I know Glenn!! I tell everyone Canon are marketing geniuses. They give us a litttttle good of a lens here and a liiiiiiitle good of a lens there, making you want one great option. Terrible for the professional but great for their business. It’s on purpose for sure. Never Goldilocks.
@@KurtisPape yes... agreed 100% and budget friendly options like Glenn has suggested for Canon. Basically we want the Nikon portfolio for Canon and Sony
The one thing that stood out to me (and I bet most people missed) was that you were working an apprenticeship and saved basically all the money you made to buy that first 500mm prime. Dedication/passion are the really overlooked factors in outstanding photography. And "sacrifice"... because everything in life is a trade-off vs something else, and all the hours spent in the field and studio are hours that could have been spent doing something else. You probably had a dozen or more things you could have spent that money on, but you chose the 500mm that put you on the road to where you are. Life would be easy if we could just take 4-5 bodies, each with a different lens attached, and a guy like a golf caddy who would carry it all and hand us the one we want for this shot. If I could do that, I would ALWAYS have a 600mm F/4 along. But we have to plan our days, and decide what we put in our backpacks and what we leave out that day. A lot of the truly exceptional opportunities are short-lived, and the time it takes to swap out a lens might just mean missing any chance at the shot. So in real life, I wind up attempting the shot with whatever I have in my hands at that moment - maybe it doesn't work out, but at least I had a chance to click the shutter at whatever it was. THAT is what versatility is about, and the reason the 100-500 is such a great lens. If I was heading out specifically to shoot whooping cranes on a sunny day, knowing they were back in the marsh where I couldn't approach them? I would put that 200-800 lens on without thinking twice. But the cranes come here in the winter when the sun is weak. And if I know that they've been feasting on crabs much closer to where I can position myself? There is zero chance I would fail to use a 600 F/4. Now if I can just get that camera caddy to carry it all for me...
The 100-500 is a great zoom lens. Flexibility and sharpness is great. The weight is another great feature. R5 + RF 100-500 is an incredible combo. Very good video Jan !
Might be an old lens but it's one of my favourites! It's the trusty canon 400mm f5.6 L prime lens! So light and focuses so quickly, even without IS slow shutter speed shots or possible!
Even with a built in lens hood, such a great lens and its little 300mm brother. I doubt we would see RF successors but it would be good if we did. DO tech maybe
@@mvp_kryptonite, if we got RF versions I would be the first to buy both immediately. I have both of the 400mm and the 300mm and their performance with my R6 Mark II and R7 is amazing. The 400mm f5.6 is such a great lens I bought another as a backup.
Some very valid points. Both the 600 PF and 800 PF lenses are great options and can be easily hand held. It really depends on the user’s needs for FL. 600 mm is too short for most of my work so the 800 was the more rational choice.
My current favorite ist the Olympus M.Zuiko 150-400 F4.5 TC1.25x PRO on the OM-1, it's incredibly potent, especially for small birds .... for all rest rest I still have my Sony A1 / A9 III + 600 F4 GM
100-500 for me. if walking a lot, leave extender off, if not walking so much I put on the 1.4. but an extender on that lens is a serious design flaw because it can't retract and makes transporting or carrying it a pain.
I live in western Canada where it is wet and cloudy a large part of the year. Love my 500 F4 during these times but more than happy to set it aside for my 100-500 when the weather improves.
Love the Nikon 600PF lens it’s nice and light and super sharp even using the 1.4TC. I also have the Nikon 180-600mm that’s great to use when you need a zoom and it’s an internal zoom so it doesn’t extend when you zoom.
Hi Jan, very nice video as usual. I replaced my 600 mm f4 fl ed vr lens with 600 mm 6.3 pf this week. I went out birding only once with my new lens. I am very happy about my decision. İt has faster AF with Z9, amazing sharpening and very handle. Of course it is a f6.3 not f4 however I always shot f8 or f7.1. It also works well on f6.3. I agree with you about high ISO DXo and Adobe denoise works fantastic. I think adobe lens blur will help me, If I need cleaner background in some case.
