Other I'd like to get into wildlife photography.

[freddijay]

The RF 70-200 f/4, to me, would be pointless for wildlife. It isn't as fast as the RF 70-200 f/2.8 although it is lighter and more compact. The RF 70-200 f/4 cannot be used with the RF extenders. <https://www.the-digital-picture.com...Lens-at-200mm-With-the-EF-EOS-R-Mount-Adapter> The focal length is too short in most cases for capturing distant animals. It could be used for large mammals in good light if you were very close but that would make it a very specialized purchase. I once sold my EF 100-400 first series lens and picked up the EF 70-200 f/2.8. I quickly discovered it had all the disadvantages of the EF 100-400 such as large size and more weight and none of the advantages of having a longer focal length. Both of the RF 70-200 lenses seem to be more sports oriented with the faster lens more usable indoors. I'm sure others will add their opinions on this subject but I've found that I always want more focal length for wildlife and the compromises always come in the form of size, weight, and cost. At this point, the RF 100-500 is ideal for me but I also own the RF 800 f/11, RF 100-400, and EF 500 f/4 II. Even with those options, the RF 100-500 is on the camera body 99% of the time. The RF 100-500 is big, heavy, and expensive, so, as I wrote previously, the RF 100-400 is, to me, the best compromise as a starting lens.

 

[Brian1965]

Hi, I can vouch for the Rf 100-500, it's nice and sharp and fast to focus as well, I have the R6 ii also, coming over from Nikon it took a bit of getting used to the menus, especially setting up the AF! but I think I've got the hang of it now and the wife says she'll take the straight jacket off me tomorrow. Seriously, I've only had the setup a week and I love it already.

Cool, but I think I'll settle on the R7.

 

[jcass]

Every option that you listed in your original post would be great, imo. The camera choice boils down to your specific style and needs. Until you have some experience, how are you supposed to know. So, unfortunately, it boils downs to your research here and other forums, your best guess, and a leap of faith. I will say that from what I've read, you will not be disappointed between R5, R6ii, and R7, and (most likely) the R8. They all rock, each in their own special way.

I highly recommend the RF 100-500mm. Glass matters most. You'll probably find over time that you want something wider or (maybe) brighter, but the 100-500 has been a wonderfully versatile zoom lens for me. The R7 will give you a little more reach with it. The AF and IQ of the combo will knock your socks off. Bon Appetit.

 

[Brian1965]

Every option that you listed in your original post would be great, imo. The camera choice boils down to your specific style and needs. Until you have some experience, how are you supposed to know. So, unfortunately, it boils downs to your research here and other forums, your best guess, and a leap of faith. I will say that from what I've read, you will not be disappointed between R5, R6ii, and R7, and (most likely) the R8. They all rock, each in their own special way.

I highly recommend the RF 100-500mm. Glass matters most. You'll probably find over time that you want something wider or (maybe) brighter, but the 100-500 has been a wonderfully versatile zoom lens for me. The R7 will give you a little more reach with it. The AF and IQ of the combo will knock your socks off. Bon Appetit.

Many thanks.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Preface: I have an R5, R6 & R7. I have the 100-400mm RF, 100-500mm RF, 800mm f11, and both TC's. I came to Canon mirrorless after a decade of shooting Nikon DSLR's. 95% of what I shoot would be considered wildlife.

Are you a casual photographer or a serious hobbiest that wants to shoot a lot?

What's your budget?

If you put yourself in the latter part of the first question then I don't care what your answer to the second one is - buy a 100-500mm (or if you have time wait and see what the new 200-500mm comes in at and see if folks are selling the 100-500's). The 100-400mm is an amazing lens for the price, but it's not nearly as fast focusing, so if you're shooting moving things or birds in flight it will work but you'll have more misses or delays on your first sharp image. This lens alone is what made me sell off all my Nikon gear. But, if you are looking to do this casually then the 100-400mm will work just fine, particularly if you're shooting stationary critters.

Bodies?

Avoid the R6. Yes, it will work fine, particularly the Mkii. But wildlife is all about pixels per critter, and this is where it falls short. If you're going to be cropping you want more pixels.

I started shooting with the R5 and then put it down to give the R7 a good test. After 3 months I switched back to the R5 and use the R7 only in certain situations where reach is important and I don't need to shoot long bursts. Why?

• R7 buffer is woefully small for wildlife. You can get a couple seconds in compressed Raw, but if that's not enough you miss the shot.
• R7 focus system is superior, but processor isn't.
  • It essentially has the R3 focus system which is terrific and allows Eye Detect in all focus modes.
  • I am amazed at how quickly the R7 grabs the eye of the subject - so much faster than the R5.
  • I am disappointed at how much the focus wavers - I've sent multiple stacks to Canon where the focus point is on the eye and the camera wobbles between good focus and focusing on the background. It just doesn't hold focus well compared to the R5.
• On the R5 I can use back button focus to approximate the eye detect of the R7 in all available modes.
• I tend not to shoot in electronic shutter unless silence is demanded and while both cameras suffer from rolling shutter the R7 is far worse.

