I got my RF 100-400 f5.6-8 a week ago. I haven’t taken it off the camera yet. So much fun, and such a crisp zoom. I’ll get back to my RF 24-105 again soon, but I love the new lens so much.
Good for you, Greg! Yes, it really is a brilliant lens. I reckon a lot of pros will find it hard to ignore, and quite a few EF 100-400’s will start coming up for sale.
Peter, you are raising the genre of informative photography to a new and beautiful level. Your personal style give all the time in the world to take things in. Your judgment and reasons inspire me to emulate it. You demonstrated the idea of using telephoto lens for landscape most persuasively. I loved the drone footage at the end. And for a Pom who spent a gap year in Oz in 1969-70, the driving through the countryside of Victoria suddenly made me quite homesick for Australia. - Adrian Fisher MBE
As a man who’s created art on a grand scale for so many decades, your words carry significant weight and value. I’m truly honoured, Adrian - thank you.
Totally agree. I bought my RF 100-400 lens as a result of that video and I love it. It is Peter who made me realize the numerous and beautiful “mini scenes” (as he pointed out) such a lens can make you “see” from a distance. It is also this video that made me subscribe to his channel.
Thanks a lot, Lewis. I’m starting to notice how much the music and effects and fancy transitions detract from my viewing experience of other people’s videos, so I’ve decided to keep that stuff to a bare minimum on mine. 👍😄
Thanks, Michael. Looking at it now, I could have done so much better. I might try and do a simpler, punchier version in a year or so. I agree with your lens choice, but I'd need something a bit longer. I'd probably have to go 24-105, or maybe even 24-240. The latter mightn't be as pin-sharp as an L lens, but really, lens sharpness and brightness are overrated these days, and big mirrorless sensors have no problem shooting at high ISOs.
Great video - thanks for sharing! What do you think of a 24-105 mm lens, which is the 'standard' lens for many. The only disadvantage compared to a 50mm prime lens is the slower f/4 (and the bulk, of course). But as you often say, f/4 is fine for general landscape work. The 24-105mm zoom doesn't give you the extreme ends on both sides, but it gives you some play around the 50mm view.
Thanks, Hans. The first lens I bought for my R5 was the 24-105 L, and I liked it a lot. Trouble was, I never shot with it, always opting instead for something wider (16) or longer (200+). As a general purpose walk-around lens, though, it would be great. I just never do that kind of photography with my R5; instead using my iPhone for that. Plenty of landscape photographers swear by their 24-70 for woodlands photography, so if that’s what you do (or coastal shots) I reckon the 24-105 is perfect.
If the only thing you’re concerned about this lens is the f4, then you don’t need to be concerned because, if you do landscapes, you would go at least f8-f11 anyway. I love this lens. For landscapes, many considered this to be the best 1 lens if you had to choose 1.
@@browniepinoy I have it, and I also love it! But if Canon came out with a 50mm f/1.4 with IS, not too big, not too expensive - I would be very tempted.
My most used lens is the RF 24-240 f4-6.3. A lens most people would frown at, even I would’ve before I tried it. It’s way above and beyond any other superzoom I’ve tried in other systems when it comes to image quality and in a way it defies the rules of optics, it shoulnt be able to deliver these kind of results. But it’s so versatile with that zoom range, I bought it with travelling in mind, but it rarely comes off my camera.
Thank you very much, Len - I’m very grateful for your support. Yes, I’m chuffed that so many people have opted to watch a fat middle-aged bloke crap on about his love of landscape photography! 😄👍
Thanks for a great video Peter , i already have two of your prime lenses , and i will be investing in a 100,400mm lens soon you're photos are awesome by the way.
Angle of view is a decision we make based on the scene, our subject, and how a lens’s characteristics affect what we see through that lens. So, lenses have certain characteristics, and we can either decide to leverage them based on our angle of view, or let them instruct our angle of view.
Loved this video! always great to see what other fellow landscape photographers love to use and how they use them :) I've been using my 24-105 F4L IS a lot.. as dont currently have a telephoto.. but am definitely thinking about a 100-400! :) Looove the rolling hills!
Love the aerial footage you incorporate into your videos mate. Another awesome video with a lot of useful info. If you don’t shoot hand-held in low light ( both stills & videos) those fast lenses are totally superfluous. The images of the rolling hills are wow😍😍😍😍 Love it! Beautiful work mate! Have a great evening! Cheers
You’re always so encouraging and supportive, Pete - thank you! It’s funny, I couldn’t sleep the other night; all I could think about was how I wanted to use my drone on my next shoot, and I’m thrilled this footage matched what I envisaged. I love doing this stuff as much as you do! This is my new favourite location, that’s for sure! 😄👍
@@peterfritzphoto hehe awesome! Passion is crucial. If we didn’t love this, we certianky wouldn’t be doing it haha😁. I miss droning but I’ll be doing more of that again soon as I wanna expand my aerial portfolio🥳
Cool 😎- I was out with my 24-85 today which is sorta like your 24-70 mm I’m thinking . I even got some Astro on the way home which was an interesting adjunct to your reasoning ; )
@@peterfritzphoto fast, widish lense wide open , tripod , 15 seconds , iso 3200 : ) also live view focus on a bright star checking by using the zoom feature when attaining that focus . Infinity can work too but best to try for the brutes star focus on a moonless , or low moon condition . It’s fun .
