Canon R6 II R6ii with 100-500 for sports

[AndrewWaters]

Hi All,

First time poster here so be nice

I recently bought an R6 Mark ii with 24-105 f4 and so far it has been great!

I am looking to purchase my next lease - primarily I am shooting landscapes, my kids and kids sports - I have been looking at the idea of purchasing a RF 100-500 and just need a little bit more to push myself across the line

Would some users have some photos from the sideline both at 100-500 I really want to ensure reach is ideal - mind you I think I am just being a pain.

Additionally your experience and feedback would be awesome

 

[David Berry]

Andrew…

The RF 100–500 is an outstanding lens. I have yet to come across a negative review.

That said, I'll force myself to be negative:

• Zoom Ring : more than a quarter turn from 100 to 500,
• Control Ring : awkward location close to camera body,
• Price : RF 100–400 available for a quarter of the price (AU$1000 versus AU$4000).

Now, just go get yourself an RF 100-500. (It's my favourite RF lens!)

… David

 

[AndrewWaters]

Andrew…

The RF 100–500 is an outstanding lens. I have yet to come across a negative review.

That said, I'll force myself to be negative:

• Zoom Ring : more than a quarter turn from 100 to 500,
• Control Ring : awkward location close to camera body,
• Price : RF 100–400 available for a quarter of the price (AU$1000 versus AU$4000).

Now, just go get yourself an RF 100-500. (It's my favourite RF lens!)

… David

Hey mate,

Cheers for the response

I am borderline now haha, but then do I consider the RF 70-200 f2.8 or f4.
I don't think they will have the reach either.

 

[SYSO]

I am looking to purchase my next lease - primarily I am shooting landscapes, my kids and kids sports...

When my kids were younger, my most used lens was EF 70-200 f/2.8L for all their activities, from indoor performance events, portraits to sports. Once they grew up and left for college, I sold the 70-200 as I no longer had much use for it. I currently use RF 100-500/1.4xTC and RF 800 f/11 for my bird photography. You can do sports with the RF 100-500, but it's not as fast as the 70-200 f/2.8; portraits would be a stretch; unsuitable for indoor school events. The only thing it has over the 70-200 is the reach, but for all of my kids' events, including sports, the 70-200 sufficed. The 70-200 is also a better choice for landscapes, too.

 

[David Berry]

I am considering the RF 70–200 f/2.8 or f/4.

Andrew …

I have the RF 70–200 f/4. It's the least used of my RF lenses. It is the lens that can be left at home; however, because it is light and compact, it gets taken along!

The RF 70–200 f/2.8, although heavier and bulkier, is compact compared with its EF predecessor. It's priced around AU$4000 which is essentially the same as the RF 100–500. Worth considering!

… David

 

[MrSparks999]

I have both the RF 70-200 2.8 and the RF 100-500 and both are really good lenses, I wouldnt want to be without either of them, but if forced to choose i would go for the 70-200 very versatile and pin sharp.

 

[AKVet]

I have both the 100-500 and the 70-200 2.8. I enjoy shooting birds/wildlife so I use the 100-500 for 95% of my photos. It's my favorite lens and pretty much glued to my R5. I use the R6m2 with the 70-200mm 2.8 for sports and activities due to the fast action, especially when taking photos for indoor sporting events. If my primary purpose is for sports photography and I could only have one of those lenses, I would go for the 70-200 2.8. That is my highly unqualified opinion.

 

[jcass]

I have both lenses, an old EF 70-200mm F2.8L and the RF 100-500mm. The 70-200 2.8L is better for smaller court, indoor, or night games. Indoors and lower light is where large aperture is very useful. But it just doesn't have enough reach imo for the larger field outdoor games, like soccer, lacrosse, football, baseball, etc. Those larger outdoor games are where I prefer the RF 100-500mm. I coached youth soccer for 20 years and I would have like to have the 100-500mm zoom range.

I believe that it boils down to where you'll photograph the most and what other purposes you use the lens for.

 

[AndrewWaters]

Thanks all for the feedback and help.

I am still on the edge of the 100-500 as I will be shooting outdoors and not so much inside - if any.

I have got a mates EF 70-200 f2.8 which I will test out for the week and make a decision next week.

 

[AndrewWaters]

I am still deliberating but thinking I might buy a RF 100-500 brand new and then a second hand EF 70-200 f2.8

Couple of shots from the 70-200 this weekend.