I was thinking the other day about the 500mm f4 ii I used to own. Using it with a 1DX and 5D mkiii it was superb. My 100-400 f5.6 is only 1 stop slower and the R6 ii is so much better at high iso than the old cameras. Also editing software cleans images up amazingly well. The smaller zooms ultimately trumps the “giant” prime in certain scenarios.
as a Sony shooter. I have been for sure eyeballing the Nikon Portfolio. So many fantastic options for wildlife shooters! cost to switch over though and start over... OUCH! C'mon Sony give us some of these beautiful Baby Primes for the E-Mount lineup!
Hi Jan, over Christmas I sold my Sony setup and moved to the OM -1 with the 100-400 and a couple of weeks ago added the 300 f4 pro. I am extremely happy with the change. A lighter setup is not just better to carry around for 3-4 hours but easier to manoeuvre for BIF . The syncing lens and body stabilisation with the 300 f4 is amazing. The OM-1 offers some great features.
Something I feel is really overlooked by nikon and sony is magnifiation/close focusing distance on their super zoom/primes. Some bugs or very small birds are too skittish to get close to with a macro lens, but so many tele lenses have awful minimun focus distance so you're left with a "void" where it is hard to capture certain subjects no matter the budget. Third party lenses help, but still i would expect first party lenses to be more versatile, idk?
I must admit that I like the look of the Nikon Z8 so the Nikon lens definitely gets my vote as that would be the Camera and lens system that I would have if I was not using my Leica M lens.
Thanks very much Jan for sharing your thoughts on this topic, which is very relevant to me. I have to admit that the Canon RF 1-5 has grown on me some (good IQ and light weight and quick AF) but I still don't like the awkwardness when it comes to extenders. Due to the lack of reach at 500mm, my 1.4x lives on that lens most of the time for birds. However, I have missed unexpected photo opps due to being limited in the zoom range by the 1.4x. When out in wild areas, anything can happen in an instant. For example, getting some photos at 700mm of some ducks out on the water only to have a rare duck species come from seemingly nowhere in flight right over my head but only to end up with clipped wing images due to not being able to zoom back out completely -- frustrating. I could name other examples but you get the point -- it does happen with that lens -- sometimes can't get the shot or composition desired during surprise moments, defeating the purpose of a zoom. Also, looking at indoor controlled lab photos by this lens at a well known website (high contrast black and white shots of fine detailed print/images on a poster indoors), this lens looks essentially identical in IQ to the Sony 2-6, both with and without extenders (admittedly a subjective eyeball assessment on my computer screen). So Canon is charging about a $1K premium for the reduced weight tech advance of this lens compared to the heavier but equally good IQ Sony. I'm not sure the Canon RF 2-8 will be the answer given that it has noticeably worse IQ compared to the Canon 1-5 based on the aforementioned website. However, I'm not sure how applicable these kinds of indoor lab comparison images are to actual field practice given post processing software's ability to smartly sharpen softer photos -- maybe you would have some thoughts on this?? I mean after all, you have certainly displayed some amazing photos taken with the Canon RF 2-8, some even with an extender. What I'm looking for is a very functional, well rounded, well thought out, good IQ zoom out to at least 600mm, easily packable in the field for day hikes, to be paired with a light, well thought out, compact prime at 600mm that delivers the outstanding noteworthy IQ that primes do, for the times when outstanding sharpness really is a must. In regards to that prime I seek, I think Nikon has the answer with their 600mm ZVRS, so I've also considered buying this lens and a Z8, and probably their 180-600 zoom. But that then begs the question whether Canon will have the same in a year or so, which would make my life much simpler. I've been tempted by the Canon big primes for their outstanding IQ, but they are far far less attractive to me due to their size, weight, and cost -- basically not meeting most of my needs -- but they would provide exceptional IQ for times when photo opps are near my vehicle, and if I could get a reasonable deal on a used on. Thanks again, kind regards.
the big prime lens I feel is really the only way to go - most of us shoot at the long end of these zommies anyhow and as you said I can use my 1.4 extender have 840 mm of reach on my R5 at F5.6 - YES its heavy - but I want the best image I can have when I'm in the field - I purchased a used F4 600MM EF VER 2 a year ago - adapted it to my R5 and haven't used my 1-400 maybe twice since -
My first love was the Nikon 300mm f/2.8. When I decided to try mirrorless and switch to canon, the rf 100-500mm came calling and hasn’t disappointed. Now just need to try the r5 with it.