love what you do mate. I've worked in media at ACP motoring for ages (mainly 4X4)...we'd have a few gringos in common I reckon...cheers IB@@peterfritzphoto
@@ianbellert2154 Thank you, Ian! Yep - I reckon we would. I worked with Ron Moon, Bill Tuckey, Paul Gover, David Morley, and Tim Britten in the 80s and 90s. Exciting days.
Great video Peter. Thank you. I don't have a wide angle lens, so when I want to capture a wide shot, I'll use my RF 35mm in portrait and build a pano to capture the scene. More work, but I like the end product.
Thought provoking Oeter, I must try my Sigma 100-400 next time I am out. Usually use 24-200 f4 to travel light but guess my 50mm f1.8 is worth a go as well. Gorgeous scenery, bit like out in Gippsland
Definitely give the longer end a go. And the 50 is a delight. It’s simplicity encourages you to see more and to slow down, too. Maybe go out one day with only the 50, and another with only the 100-400. Re the scenery - it’s a favourite spot of mine. The hills surrounding Strath Creek, east of Broadford.
Enjoyed your video. I purchased a Canon R5 along with the 24-70mm f/4 I am ready to purchase my next lens. I have saved enough to purchase the 100-500mm RF lens to use for almost everything but wide angle. The 70-200mm f/4 is also on the forefront of my thinking. I shoot some birds, pets and landscapes. Just a hobby.
Thanks a lot, Chester. The 100-500 is a gorgeous hunk of glass, and if I was shooting wildlife, I'd be seriously tempted. The 24-70 you mentioned - do you mean the F2.8, or do you mean the 24-105 f4?
@@peterfritzphoto Thanks Peter, I have shot Nikons for so long I often have to re-think. I purchased the R5 along with the 24-105 f/4. I am debating now to invest in the 70-200mm f/4 or go for broke with the 100-500 RF lens. Looking at my LR metadata I have shot with a wide range of lenses. I have read where some use both the 100-500mm and the 70-200 f/4. It is a hobby only but maybe the 24-105mm and the 100-500mm would be a good kit until I decide if a 70-200mm is needed. However I have been known to shoot with my old 80-200 f/2.8 out of the car window with the wife driving at 70 MPH. The 100-500 maybe not so much. Cheers
@@chesterjohnson4504 Same here. My first 30 years of pro shooting was with Nikons - starting with the FE2. I’d get the 100-500 or the very worthy RF 100-400. It’s pin sharp, focuses super fast, and so light, you’ll be using it everywhere. It ain’t weather-sealed, though.
You are really impressing me with the RF 100-400 f5.6-8. I appreciate that the similar Canon zoom lens at many times the price is "better", but it seems to me that this RF 100-400 is already a great lens, and remarkably close in quality. I am wanting to prefer this lens for size and lightness when flying internationally (and price!). I'm about to buy.
Adrian - having owned both, I believe the RF 100-400 is far better value than the 100-500. Its image quality is nearly indistinguishable from the larger, heavier, more costly lens. I just sold my 100-500 to help pay for a Hasselblad system. If I decide to buy a long Canon lens again, it’ll be the 100-400.
Thank you for that really great piece of advice on the RF 100-400 from good experience. I bought a Canon R6 Mk 2 recently, and am very impressed with it. It was half the price of the Canon R5.. One attribute is that the R6 will record my lectures on video using a tripod for 45-60 minutes without overheating (unlike 6 minutes with the Canon 5D Mk2). I have half a dozen public lecture topics, and getting them recorded will help me win a TV deal. My previous camera was 15 years earlier - the legendary Canon 5D Mk 2, which gave me 15 years of wonderful digital results. Until then, I'd been with Nikon. Now with Canon EF lenses, BRAVO! to Canon for not making them obsolete, all for the price of a EF-RF converter ring! For 9 years I've been flying drones: Phantom 2, Phantom 4, now DJI Mini 3 Pro. The triple lens Mavic 3 Pro intrigues me, since its Hasselblad quality and triple lenses would help when photographing in the UK. For overseas flights I find the Mini 3 Pro ideal, since I need a Digital Camera, its lenses, Drone and laptop all within my overhead bin allowance. @@peterfritzphoto
@@AdrianFisherDesign Happy to help, Adrian. I sold my R5 shortly before my 100-500, but kept my R6 MKII. Like you, I’m thrilled with its stills AND video chops. I’ve owned the Mavic 3 Pro, and loved the colours and resolution from that Hasselblad sensor. I recently swapped it, though, for the Air 3, thanks to its better vehicle tracking abilities and smaller size. I miss that lovely sensor, though…
I think it depends where you live and your shooting style. In the UK I find the 24-200 superzoom covers 99% of what I need and because of the changeable weather it's good not having to switch lenses. I would want something with a bit more reach if I lived somewhere with larger landscapes though.
