Best Lens for Bird photos

[JWILL]

I have a Canon R6. Right now I am using a Canon 75-300mm L lense for bird photos but would like something to get closer. Which would be better for that type photo, the RF 600 or the Sigma C 150-600?

 

[dmiller68]

I use the Sigma 150-600 and it works great with the R, RP I have. It is heavy though so that is something to consider. Does require a converter as well since they don't make a RF version yet. The 1.4x also works well with it if you need a little more reach. Another option of coarse is the Canon RF 100-500.

 

[JWILL]

Thank you. I will look closer at the Canon RF 100-500. I think that it costs more but perhaps it will weigh less. The weight is one reason that I was thinking about the RF 600. I do prefer the RF lenses, especially since the adapters are so hard to come by.

 

[dmiller68]

Thank you. I will look closer at the Canon RF 100-500. I think that it costs more but perhaps it will weigh less. The weight is one reason that I was thinking about the RF 600. I do prefer the RF lenses, especially since the adapters are so hard to come by.

Yeah, if there is a camera store near you you could always go check it out. I wouldn't say it is super heavy but it does take some getting used to. The Contemporary (the one I have) is lighter then the Sport version. It is the only EF lens I have now but I just love what I get out of it so it is a keeper. The Canon is almost or more then twice the cost so for me it would be hard to justify the switch. Plus I just bought the Canon RF 15-35 .

 

[wchjr56]

I have the Tamron 150-600 and the RF 800. The RF 800 is light and I will defer to this is the light is good and I know that I need the reach. Otherwise I have the Tamron for lower light (not much) but with my R6 and the ability to crank the ISO I seems to get most shots in normal daylight. If I have something I want to get and it is low light and close in I can use my EF 70-200 2.8. I have the EF 1.4x if I want to get a little more reach. At some point I want the RF 100-500 but instead of the Tamron but I am happy with what I have for now.

 

[JWILL]

Yeah, if there is a camera store near you you could always go check it out. I wouldn't say it is super heavy but it does take some getting used to. The Contemporary (the one I have) is lighter then the Sport version. It is the only EF lens I have now but I just love what I get out of it so it is a keeper. The Canon is almost or more then twice the cost so for me it would be hard to justify the switch. Plus I just bought the Canon RF 15-35 .

I don’t think that we have any stores near us, but I need to check. When we lived near Cincinnati, some of the camera shops would see up at the zoo and you could rent lens to try out for a couple of hours. That was a great way to check out different lens. I wish they did that around here but I haven’t heard of it being done and we don’t live near a zoo. I have the RF 35 macro and the RF 24-105mm L. The rest are the Ef Lens.

 

[JWILL]

I have the Tamron 150-600 and the RF 800. The RF 800 is light and I will defer to this is the light is good and I know that I need the reach. Otherwise I have the Tamron for lower light (not much) but with my R6 and the ability to crank the ISO I seems to get most shots in normal daylight. If I have something I want to get and it is low light and close in I can use my EF 70-200 2.8. I have the EF 1.4x if I want to get a little more reach. At some point I want the RF 100-500 but instead of the Tamron but I am happy with what I have for now.

Thank you. I will check out the Tamron. I have been looking at the RF 600 mainly because it is lighter than the RF 800. I like to hold my camera rather than use a tripod so some lens can get heavy pretty quick. I do like the reach though so I may have to do some arm workouts to make it easier to hold the bigger lens. LOL

 

[wchjr56]

The 800mm is incredibly light and lighter then the Tamron and Sigmas. I hand hold both and the RF 800 a whole lot easier

 

[JWILL]

The 800mm is incredibly light and lighter then the Tamron and Sigmas. I hand hold both and the RF 800 a whole lot easier

Thank you. That is good to know. I may check with Best Buy and see if they have some of these lens in stock so I can actually hold them.

 

[RaFa Wildlife]

Thank you. I will look closer at the Canon RF 100-500. I think that it costs more but perhaps it will weigh less. The weight is one reason that I was thinking about the RF 600. I do prefer the RF lenses, especially since the adapters are so hard to come by.

I have the R6 with 100-500. Amazing light set and superb quality all around. You will not regret the extra cost.