For me 600 PF is too expensive, but there is similar more affordable option - Nikon 400mm/4.5 which with 1.4 TC should be close to 600PF, and perform better in low light (without TC)
As a birder who takes photos I need to be mobile. My current lens is the OM System 150-400 with a 1.25X TC built-in giving the "reach" equivalent of 1000 mm in FF. but not being a burden to carry. Being a zoom lens I can go wider if my subject comes close. If so inclined, I can pop a wide angle pancake lens in my pocket.
Thank you for your thoughts. I have the "old" 500 mm PF and want to change to the 600 mm PF this year (wait until the price drop down from list price). For me it is important how the camera and lens combo fits in my hand (not to top heavy) and the flexibility to change my position to get a better foto. With a better fitting lens-camera-combo I have more fun in the field (for me wildlife is my hobby).
My holy trinity for the Z8 would be Z20 mm f1.8, the announced Z28-400 mm super zoom and the PF600. The main reason for this choise is that the 28-400 will enable me to shoot prototype much anything without having to change the lens, so it’s ideal for traveling. The 20 mm and 600 mm primes enable me to focus on what is special like astronomy and wildlife, which would be special missions. The Z8 at this time seems to be the best compromise between pixel count, read out speed, size and weight.
I sold my RF100-500L and bought myself a Nikon Z9 & Z600/6.3S VR PF. I’m very happy with the images that I’ve got with this Nikon combo and considering to go all Nikon now.
Glenn is exactly right come on Canon give us a small 600 mm lens not the F11 but a 5.6 to maybe a 6.3 aperture . Jan one of my favorite Canon lenses is definitely the ( Toy Lens ) the 400 F5.6 lens , my favorite bird in flight lens of all time and many other very well-known Bird Photographers use this lens as well .
Hi Jan I’m canon so original wow lense was the 100-400. Was an early adopter for the 100-500 and have enjoyed from the beginning. Main benefits are easy carry, light weight for flight shooting, macro capability and the image quality. What’s not to like. Occasionally you need more reach but teleconverters work well. Just need to consider the background
Nice video Jan. Great job as always. 👏🏽 I had the RF 100-500mm, but sold it fairly quickly, felt I needed a bit more reach. Wouldn’t call it rubbish, but I think it’s still a bit overpriced. 🙂 Which one of these two would you choose to pair with a Canon R5… Canon EF 600mm F4 L IS USM (version 1) or Canon RF 200-800mm? Shooting conditions are 50/50 low light and good lighting.
My wow moment was definitely when I switched from 6D Mark 2 to R6. That new AF features were pretty amazing. I prefer zoom lenses, I tried the 800mm f11 but sold it some time ago. Long time I used the sigma ef 150-600 mm but last year I switched to the rf 100-500 L. I'm happy with that setup. Very versatile, I took pictures of damselfly as well as birds. I recently bought the 2x extender, but didn't had the opportunity to test it.
Canon RF 100-500 wins easily. Can hike for miles with it attached to the camera, stop and shoot a few landscape shots while in pursuit of birds or other wildlife. With it's light weight and superior handling, I can even quickly maneuver around snapping amazingly sharp images of butterflies in flight. No other lens can do all of that and do it so well. Rented the RF 200-800 for a week and the extra size and bulk compared to the smaller and more nimble 100-500 was a significant disadvantage when on the move. Not to mention how well the 100-500 fits inside an average size backpack. And, you can forget about even trying to jam the larger lens and camera connected together in any backpack- extremely difficult if not impossible. The extra reach of the 200-800 might come in handy in some circumstances (as in a stationary set up) but the 100-500 trumps it in every other category.