You're absolutely right. So many of my vistas are inaccessible due to large tracts of private land, so lots of reach helps. I'm now shooting a lot with a Hasselblad X2D, with my longest lens being 200mm (about 160mm in full-frame), so I've really had to adjust my expectations when it comes to subject selection.
Your filmmaking skills are really advancing. Love the pushins and pullouts. How do you feel about some trippy stuff like with a fisheye for #naturephotography?
@@peterfritzphoto Yeah, I am not sure it would be my first lens. LOL Yet, there may be some cool applications. In my mind I see a tall waterfall and a small pool of water working well with a fisheye.
Great video Peter. The only lens that’s lacking from kit is the the wide angled zoom, which I’ll probably pick up next year. What tripod are using? Keep up the good work.
Funny you should ask, Peter. I have a 'trio of tripods' video out tomorrow. I'm using a Peak Design and an iFootage (just moved up to their largest one a week ago). Hopefully you'll find the video helpful. Thanks for your support. 🙂
Great video. The comparison of the lenses was well presented. I thought your choice of location was excellent. I have the RF 24-105 F4 and the RF 100 Macro. Trying to decide on a nice telephoto. I was interested to see you using the RF 100-400. That and the RF 100-500 seem to be my only choices and the price points couldn't be further apart. Are you happy with the 100-400?
Thanks, David. The 100-400 is a brilliant lens - far better than the price would suggest. Until about 2 weeks ago, I had that and the RF 70-200 f4 (also brilliant), but sold them both for the RF 100-500. I shoot most of my landscapes with a long lens, so it just made sense for me to swap those two lenses for one. But if you buy the 100-400, and weather sealing isn’t an issue for you, I’m sure you’ll be impressed.
Peter, [A] is there a Tamron 50-400mm lens that can fit a Canon RF body such as the Canon R6 Mk2? [B] Or that can fit a Canon 5D Mk2 (so that I can then use a converter ring)? I suspect the answers are No and Yes, because as I understand it Canon currently forbids any non-Canon lenses for RF bodies. My questions are: [1] is either [A] or [B] comparable in quality with the Canon RF 100-400 lens on a Canon RF body? [2] is there anything to be gained by having a zoom range from 50mm to 400mm? [3] Or does such a broad zoom range entail compromises at both ends of the range? There's not much point in putting a Tamron EF 50-200 lens through a EF-RF converter, and then wanting to use it at the 400mm end of the range, and finding it's not impressive (compared with the Canon RF 100-400 which you rate highly).
Adrian - you can use any EF-mount lens (including. Tamron & Sigma) on RF cameras with the Canon EF-RF adapter. As far as I know, Tamron doesn’t make the 50-400 for Canon, though. They do have a 100-400 and a 150-600 for Canon EF, though. I haven’t tried either, so I can’t vouch for them. A 50-400 would be very useful, for sure. All you’d need, then is a 14-35 or 24-70 and you’re done! 👍
Thanks, Peter. I shoot with a crop sensor camera. After considerable swapping and switching, I've settled for three lenses, an f/1.4 16 - 80 mm, f/4-5.6 70-300mm w/ 1.4X lens extender and an f/2.8 27mm. (Full-frame equivalent: 24 - 120mm, 105 - 450mm, and a 40.5mm.) Beautiful location, mate. Are you willing to provide location info?
That’s a great combination. I’ve swapped many times myself, but I’m very happy with this combo - especially because they’re light enough to carry with me at all times. That said, I’d love to get down to two lenses one day. The location is Horans Track, Strath Creek. Expect many more shoots from this gorgeous spot!
Nice video Peter and beautiful location. I think lens choice is a rather personal choice so I personally don't subscribe to the idea that you must have the holy trinity like some photographers on youtube. Since transitioning to micro four thirds I have changed my lens selection quite a bit. I live near the sea and heavy forests so don't always have a use for a telephoto. Having said that I do have 2 of them, a 14-150mm (28-300mm eq) which is my general walkaround lens and a 75-300mm (150-600mm eq) which is my wildlife lens. For landscapes I tend to use primes. I have a 15mm (30mm eq), 25mm (50mm eq) and a 45mm (90mm eq). I don't have an ultra wide because I don't like the distortion. If I need to go wide I use the 25mm or 45mm and shoot several images over one or two rows and stitch them. This often gives me hi res images of 100 plus megapixels. I love panoramas so often crop to 6x17 aspect ratio. Other images I will crop to 1:1 square. The remnants of originally starting photography in the film days shooting on a Yashica TLR camera. I also regularly crop to 4x5. I never liked the 3x2 ration of 35mm films. As you can see a very different setup and somewhat eclectic way of working. Cheers. look forward to your next video.
