advice, YMMV.

 

[JustUs7]

What RF body do you already have?

If you want reach, buy an R7 and put the 100-500mm on it. The R7 will put more pixels on the subject than the R10.

Those other lenses are irrelevant to your objectives.

I have an R6II and use the 100-500. Plenty of reach for my uses. Mostly for rowing competitions. Occasionally wildlife, but only on vacation. I’m not a birder.

Weight is a main consideration in the above choices and would be for my wife. I know the R7 is bulkier than she’s interested in and she definitely doesn’t want to use my 100-500. R7 is 30% heavier than the R10 or M6II and only 9% lighter than my R6II.

She uses the M6II now and really likes it. So it’s more of a better reach option for her since the 70-300 plus adapter isn’t much different in cost than the R10. And EF-M has nothing native with reach over 200mm’s. We (I) already have the RF 100-400 - the R10 plus 100-400 is actually a bit lighter than her M6II plus adapter.

 

[MSH411]

The RF100-400mm is a pretty good lens and on the R10 the equivalent focal range would end up @ 160mm - 640mm. The extra reach would be great and the 5.5 stops of IS would be a bonus.