Hi Jan, this is indeed an interesting angle to compare lenses ! As an engineer, I'd like to quantify this size (focal length) versus f-stop dilemma, so I came up with what I'd call the bokeh-power: just divide the focal length by the f-stop. Like this it's obvious your beloved 600/4 is the (heavy) king beyond doubt with a bokeh-power of 125, while the 100-400/8 only reaches 50. The great 100-500/7.1 gets a 70, but the new 200-800/9 clearly beats this with 89 .. and I did notice it already in my first shots with the 200-800 of woodpecker at our feeder on a dull morning. Next up are the 150-600/6.3 zooms and the 600/6.3 with 95. Glenn's dream 600/5.6 would yield a pretty nice 107. Based upon these numbers, the 600/6.3 doesn't seem to have much more bokeh-power than the 200-800. At first sight it may be odd to compare both, but they can render nearly the same background while the 200-800 is half a kilo heavier, but is much more versatile, gives more reach and costs less than half the 600/6.3. I'm ready to believe the 600/6.3 may have better optical quality, but for non-pros it looks to me the 200-800 promises more fun and flexibility at a much more affordable price while reaching nearly the same bokeh quality. Maybe you'd need to do a shootout between these 2, but for a fair comparison you'd better wait until getting the R5ii with stacked sensor ;-)
Interesting. Would love to see this in a side-by-side test. This would make me favor the 100-400 5.6 over the 100-500 7.1. Boca scores are identical, and the older lens is thousand dollars cheaper. I love blown out backgrounds . with 45 megapixels on Canon R5, cropping in the extra 100 mm (Would be a worthwhile trade-off to save $1000.
@@unknownKnownunknowns Hi Steven, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast. I used to love my 100-400Lii while still shooting APS-C on the 70D. After upgrading to the R6, I was left craving for reach. in a combo deal, I sold the 100-400/5.6 to get the R5 & 100-500, so I couldn't compare both lenses using the same body, but the 100-500 is a clear improvement in every way. You also need to be aware the "reported" focal length is determined when focusing on infinity. When focusing on a closer object, the 100-400 is rather a 370mm, while the 100-500 remains very close to 500mm. Duade made a video about this somewhere summer 2022. As a result the bokeh-power of the 100-400/5.6 is lower than what you'd think. You also have to consider which subjects you're shooting. I have just added the 200-800 because I still wanted even more reach for skittish small birds .. Additionally, when getting either the 100-400/5.6 or 100-500/7.1, you should watch out for the right deal: I paid my 100-500 about 2500 Euro in August 22, and my friend picked it up on black Friday 22 for below 2400, while the "normal" price is 3250 Euro. In 2020 I paid 2000 Euro for the 100-400Lii, and sold it in 2022 for 1800, while since covid the regular price hiked to 2800 Euro. When opting for the 100-400 anyway, you should consider looking for a second hand in good condition.
@@WernerBirdNaturehaha, that bokeh power sounds like a Kai trademark waiting to happen. Interesting about the 100-400ii and its 100-500 successor. I shoot sports and love the EF70-200ii but when I go for a stroll in the woods I would take my lately acquired 100-400ii. I get to pick the regular adapter or the 0.71 for a boost of light and closer to intended focal length on the R7. For the used price they are now in the uk, even in the last month have gone from £1,100 ish to £800 so I couldn’t let that go. I agree, the RF functionally and improvements are way better. I have the 600/11 and used the 15-35, 70-200, 28-70 and they are sharp and super fast in focusing. 100-300 I can’t wait to rent in the summer. I see Canon now releasing lenses that weren’t possible in the EF era, those will likely make me pick up more RF (or even a FF body)
I've used the r5 + 100-500 RF lens for a couple of years and loved it to bits, BUT I wanted those lovely smooth backgrounds you can only get with f4. So I bought a gazillion year old 500mm f4 EF lens. It's big and heavy, I can only handhold for a couple of shots and I miss a lot of shots just because it's big and awkward. But the shots I do get are amazing (for me!) and the ability to shoot at high shutter speed and in low light is incredible. I recently put the 100-500mm back on for a trip and had so much fun using it but was disappointed when I got home and saw the images, they're ok but needed a lot of noise reduction and digital magic (time I'd rather spend outside). In short - you need both! Big prime for amazing images, lighter telephoto for flexibility and portability. And THEN just to add to the collection I also still drag out my old 70-300mm EF lens for photographing bigger wildlife.