I heard the advice, "Use your least liked lens." So I used my ultrawide zoom. Gets a lot of use now. It's not your wide lenses causing distortion. It's you, and your lack of understanding. It's physics.
@@peterfritzphoto I don't care how long you have been photographing stuff, you don't understand photography gear. Essentially, when you photograph a landscape, you are photographing the inside of a tennis ball. Then you present it on a flat surface, and blame the lens for the distortion. If you understood what you were doing, you could predict the resulting perceived distortion.
I think it’s better if you put the camera from your back instead of showing your profile, it doesn’t showing any perspective view so i find these comparison useless and no sense.
I meant the camera you are using to record yourself while taking pictures, in my opinion should be in the back of you, showing what’s in the front of you and what you’re shooting at, so with that angle I could have some perspective of the distance between you and the subject with different focal lengths.
A really great explanation of the uses of different lenses out in the field Peter, very information and beautifully explained as always 🙏🙏🙏
Thanks, Izzy! Sooo good to get away from metro Melbourne, I tell you! 😄
@@peterfritzphoto I can tell, let the adventures begin 🙏
@@peterfritzphoto thats exactly what i plan to carry everyday with my r5c also a 50whr battery bank :)
@@peterfritzphoto but maybe i will go for 70-20 2.8 cause super 16 and 35 cropping :)
@@k.o.t.o.n. LOL. Yes, they like to drink.
finally, a photography channel that is intelligent, great presenter and useful subject matter. a "must subscribe"
I got my RF 100-400 f5.6-8 a week ago. I haven’t taken it off the camera yet. So much fun, and such a crisp zoom. I’ll get back to my RF 24-105 again soon, but I love the new lens so much.
Good for you, Greg! Yes, it really is a brilliant lens. I reckon a lot of pros will find it hard to ignore, and quite a few EF 100-400’s will start coming up for sale.
Congrats on the 1k subscribers! Well done and much deserved!
Thanks, Michael. Much appreciated. :-)
Your videos are always great and useful, keep it up.
Great advice!! Thanks for sharing
Thank you! It was such a pleasure shooting this location. I suspect it’ll become a regular haunt for me for a long time. 😄👍🦘🇦🇺
Hi Peter enjoy your photo eye nice looking photos thank you for your input on your lenes 😊
Thank you, Shay!
Peter, you are raising the genre of informative photography to a new and beautiful level. Your personal style give all the time in the world to take things in. Your judgment and reasons inspire me to emulate it. You demonstrated the idea of using telephoto lens for landscape most persuasively. I loved the drone footage at the end. And for a Pom who spent a gap year in Oz in 1969-70, the driving through the countryside of Victoria suddenly made me quite homesick for Australia. - Adrian Fisher MBE
As a man who’s created art on a grand scale for so many decades, your words carry significant weight and value. I’m truly honoured, Adrian - thank you.
Totally agree. I bought my RF 100-400 lens as a result of that video and I love it. It is Peter who made me realize the numerous and beautiful “mini scenes” (as he pointed out) such a lens can make you “see” from a distance. It is also this video that made me subscribe to his channel.
Great lesson on the selection and use of your lenses!
Many thanks, Craig.
great lesson learned Peter. Thanks a lot I am just dealing with the issue, having the chance to get some very good glas for relatively cheap.
Brilliant video Peter. Love the location! Appreciate the lack of music too. Doesn’t distract from the calmness 😊👌
Thanks a lot, Lewis. I’m starting to notice how much the music and effects and fancy transitions detract from my viewing experience of other people’s videos, so I’ve decided to keep that stuff to a bare minimum on mine. 👍😄
@@peterfritzphoto No problem. Thanks for the great content!
Thank you for a very simple-to-understand video... Cheers!
Thank you, Tom! 👍
Amazing review!!! Nothing better than pictures in the field, showing the real usage of the lens, I really need one 100-400!!!
Thank you, Ricardo - I really appreciate that! Trust me, you’ll love the 100-400 - it’s such a brilliant focal range for outdoor photography. 😄👍
Thanks Peter, this is a great video and really helpful 😊🇦🇺
Thank you, Sue. I’m really pleased. 🙂👍
Definitely useful . Thankyou . Nice spot up there .
Thanks, Chris. Yes, I love it up there. Where abouts do you live, btw?
Thanks Peter for another great video. I am so glad that I stumbled on your channel by chance just yesterday . The scenery is just so beautiful.