While the 1.6x added reach on the R7 is great the above makes it impractical as a main camera. But with the added reach and extra MPs I use it when I need reach beyond the 100-500mm but don't want to use a TC. On the R7 the 100-500mm is effectively a 160-800mm lens. If you consider the cost of a 1.4x TC and the 800mm f11, buying an R7 instead and swapping the 100-500mm gives you everything you were looking for with no loss of aperture. That's where mine gets used.

Since I mentioned TC's, the 1.4x works great on both the 100-400mm and 100-500mm (though only from 300-500mm on the latter which I hate - hence my use of the R7 instead). Don't bother with the 2x for wildlife. Long range paparazzi work? Sure.

Now, depending on your timeline and want for a great rig, I suspect the R5 Mkii will have the R3 focus system and hopefully a sensor solution that all but eliminates rolling shutter. So if you can wait for the ultimate rig then you may not want to jump on the R5 until you hear what the next one is like. You could start with the R7 & 100-500mm, because good glass is forever if you don't drop it, and then decide on the R5ii when it's announced, knowing that all of a sudden that lens is going to look a lot shorter to you.

As always, my advice is worth the price of admission.

 

[Brian1965]

Preface: I have an R5, R6 & R7. I have the 100-400mm RF, 100-500mm RF, 800mm f11, and both TC's. I came to Canon mirrorless after a decade of shooting Nikon DSLR's. 95% of what I shoot would be considered wildlife.

Are you a casual photographer or a serious hobbiest that wants to shoot a lot?

What's your budget?

If you put yourself in the latter part of the first question then I don't care what your answer to the second one is - buy a 100-500mm (or if you have time wait and see what the new 200-500mm comes in at and see if folks are selling the 100-500's). The 100-400mm is an amazing lens for the price, but it's not nearly as fast focusing, so if you're shooting moving things or birds in flight it will work but you'll have more misses or delays on your first sharp image. This lens alone is what made me sell off all my Nikon gear. But, if you are looking to do this casually then the 100-400mm will work just fine, particularly if you're shooting stationary critters.

Bodies?

Avoid the R6. Yes, it will work fine, particularly the Mkii. But wildlife is all about pixels per critter, and this is where it falls short. If you're going to be cropping you want more pixels.

I started shooting with the R5 and then put it down to give the R7 a good test. After 3 months I switched back to the R5 and use the R7 only in certain situations where reach is important and I don't need to shoot long bursts. Why?

• R7 buffer is woefully small for wildlife. You can get a couple seconds in compressed Raw, but if that's not enough you miss the shot.
• R7 focus system is superior, but processor isn't.
  • It essentially has the R3 focus system which is terrific and allows Eye Detect in all focus modes.
  • I am amazed at how quickly the R7 grabs the eye of the subject - so much faster than the R5.
  • I am disappointed at how much the focus wavers - I've sent multiple stacks to Canon where the focus point is on the eye and the camera wobbles between good focus and focusing on the background. It just doesn't hold focus well compared to the R5.
• On the R5 I can use back button focus to approximate the eye detect of the R7 in all available modes.
• I tend not to shoot in electronic shutter unless silence is demanded and while both cameras suffer from rolling shutter the R7 is far worse.

While the 1.6x added reach on the R7 is great the above makes it impractical as a main camera. But with the added reach and extra MPs I use it when I need reach beyond the 100-500mm but don't want to use a TC. On the R7 the 100-500mm is effectively a 160-800mm lens. If you consider the cost of a 1.4x TC and the 800mm f11, buying an R7 instead and swapping the 100-500mm gives you everything you were looking for with no loss of aperture. That's where mine gets used.

Since I mentioned TC's, the 1.4x works great on both the 100-400mm and 100-500mm (though only from 300-500mm on the latter which I hate - hence my use of the R7 instead). Don't bother with the 2x for wildlife. Long range paparazzi work? Sure.

Now, depending on your timeline and want for a great rig, I suspect the R5 Mkii will have the R3 focus system and hopefully a sensor solution that all but eliminates rolling shutter. So if you can wait for the ultimate rig then you may not want to jump on the R5 until you hear what the next one is like. You could start with the R7 & 100-500mm, because good glass is forever if you don't drop it, and then decide on the R5ii when it's announced, knowing that all of a sudden that lens is going to look a lot shorter to you.

As always, my advice is worth the price of admission.

budget would probably have to be $3000 tp $4000; I'm a casual photographer/hobbyist/non-pro. The R3 and R5 ii are beyond my budget. This leaves the R7 with, most importantly, the 100-500 lens. When the 200-500mm comes out, it might make the 100-500 lens even more affordable. If not, 200-500 would be fine.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

budget would probably have to be $3000 tp $4000; I'm a casual photographer/hobbyist/non-pro. The R3 and R5 ii are beyond my budget. This leaves the R7 with, most importantly, the 100-500 lens. When the 200-500mm comes out, it might make the 100-500 lens even more affordable. If not, 200-500 would be fine.

When I started shooting wildlife I would have killed for the 100-500mm and an R7. You should be able to do that with your budget.

 

[Brian1965]

When I started shooting wildlife I would have killed for the 100-500mm and an R7. You should be able to do that with your budget.

Thank you.