 

[hedleyw]

Thanks all for the feedback and help.

I am still on the edge of the 100-500 as I will be shooting outdoors and not so much inside - if any.

I have got a mates EF 70-200 f2.8 which I will test out for the week and make a decision next week.

If you’re thinking about either of the RF 70-200 lenses, bear in mind that neither are compatible with teleconverters. From that point of view an adapted EF would be a better choice. I have the 70-200 f2.8 and it is a superb lens for sport but I take 90% of my field hockey photos with the EF 400mm f2.8 mk iii. I have the RF 100-500 but don’t use it for sport, apart from the high ISO required at fast shutter speeds I prefer a shallow depth of field for sport photography.

 

[David Eaton]

Late to the discussion, but I have the 100-500 and shoot sports, for both local high schools and Murray State University. The 100-500, as I’m sure you know, is a great lens if there’s light. You’re at f/7.1 not far beyond the 400mm mark, but, the R6ii will handle high ISO values well. I have used the lens to shoot marching band shows at both Kroger Field at the University of Kentucky and Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy with good success.

The pros would be that the reach of the lens is nice for outdoor field sports. If I’m feeling lazy and only want to take one camera with me, I’ll happily use it, and have for both Murray State football and soccer. The cons, you need a lot of light. I shot some high school soccer camps this week and had to wind my shutter down to about 1/800 or 1/1,000 as we reached the 7pm hour and the sun started moving behind some buildings.

I’ve attached a couple of photos from the soccer camp, and the Hoptown Hoppers baseball game from a couple of weeks ago.







View attachment 18089

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Late to the discussion, but I have the 100-500 and shoot sports, for both local high schools and Murray State University. The 100-500, as I’m sure you know, is a great lens if there’s light. You’re at f/7.1 not far beyond the 400mm mark, but, the R6ii will handle high ISO values well. I have used the lens to shoot marching band shows at both Kroger Field at the University of Kentucky and Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy with good success.

The pros would be that the reach of the lens is nice for outdoor field sports. If I’m feeling lazy and only want to take one camera with me, I’ll happily use it, and have for both Murray State football and soccer. The cons, you need a lot of light. I shot some high school soccer camps this week and had to wind my shutter down to about 1/800 or 1/1,000 as we reached the 7pm hour and the sun started moving behind some buildings.

I’ve attached a couple of photos from the soccer camp, and the Hoptown Hoppers baseball game from a couple of weeks ago.

David, I’m getting into sports shooting, might become my main focus, remains to be seen. I’ve only had the R6M2 for a few days, but most of my fooling around with it has been in low light. I bought the 24-105 STM version and was surprised how well the camera handles the higher ISO and narrower apertures (7.1 @ 105).

When I bought the camera I picked up an EF adapter because that glass used is so much more affordable. I thought I’d really need to get a 70-200 F2.8, but I’m starting to wonder if the F4.0 version and an extra grand in my pocket is better. In your experience is the R6M2 able to use the F4 70-200 at outdoor events like HS football where lighting may not be up to college or professional standards? After my short experiences with the camera I’m confident I could shoot basketball and hockey with the F4.

Thanks.

 

[David Eaton]

I would always go with a 2.8 lens for sports if it is an option, because you’re not just concerned about the noise level in the image, you want the faster shutter speed. Going from an f4 lens to an f/2.8 gives you an extra stop of light, which, if I understand all the relationships correctly (and I may not!) allows you to double your shutter speed. So, and image that looks good at 1/500 at f4 can be shot at 1/1,000 at 2.8. That extra shutter speed is huge and is worth the extra money.

And what I’ve found is that a lot of college fields don’t really have great light, either. The image below is from a Murray State soccer game at Southern Illinois University. These are both Division 1 schools in the Missouri Valley Conference. I did run it through Denoise AI, but you can see that I’m at 1/1,000 and ISO 16,000. If I had to shoot at f/4 I think I’d have a much less pleasing image.

Hockey would be a lot easier because the ice certainly helps with the lighting. Basketball is tougher because of the different paint scheme on the gym floors. And, I’ll wind HS boys basketball down to 1/640 sometimes, but you start to get some unpleasant motion blur depending on the shot...the layup below doesn’t look too bad, it’s also been through Denoise.

I’ve had great success with EF glass and an adapter, and used EF lenses are much more affordable and work well on the R6. That said, for sports, I’d get the fastest glass I could, especially if lights are involved.