Thank you, Adnan - that’s really nice of you. And yes, this particular location is one of my favourites!
Very useful actually😉
Nice tutorial! Of course it depends greatly on the type of photography, but if I could only have one, it would be around 24-70mm. Great video, Peter!
Thanks, Michael. Looking at it now, I could have done so much better. I might try and do a simpler, punchier version in a year or so. I agree with your lens choice, but I'd need something a bit longer. I'd probably have to go 24-105, or maybe even 24-240. The latter mightn't be as pin-sharp as an L lens, but really, lens sharpness and brightness are overrated these days, and big mirrorless sensors have no problem shooting at high ISOs.
Great video - thanks for sharing! What do you think of a 24-105 mm lens, which is the 'standard' lens for many. The only disadvantage compared to a 50mm prime lens is the slower f/4 (and the bulk, of course). But as you often say, f/4 is fine for general landscape work. The 24-105mm zoom doesn't give you the extreme ends on both sides, but it gives you some play around the 50mm view.
Thanks, Hans. The first lens I bought for my R5 was the 24-105 L, and I liked it a lot. Trouble was, I never shot with it, always opting instead for something wider (16) or longer (200+). As a general purpose walk-around lens, though, it would be great. I just never do that kind of photography with my R5; instead using my iPhone for that. Plenty of landscape photographers swear by their 24-70 for woodlands photography, so if that’s what you do (or coastal shots) I reckon the 24-105 is perfect.
If the only thing you’re concerned about this lens is the f4, then you don’t need to be concerned because, if you do landscapes, you would go at least f8-f11 anyway. I love this lens. For landscapes, many considered this to be the best 1 lens if you had to choose 1.
@@browniepinoy True. For 99% of landscape shots, anything less than F4 is moot.
@@browniepinoy I have it, and I also love it! But if Canon came out with a 50mm f/1.4 with IS, not too big, not too expensive - I would be very tempted.
My most used lens is the RF 24-240 f4-6.3. A lens most people would frown at, even I would’ve before I tried it. It’s way above and beyond any other superzoom I’ve tried in other systems when it comes to image quality and in a way it defies the rules of optics, it shoulnt be able to deliver these kind of results. But it’s so versatile with that zoom range, I bought it with travelling in mind, but it rarely comes off my camera.
Great video as always. I see you are almost at 1000 subscriber congratulations...
Thank you very much, Len - I’m very grateful for your support. Yes, I’m chuffed that so many people have opted to watch a fat middle-aged bloke crap on about his love of landscape photography! 😄👍
Thanks for a great video Peter , i already have two of your prime lenses , and i will be investing in a 100,400mm lens soon you're photos are awesome by the way.
Thank you, Anthony - that’s very kind. The 100-400 is a brilliant lens. It’s sooo versatile.
Good vid, thanks
Just found your channel 👍🏼 good stuff
Thanks, Hugo. 🙂👍
Thanks for the video.
Where does angle-of-view fit into your four reasons for choosing a focal length for landscape photography?
Angle of view is a decision we make based on the scene, our subject, and how a lens’s characteristics affect what we see through that lens. So, lenses have certain characteristics, and we can either decide to leverage them based on our angle of view, or let them instruct our angle of view.
Great tutorial video Peter!! Always learn something new watching your videos. Keep up the great work👍
Thx, Michael. 🙂
Loved this video! always great to see what other fellow landscape photographers love to use and how they use them :)
I've been using my 24-105 F4L IS a lot.. as dont currently have a telephoto.. but am definitely thinking about a 100-400! :)
Looove the rolling hills!
Thanks a lot, Stach. That 100-400 is worth every penny.
Love the aerial footage you incorporate into your videos mate. Another awesome video with a lot of useful info. If you don’t shoot hand-held in low light ( both stills & videos) those fast lenses are totally superfluous. The images of the rolling hills are wow😍😍😍😍 Love it! Beautiful work mate! Have a great evening! Cheers
You’re always so encouraging and supportive, Pete - thank you! It’s funny, I couldn’t sleep the other night; all I could think about was how I wanted to use my drone on my next shoot, and I’m thrilled this footage matched what I envisaged. I love doing this stuff as much as you do! This is my new favourite location, that’s for sure! 😄👍
@@peterfritzphoto hehe awesome! Passion is crucial. If we didn’t love this, we certianky wouldn’t be doing it haha😁. I miss droning but I’ll be doing more of that again soon as I wanna expand my aerial portfolio🥳
@@peterviragphoto 100%
It so much what I enjoy this flick video. It's a lots of fun. Is important to with theses F14 lenes. 😅
Cool 😎- I was out with my 24-85 today which is sorta like your 24-70 mm I’m thinking . I even got some Astro on the way home which was an interesting adjunct to your reasoning ; )
Astro is something I’d love to master. The only decent Astro shot I ever got was a 4-hour exposure on film with my Nikon F100.