 

[RaFa Wildlife]

I have a Canon R6. Right now I am using a Canon 75-300mm L lense for bird photos but would like something to get closer. Which would be better for that type photo, the RF 600 or the Sigma C 150-600?

Go to the "reviews" tab and read the reviews on the RF 600, 800 and 100-500. Don't compromise quality for reach and comfort.

 

[JWILL]

Go to the "reviews" tab and read the reviews on the RF 600, 800 and 100-500. Don't compromise quality for reach and comfort.

Thank you. I will do that.

 

[GeraldHerd]

I’m using the EF 100-400 L ii on an R6, sometimes with a Eos 1.4x TC. Works to my satisfaction. Birds are my primary subjects. If you can afford it, though, I’d try for Canon R glass: you’ll eliminate the need for an EF-R adapter, and the R lenses are, by everything I’ve read, capable of much better resolution than the EF L lenses. Whether you need 400mm of “reach”, or 600 or 800 mm, fixed focal length or zoom, may depend on your expected working distance and whether you’re shooting hummingbirds or Pelicans, birds in flight or stationary birds.

 

[Genessi]

Thank you. I will look closer at the Canon RF 100-500. I think that it costs more but perhaps it will weigh less. The weight is one reason that I was thinking about the RF 600. I do prefer the RF lenses, especially since the adapters are so hard to come by.

I have only used my RF 600 once yesterday and I love it. I do want the 100-500 but need to wait, It's expensive

 

[yahkeh]

I don’t think that we have any stores near us, but I need to check. When we lived near Cincinnati, some of the camera shops would see up at the zoo and you could rent lens to try out for a couple of hours. That was a great way to check out different lens. I wish they did that around here but I haven’t heard of it being done and we don’t live near a zoo. I have the RF 35 macro and the RF 24-105mm L. The rest are the Ef Lens.

Good morning, there is an online solution to this: I have rented numerous lenses from lensrental.com before I committed to purchase -they are reasonably priced and as long as you have a FedEx dropoff location near you you're golden; I recently rented the Sigma 60-600 sport for my R5 - the images turned out just beautiful yet weight certainly is an issue and the upcoming colder temperatures: you don't want to have this combo hanging around your neck!!!So carrying it in your hands will get chilly.... but I certainly did miss the reach last weekend when all I had was the prime 400....... oh yeah, both of them are EF lenses, but I do have the adapter - which contrary to a post by another member was NOT hard to obtain.... prior to purchasing the R5 I had rented the R together with the RF 100-500 - I honestly do not recall whether there was a quality difference, I'd have to go back and find some of my images... but weight and, alas, price were certainly different.......

 

[yahkeh]

I don’t think that we have any stores near us, but I need to check. When we lived near Cincinnati, some of the camera shops would see up at the zoo and you could rent lens to try out for a couple of hours. That was a great way to check out different lens. I wish they did that around here but I haven’t heard of it being done and we don’t live near a zoo. I have the RF 35 macro and the RF 24-105mm L. The rest are the Ef Lens.

Yeah, if there is a camera store near you you could always go check it out. I wouldn't say it is super heavy but it does take some getting used to. The Contemporary (the one I have) is lighter then the Sport version. It is the only EF lens I have now but I just love what I get out of it so it is a keeper. The Canon is almost or more then twice the cost so for me it would be hard to justify the switch. Plus I just bought the Canon RF 15-35 .

here are the images taken with the rental R and the RF 100-500.....

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[yahkeh]

...and here one taken with the R5 and the rental Sigma 60-600 sport.... (obviously full photo and severe crop......)

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I heartily recommend the 100-500mm, but it is a kick in the wallet. With that said, I picked up the 100-400mm RF for my wife to use and I'm utterly impressed for what you get for the price, and I'm also playing with it and the 1.4x TC and will be posting some side-by-sides from it on the R6 and the 100-500mm on an R5. You lose some light at f11 on the long end, but so far I'm impressed.

 

[MikeZ]

I also picked-up the RF 100-400 a few weeks ago and agree with you about the image quality on my R5. I'd be interested in whatever you uncover about this lens with the 1.4TC.