Birds Which Telephoto Zoom?

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Im looking at 100-400 zooms, the Canon RF, Sigma and Tamron offerings in EF. Price wise the Sigma and Tamron models used are roughly the same price as the Canon new. Both those lenses have slightly larger maximum apertures. I have the EF to RF adapter, and I have a T3, so I’m not too concerned with buying an EF lens.

Is any one lens better than the other? From what I’ve read it seems like they’re all six in one half dozen in the other. Sigma and Tamron do give weather sealing?

My primary use would be sports, and probably birds. I have a soft spot for shooting birds eve though I’m not very good at it. I don’t have the budget for the more expensive lenses with wider apertures, so I’m looking at these as alternatives.

I did like at the Tamron 70-210 F/4 and the various 70-200 f2.8 and 4 models. I think I’ll do a lot of field sports so more reach wouldn’t be bad, and I don’t think a 70-200 is long enough for birds. Any insight is appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Only RF]

200mm is too short for birds. Unofficial rule of thumb is at least 400. While f2.8 is nice to have these days with IBIS/IS and modern noise reduction software f4 is fine, unless you really need that DOF. Less expensive and lighter as well. I'm seeing great Bokeh with shots on the 800m f11 lens so you can get it at f4. That is just my opinion of course.

I have thing for the RF100-500. I love it. Great with the RF 1.4. If you ever consider that lens and get the 1.4 you should know when the TC is mounted it does not retract to 100mm. 300mm only. Doesn't bother me but others don't like it.

I had the EF 100-400 II for many years. Great lens and version II is the key thing. Version 1 was not Canon's best. I used my 1.4 and 2X with that lens and the converter with the R.

The RF 100-400 is getting good feedback from users.

From a personal standpoint RF is future. I sold all of my EF gear and got on the RF train and never looked back. Of course every ones situation is different.

I know nothing about 3rd party telephoto zooms.

 

[ctitanic]

Usually Sigma does not include weather sealing. The AF of 100-400 from Tamron and Sigma do not work as well as the AF of the RF or EF lenses at least in the R7. I had the RF100-400 but it was too noisy for birds in the woods or cloudy days. This is the main reason why I sold it and got the EF100-400 mark 2 used. I'm extremely happy with this lens and it's what I would recommend.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Do you use any noise reduction software?

 

[Only RF]

Do you use any noise reduction software?

I do. ISO 20000.

• Canon EOS R7
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/5000 sec
• ISO 20000

original

• Canon EOS R7
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/5000 sec
• ISO 20000

ISO 16000.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 16000

 

[ctitanic]

Do you use any noise reduction software?

Yes, I do. My post editing process starts by applying DXO Pureraw to all pictures. But, the less noisy is a picture the best results and sharper images you get after denoising so the fact that there are good denoisers does not mean that having a fast lens does not help you a lot

In another hand, I use a R7 with more noise than the R5.

 

[Only RF]

Proper exposure is the key to controlling noise while maintaining details.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

The question that needs answering for me is are you stuck with the T3 or are you looking to upgrade your body too? If not, is there a reason you're not considering a used 100-400mm EF lens? Seems to me that's the best possible choice for your situation. As someone who learned the expensive way, putting off buying the best possible glass only means you're spending money you shouldn't be to learn the lesson you'll eventually learn. It's not uncommon and I've fallen prey to it both with photography and music gear, so if you can go with the EF lens that's probably the best possible solution for a T3. If that's still out of your range then I'd look at the 3rd party options in an EF mount.

That said, if this is a step into eventually buying an R7 or R5 then I'm again going to push you the same way - the 100-500mm RF. I have both an R5 and an R7, and a 100-400mm and a 100-500mm, and the 100-400mm gets used only when I'm out hiking with my wife and she is shooting with it on the R7 (she's still learning the Canon stuff after having used one of my Nikons for years), or when I'm just out and about and I have it in a bag in the car with my R6 and a couple smaller lenses (it's nice and light so in the rare occasion I want the length in town it's there). I find the image quality to be really good and would credit the noise mentioned above not to the lens as much as the R7 being forced to shoot at f8, even if it's not much more than the 100-500mm at f7.1. The main drawback is focus speed, which is critical for me with small birds and would be for sports as well. Stick an adapter between it and your T3 and it's going to be even slower - even if only slightly. So again, if the plan is to move to the R series then go with the glass you're going to want to stick on it and not something that you're going to want to upgrade.

I speak as a very serious hobbiest who still shoots only for my own enjoyment but who also sells their work. Could I live with the R7 and 100-400mm? Only if they fixed the R7's focus stickiness issues and expanded the buffer. If they did I'd pay almost twice the price for it. I couldn't live with the R5 and 100-400mm because I'm losing reach and would never stick a TC on the 100-400mm.

And since you asked about noise reduction software, I use both DxO Pure Raw 3 (first step in PP) and Topaz DeNoise AI (last step) in my workflow and they both do an excellent job. That said, I can see a difference between cameras (remember, it's the sensor, not the lens, that creates the noise), but not enough that I won't use the R7. It's more a matter of knowing what conditions make the R7 problematic.

 

[Only RF]

Can you describe the stickiness issue with the R7? Is that based on Duane’s recent video about using mechanical or EFCS and H vs H+.

I don’t have the R5 anymore but I do have the R6II. I find the R7 to be right up there with AF. I don’t count keeper non keeper rates as I always come home with something. As a hobby shooter it’s not as critical to me. If I was earning for a living I’d likely have the R3.

Yes the buffer is not stellar. I haven’t shot in months and I was reminded by that last week. It’s mostly in E shutter and H+. I just went back to controlling the burst rates a bit better. Saves me a lot of time culling later.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

The question that needs answering for me is are you stuck with the T3 or are you looking to upgrade your body too?

I shoot with an R6M2. The T3 is only a back up camera.

As for EFCS vs Electronic vs Mechanical, I lean toward mechanical, however I just did my last portrait session 100% in EFCS. I don’t notice any noise issues in my post with EFCS. I just did an unpaid birthday party at ISO 2000 EFCS CRAW and noticed no major noise issues any different than I would have with mechanical. I’ve noticed the EFCS is obviously faster than mechanical because the curtains stay open. I’ve missed a few candid event photos from the split second curtain time in mechanical shutter mode. That being said if I know my shutter speed is going to be north of 250 and my ISO north of 3200 I’ll try to stay in mechanical.

For my post I do almost everything in Luminar Neo. Their Noiseless AI does a good job removing noise without over baking it. I also use Topaz (entire suite, but mainly hangout in Photo AI 2) and find sometimes Topaz over cooks the image and it creates enormous 144MB files that still have to be processed in Luminar because Topz has zero creative abilities. Since switching to the R6M2 I view Topaz as a back-up/‘omg this photo looks really bad and I need it to look better’ solution.

I’m still leery on the RF 100-400. I really like shooting wide open and that’s just not possible at f/8. I’m leaning more towards one of the EF 200mm f/2.8 IS II USM lenses with an adapter. I really like primes and it gives me an excuse to buy another R6M2 if I really start shooting sports for money- 200 on one body, 50 f/1.8 or 85 f/2 on the other.