@@peterfritzphoto fast, widish lense wide open , tripod , 15 seconds , iso 3200 : ) also live view focus on a bright star checking by using the zoom feature when attaining that focus . Infinity can work too but best to try for the brutes star focus on a moonless , or low moon condition . It’s fun .
@@chriscummins4282 Thanks for the tips, Chris. I’d love to create some images of the galactic core. I’ll have to give it a go sometime.
Nice hat you've got on at 4:20 That logo is appealing.
Thanks mate nice one. I’ve just got 70-300 by accident, it’s so cool. Can’t wait to go nuts.
You’re gonna love it, Ian. Point it at everything and see what you find. 👍
love what you do mate. I've worked in media at ACP motoring for ages (mainly 4X4)...we'd have a few gringos in common I reckon...cheers IB@@peterfritzphoto
@@ianbellert2154 Thank you, Ian! Yep - I reckon we would. I worked with Ron Moon, Bill Tuckey, Paul Gover, David Morley, and Tim Britten in the 80s and 90s. Exciting days.
ahh the glory days of mags. I was ad manager and it was a time I'll remember bloody fondly. Catch ya on the wallaby one day mate@@peterfritzphoto
Great video Peter. Thank you. I don't have a wide angle lens, so when I want to capture a wide shot, I'll use my RF 35mm in portrait and build a pano to capture the scene. More work, but I like the end product.
That’s smart. Probably looks better, too. Thanks, Tony. 👍
Thought provoking Oeter, I must try my Sigma 100-400 next time I am out. Usually use 24-200 f4 to travel light but guess my 50mm f1.8 is worth a go as well. Gorgeous scenery, bit like out in Gippsland
Definitely give the longer end a go. And the 50 is a delight. It’s simplicity encourages you to see more and to slow down, too. Maybe go out one day with only the 50, and another with only the 100-400. Re the scenery - it’s a favourite spot of mine. The hills surrounding Strath Creek, east of Broadford.
Nice comparisons! Thanks!
Thanks, Juanita. 🙂
Enjoyed your video. I purchased a Canon R5 along with the 24-70mm f/4 I am ready to purchase my next lens. I have saved enough to purchase the 100-500mm RF lens to use for almost everything but wide angle. The 70-200mm f/4 is also on the forefront of my thinking. I shoot some birds, pets and landscapes. Just a hobby.
Thanks a lot, Chester. The 100-500 is a gorgeous hunk of glass, and if I was shooting wildlife, I'd be seriously tempted. The 24-70 you mentioned - do you mean the F2.8, or do you mean the 24-105 f4?
@@peterfritzphoto Thanks Peter, I have shot Nikons for so long I often have to re-think. I purchased the R5 along with the 24-105 f/4. I am debating now to invest in the 70-200mm f/4 or go for broke with the 100-500 RF lens. Looking at my LR metadata I have shot with a wide range of lenses. I have read where some use both the 100-500mm and the 70-200 f/4. It is a hobby only but maybe the 24-105mm and the 100-500mm would be a good kit until I decide if a 70-200mm is needed. However I have been known to shoot with my old 80-200 f/2.8 out of the car window with the wife driving at 70 MPH. The 100-500 maybe not so much. Cheers
@@chesterjohnson4504 Same here. My first 30 years of pro shooting was with Nikons - starting with the FE2. I’d get the 100-500 or the very worthy RF 100-400. It’s pin sharp, focuses super fast, and so light, you’ll be using it everywhere. It ain’t weather-sealed, though.
You are really impressing me with the RF 100-400 f5.6-8. I appreciate that the similar Canon zoom lens at many times the price is "better", but it seems to me that this RF 100-400 is already a great lens, and remarkably close in quality. I am wanting to prefer this lens for size and lightness when flying internationally (and price!). I'm about to buy.
Adrian - having owned both, I believe the RF 100-400 is far better value than the 100-500. Its image quality is nearly indistinguishable from the larger, heavier, more costly lens. I just sold my 100-500 to help pay for a Hasselblad system. If I decide to buy a long Canon lens again, it’ll be the 100-400.
