RF lenses for wildlife photography and is it worth the upgrade?

[Dave Williams]

In the past I have owned Canon's 500 and 600mm lenses, both MK1 and Mk2 versions. At one time I had both the 500 and 600mm Mk2 lenses at the same time but age has caught up with me and weight is a major consideration. I sold the 600mm and have had no regrets since but I'm now thinking the 500mm is beginning to get too heavy for hand holding or even carrying around for long distances. My go to lens is the RF100-500 nowadays but it does have some disadvantages, loss of light at f7.1 isn't the end of the world, the bokeh isn't as nice if you have a near background and I really don't like the loss of near reach when you put a TC on the lens.
My dilemma is where do I go next?
I could afford to spend on any lens I wanted but I ask myself is it a sensible thing to do? Been there done that in the past and for what? A hard drive full of memories but I'm an amateur photographer after all and my primary use is just pleasure.
A friend let me borrow his RF 600 f4 the other day as he wanted to use my 100-500 for close up targets in flight which also brings home that zoom lenses are hugely advantageous at times . It's a nice lens and although it weighs the same as my EF500mm it feels lighter as it's better balanced. The image though looks no better and to be honest I didn't expect it to either.
You can of course buy used versions of EF glass at a fraction of the price of a new RF lens and it makes me think that could be the sensible way forward.
I'm considering a used EF400mm DO MK2 which I can buy now or should I wait and pay around 3x the price for the RF 100-300 f2.8? Would the weight reduction of just 500gms on the 100-300 justify the purchase or would I be better off both financially and weight wise(1kilo) with the 400mm DO?
Any one else had these dilemmas as age creeps up and what did you do?!
Out of curiosity I enclose the RF vs EF Puffin shots which are not a scientific test, more a hurried lens swop before the bird moved!

 

[pcassel]

Using an EF in place of an RF risks having reduced AF - or so I gather from many posts about using converters. However, since a 600 of either mount type will be used for still or almost still subject snapping, I can't see the advantage of the RF or choosing it over the EF unless money isn't a concern. Also, the EF has taken a hard depreciation hit now that we're into the era of the MILC meaning if, for any reason, the EF doesn't work out, selling it and getting the RF sometime down the road means a minimal financial hit.

Well, that's my take.

 

[RedCobra]

Because of weight issues with a 600 f/4, I bought an OM-1 and a 300 f/4 (600 FF equiv) for less than third the price of a RF 600 f/4. The rig weighs substantially less than my R5 with the 100-500. It is very light and easy to handle, and so far it is easily equal to the R6 in terms of camera IQ even given the M43 sensor. This was taken on a moving boat in rough seas, Puffin Island off St. Johns Newfoundland. (ps: uncropped)

 

[Dave Williams]

Because of weight issues with a 600 f/4, I bought an OM-1 and a 300 f/4 (600 FF equiv) for less than third the price of a RF 600 f/4. The rig weighs substantially less than my R5 with the 100-500. It is very light and easy to handle, and so far it is easily equal to the R6 in terms of camera IQ even given the M43 sensor. This was taken on a moving boat in rough seas, Puffin Island off St. Johns Newfoundland. (ps: uncropped)

I'm hearing and seeing good things from this system in the right hands. I see there is a new lens due out soon with a built in TC.
I once tried running two systems side by side, Nikon and Canon. I'm hesitant to try again and I don't want to ditch Canon either.
I'll give it some thought though. Need to get my hands on an OM body to see how it feels. Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

[GaryM]