Thank you for that really great piece of advice on the RF 100-400 from good experience. I bought a Canon R6 Mk 2 recently, and am very impressed with it. It was half the price of the Canon R5.. One attribute is that the R6 will record my lectures on video using a tripod for 45-60 minutes without overheating (unlike 6 minutes with the Canon 5D Mk2). I have half a dozen public lecture topics, and getting them recorded will help me win a TV deal. My previous camera was 15 years earlier - the legendary Canon 5D Mk 2, which gave me 15 years of wonderful digital results. Until then, I'd been with Nikon. Now with Canon EF lenses, BRAVO! to Canon for not making them obsolete, all for the price of a EF-RF converter ring! For 9 years I've been flying drones: Phantom 2, Phantom 4, now DJI Mini 3 Pro. The triple lens Mavic 3 Pro intrigues me, since its Hasselblad quality and triple lenses would help when photographing in the UK. For overseas flights I find the Mini 3 Pro ideal, since I need a Digital Camera, its lenses, Drone and laptop all within my overhead bin allowance. @@peterfritzphoto
@@AdrianFisherDesign Happy to help, Adrian. I sold my R5 shortly before my 100-500, but kept my R6 MKII. Like you, I’m thrilled with its stills AND video chops. I’ve owned the Mavic 3 Pro, and loved the colours and resolution from that Hasselblad sensor. I recently swapped it, though, for the Air 3, thanks to its better vehicle tracking abilities and smaller size. I miss that lovely sensor, though…
Great video! Thank you!
Thank you. 😄
I think it depends where you live and your shooting style. In the UK I find the 24-200 superzoom covers 99% of what I need and because of the changeable weather it's good not having to switch lenses. I would want something with a bit more reach if I lived somewhere with larger landscapes though.
You're absolutely right. So many of my vistas are inaccessible due to large tracts of private land, so lots of reach helps. I'm now shooting a lot with a Hasselblad X2D, with my longest lens being 200mm (about 160mm in full-frame), so I've really had to adjust my expectations when it comes to subject selection.
Your filmmaking skills are really advancing. Love the pushins and pullouts.
How do you feel about some trippy stuff like with a fisheye for #naturephotography?
Thanks, mate. I still have a loooong way to go, though. As for fisheye lenses, I'm not a fan, but whatever floats your boat. Life is short!
@@peterfritzphoto Yeah, I am not sure it would be my first lens. LOL Yet, there may be some cool applications. In my mind I see a tall waterfall and a small pool of water working well with a fisheye.
Great video Peter. The only lens that’s lacking from kit is the the wide angled zoom, which I’ll probably pick up next year. What tripod are using? Keep up the good work.
Funny you should ask, Peter. I have a 'trio of tripods' video out tomorrow. I'm using a Peak Design and an iFootage (just moved up to their largest one a week ago). Hopefully you'll find the video helpful. Thanks for your support. 🙂
Thanks a great video
Thank you, Neil.
Great video. The comparison of the lenses was well presented. I thought your choice of location was excellent. I have the RF 24-105 F4 and the RF 100 Macro. Trying to decide on a nice telephoto. I was interested to see you using the RF 100-400. That and the RF 100-500 seem to be my only choices and the price points couldn't be further apart. Are you happy with the 100-400?
Thanks, David. The 100-400 is a brilliant lens - far better than the price would suggest. Until about 2 weeks ago, I had that and the RF 70-200 f4 (also brilliant), but sold them both for the RF 100-500. I shoot most of my landscapes with a long lens, so it just made sense for me to swap those two lenses for one. But if you buy the 100-400, and weather sealing isn’t an issue for you, I’m sure you’ll be impressed.
Pemandangan sangat indah
It sure is. I love this area.
Nice video and comparison help to choose best suits for me. Any review comparison between F2.8 vs F4 lens (I have Nikon Z camera and S lens).
Thank you, but no, I'm afraid not. Because I'm not really a product reviewer, I tend to only discuss the equipment I own (or have owned).
@@peterfritzphoto no problem sir.
Peter, [A] is there a Tamron 50-400mm lens that can fit a Canon RF body such as the Canon R6 Mk2? [B] Or that can fit a Canon 5D Mk2 (so that I can then use a converter ring)? I suspect the answers are No and Yes, because as I understand it Canon currently forbids any non-Canon lenses for RF bodies. My questions are: [1] is either [A] or [B] comparable in quality with the Canon RF 100-400 lens on a Canon RF body? [2] is there anything to be gained by having a zoom range from 50mm to 400mm? [3] Or does such a broad zoom range entail compromises at both ends of the range? There's not much point in putting a Tamron EF 50-200 lens through a EF-RF converter, and then wanting to use it at the 400mm end of the range, and finding it's not impressive (compared with the Canon RF 100-400 which you rate highly).
Adrian - you can use any EF-mount lens (including. Tamron & Sigma) on RF cameras with the Canon EF-RF adapter. As far as I know, Tamron doesn’t make the 50-400 for Canon, though. They do have a 100-400 and a 150-600 for Canon EF, though. I haven’t tried either, so I can’t vouch for them. A 50-400 would be very useful, for sure. All you’d need, then is a 14-35 or 24-70 and you’re done! 👍
Thanks, Peter. I shoot with a crop sensor camera. After considerable swapping and switching, I've settled for three lenses, an f/1.4 16 - 80 mm, f/4-5.6 70-300mm w/ 1.4X lens extender and an f/2.8 27mm. (Full-frame equivalent: 24 - 120mm, 105 - 450mm, and a 40.5mm.)
Beautiful location, mate. Are you willing to provide location info?
That’s a great combination. I’ve swapped many times myself, but I’m very happy with this combo - especially because they’re light enough to carry with me at all times. That said, I’d love to get down to two lenses one day. The location is Horans Track, Strath Creek. Expect many more shoots from this gorgeous spot!
@@peterfritzphoto Great stuff!
Nice video Peter and beautiful location. I think lens choice is a rather personal choice so I personally don't subscribe to the idea that you must have the holy trinity like some photographers on youtube. Since transitioning to micro four thirds I have changed my lens selection quite a bit. I live near the sea and heavy forests so don't always have a use for a telephoto. Having said that I do have 2 of them, a 14-150mm (28-300mm eq) which is my general walkaround lens and a 75-300mm (150-600mm eq) which is my wildlife lens. For landscapes I tend to use primes. I have a 15mm (30mm eq), 25mm (50mm eq) and a 45mm (90mm eq). I don't have an ultra wide because I don't like the distortion. If I need to go wide I use the 25mm or 45mm and shoot several images over one or two rows and stitch them. This often gives me hi res images of 100 plus megapixels. I love panoramas so often crop to 6x17 aspect ratio. Other images I will crop to 1:1 square. The remnants of originally starting photography in the film days shooting on a Yashica TLR camera. I also regularly crop to 4x5. I never liked the 3x2 ration of 35mm films. As you can see a very different setup and somewhat eclectic way of working. Cheers. look forward to your next video.
Strange… I sent you a reply, John, but it hasn’t shown up. Anyway, thanks for your interesting contribution, as always. 👍
Reminds me of Wales UK ❤
I've often said the same about this area.
The 400 is also great
I completely agree.
The 70 to 200 is great
It’s a beautiful little thing.
That's a beautiful old silver snag at the parking area.
I had to look that up, Jerry… Yes, I love that grand old tree. It’s seen thousands of amazing sunrises, that’s for sure.
0:34 Have you ever, really, chosen a lens for its focal length?
Surely you have something better to do…?
The three lenses I use for landscapes are:
Micro 4/3 digital mirrorless
14mm f/2.5
20mm f/1.7
45mm f/1.8
APS-C weather resistant digital mirrorless
16-55mm f/2.8 weather resistant
50-140mm f/2.8 weather resistant
12mm f/2.8
35mm full-frame rangefinder
21mm f/2.8
28mm f/2.8
90mm f/2.8
35mm full-frame SLR
20-35mm f/2.8
80-200mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.8
35mm full-frame SLR
28mm f/2.8
55mm f/3.5 macro
105mm f/2.8 macro
6x7cm medium format film camera
50mm f/4.5 wide-angle
90mm f/3.8 normal
180mm f/4.5 telephoto
Wow! Huge.
I heard the advice, "Use your least liked lens."
So I used my ultrawide zoom. Gets a lot of use now.
It's not your wide lenses causing distortion. It's you, and your lack of understanding. It's physics.
Yep, I’ve shot commercially for 40 years. I don’t know what I’m doing.
@@peterfritzphoto I don't care how long you have been photographing stuff, you don't understand photography gear.
Essentially, when you photograph a landscape, you are photographing the inside of a tennis ball. Then you present it on a flat surface, and blame the lens for the distortion. If you understood what you were doing, you could predict the resulting perceived distortion.
@@oneeyedphotographer Perceived or real, physics or not, the outcome is distortion. The rest is semantics.
Who else here was feeling anxious watching those expensive lenses sitting on a narrow fence? Oh and he was leaning on it too!
lol. It’s a very solid fence. 😄
10:28 🤔
?
@@peterfritzphoto ... Freedom 🤔
@@Dejan_23Unlimited You don’t think Australia’s a free country?
@@peterfritzphoto 10000% it's not.
Good advice, but why advertise a specific company - however excellent. this is just a sales promo for Canon, NOT a photography lesson
My advice applies to any brand. I don’t own a Nikon kit or a Sony kit. I happen to own a Canon kit. That’s a pretty dumb comment, John.
Scary watching you drive on the wrong side of the road. the video looks like no one is in the driver seat......... lol
Haha!
I think it’s better if you put the camera from your back instead of showing your profile, it doesn’t showing any perspective view so i find these comparison useless and no sense.
@@kinghernandezc I’ve read your comment a few times, but I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re saying. Can you perhaps explain it another way?
I meant the camera you are using to record yourself while taking pictures, in my opinion should be in the back of you, showing what’s in the front of you and what you’re shooting at, so with that angle I could have some perspective of the distance between you and the subject with different focal lengths.
@@kinghernandezc Okay, understood. That's a very good point - thank you.
Just like ur choose, use Nikon 18_35G,50f1.8,70_200f4