In the past I have owned Canon's 500 and 600mm lenses, both MK1 and Mk2 versions. At one time I had both the 500 and 600mm Mk2 lenses at the same time but age has caught up with me and weight is a major consideration. I sold the 600mm and have had no regrets since but I'm now thinking the 500mm is beginning to get too heavy for hand holding or even carrying around for long distances. My go to lens is the RF100-500 nowadays but it does have some disadvantages, loss of light at f7.1 isn't the end of the world, the bokeh isn't as nice if you have a near background and I really don't like the loss of near reach when you put a TC on the lens.
My dilemma is where do I go next?
I could afford to spend on any lens I wanted but I ask myself is it a sensible thing to do? Been there done that in the past and for what? A hard drive full of memories but I'm an amateur photographer after all and my primary use is just pleasure.
A friend let me borrow his RF 600 f4 the other day as he wanted to use my 100-500 for close up targets in flight which also brings home that zoom lenses are hugely advantageous at times . It's a nice lens and although it weighs the same as my EF500mm it feels lighter as it's better balanced. The image though looks no better and to be honest I didn't expect it to either.
You can of course buy used versions of EF glass at a fraction of the price of a new RF lens and it makes me think that could be the sensible way forward.
I'm considering a used EF400mm DO MK2 which I can buy now or should I wait and pay around 3x the price for the RF 100-300 f2.8? Would the weight reduction of just 500gms on the 100-300 justify the purchase or would I be better off both financially and weight wise(1kilo) with the 400mm DO?
Any one else had these dilemmas as age creeps up and what did you do?!
Out of curiosity I enclose the RF vs EF Puffin shots which are not a scientific test, more a hurried lens swop before the bird moved!

I am in a similar position as yourself, with one exception…….I have made the changes to go to a lighter weight system. And I have to tell you I do not miss the extra weight at all. I now have the R7 and R6, almost all of the inexpensive RF primes, still have some longer EF-L glass for those days when I feel a bit more inspired and have a tripod accessible. But on trips or hiking, or just sitting around the backyard those lighter Rf lenses and R cameras are a joy to my shoulders, back, and hands. There are days that i miss that L glass look (okay…a lot of days), but the thanks my body gives me more than makes up for it.

Good luck……and whatever decisions you make will be the right decisions for you!

Gary

 

[RedCobra]

I'm hearing and seeing good things from this system in the right hands. I see there is a new lens due out soon with a built in TC.
I once tried running two systems side by side, Nikon and Canon. I'm hesitant to try again and I don't want to ditch Canon either.
I'll give it some thought though. Need to get my hands on an OM body to see how it feels. Thanks for the suggestion though.

If you are referring to the 150-400 f/4.5 with the 1.25TC, it's not new. just on backorder for a year. I have one. It's not light weight.

 

[Dave Williams]

If you are referring to the 150-400 f/4.5 with the 1.25TC, it's not new. just on backorder for a year. I have one. It's not light weight.

How do you find the performance ? I was told AF is slow . From a weight point of view there isn't a lot of difference The Olympus lens weighs 510gms less but then the R5 weighs 140gms more and add in the RF 1.4TC and that's another 225 gas so not much in it. I presume the Olympus lens is f6.3 at 1000m when the TC is in use? That's better than f8 with the 2x TC on my 500mm f4. The latter would weigh a lot more than the Olympus set up too.
One thing I'd be reluctant to lose though is the crop ability when you compare the two.

 

[RedCobra]

How do you find the performance ? I was told AF is slow . From a weight point of view there isn't a lot of difference The Olympus lens weighs 510gms less but then the R5 weighs 140gms more and add in the RF 1.4TC and that's another 225 gas so not much in it. I presume the Olympus lens is f6.3 at 1000m when the TC is in use? That's better than f8 with the 2x TC on my 500mm f4. The latter would weigh a lot more than the Olympus set up too.
One thing I'd be reluctant to lose though is the crop ability when you compare the two.

Performance is excellent. As good as the 300mm f/4 Oly lens. The OM-1 plus the 150-400 f/4.5 weighs about the same as the R5 with the RF 100-500 (in hand, didn't weigh) At 1000mm (full zoom with 1.25TC, FF equiv) the f-stop is f5.6. If you add the 1.4TC on top of this you get 1400mm f/6.3.

Since you can fill the frame at f/5.6, the crop isn't that big a deal.

My latest Africa trip will have the following in a Thinktank Airport Advantage.:
Om-1 w M.Zuiko 150-400 f/4.5 (and 1.4TC)
R5 w RF 70-200mm f/2.8
RF 24-70mm f/2.8
Rf 16mm f/2.8

Last trip I took 2 R5s and kept the RF 100-500 on one body and the RF 70-200 on the other. No lens changing in dusty enviros.
The 150-400 is an exceptional lens. Whomever told you the AF is slow was mistaken. It's as fast or faster then the RF 100-500 in my experience.