I have the Nikon 600pf and have taken in a few months probably more photos with it than anyone on the planet ( >200k +); my 180-600 zoom and 800pf are feeling very neglected and my 500pf is 4sale. For me it can deliver the miracle shot/s and eliminate missed opportunities to a degree restricted only by human skills imperfection (I'm getting old!) and the limitation of the Z8 body AF system (looking forward to the new Z8 firmware update, eh!). When you use the "spray and pray" method in those quarter second moments in time like when the rainbow lorikeet takes off in the opposite direction quartering towards you at 60-70km/h after the first 3 metres of acceleration and you fire your burst having to remove your eye from the viewfinder and you review the back of the camera and am amazed at the result/s when you know the depth of field is miniscule at 7.9m and f6.3, 1/3200 with the eye & face perfectly in focus and the intricate feather detail present (where most 'tographers struggle on a perched bird!), then, eh, you know you have something special, that's the definition of precision, IMHO. All for now, but think about this reversal: you could have your 200-800* on the tripod rather than the 600 f4 prime, and have the 600pf ready for anything on the Z8, as it can do everything very very well (I have the 24-200 for < MFD of 4m, plus landscape, ...). * = is it really 800 ? , asking for a friend, cheers, I like your work
I skipped on 200-800mm mainly because it is a bit soft at 800mm even comparing to 800mm f11. I like my Olympus 100-400mm and Canon 800mm f11 because they are so light. They let me get to places I would never get to with my Sigma 500mm Sport. But Sigmas IQ is out of this world!
Hi Jan, I guess we can’t over look how far technology has come. As a re inspired wild life shooter options are so wide open. The R7 is very different from my OM10. Yup that’s how old I am lol. Given only one option I’m interested in your opinion RF100-500 or RF 200-800 as first replacement for the 100-400 on my R7? Thanks for the great content
Double barrel prime my pref say a 60 f 2 and a 600 f 6.3 slider to move lens over the mount keep the weight down .have the speed and clarity of prime s with some versatility of a normal view .
Like you, the purchase of a Z600 or even 800mm interests me a lot with a Z8 (Just seeing if Nikon will do the same AF update announced for the Z8 as that of the Z9) that makes 2 systems to manage but in all this is less expensive than the RF600F4 alone and as Canon is not at all concerned with creating mid-range lenses this tempts me greatly
Unless you have deep pockets, or have a well established career as a wildlife photographer, I don't think the 600mm f/4 is even remotely an option. That said, the super zooms can get very good results as long as you have the right conditions and you learn the lens well. I have my eye on the Canon 200-800, but I have concerns of how they made the collar non-removable. That may be enough of a disappointment to make me wait for something else in the way of third party.
I love the PF lenses and had the 500 which was just a tiny bit short. However, it seems a little excessive to have two 600mm lenses! But..... they are clearly such different bits of kit that I think I probably will.
For my (more limited) wildlife shooting, I’m planning on the 180-600 this spring. I like staying with zooms on the long side. Still not in stock anywhere but hopefully soon 👍🏻
I am looking at the new Sony 300mm F2.8 (for 420mm F4 and 600mm F5.6 with TCs). I think my perfect lightweight lens would be a 400mm F4 at about the same weight as the 300mm F2.8... which should be doable...
Hello Jan, great story about your lenses! Thank you for sharing it with us. When it comes to lenses for wildlife, I think along the same lines as you. I prefer my RF 600 f/4.0 prime lens and also my RF 100-500mm zoom lens. Maybe some people will be shocked. But I came from the combination EF 70-200 mm f/2.8 + 1.4x or 2x EF extender. First used on an EOS 20D, then on an EOS 40D. Then I bought a used EF 500mm f/4.0 prime lens and used it with my EOS 5D Mark III. And I was amazed and really impressed with the prime lens and the capabilities and results. In the analog days I had the T-Noflexar 400mm f/5.6 (Rapid Focus Lens) from Novoflex. I used this prime lense with a Canon AE1 program SLR. You proberly don‘t know such a lense. It was a real highlight back then ;-) I could be wrong, but wildlife photgraphy includes for me also the macro photgraphy of Insekts. Here I use my RF 100 mm f/2.8 L MACRO IS USM prime lens. Sometimes togeter with Intermediate rings. Have you ever tried to photograph an amphibian (frog, fire salamander, etc.) with a wide-angle lens? I love this. I do it with my RF 24-70mm f/2.8 (at 24mm) or with the RF 35mm f/1.8 or RF 16mm f/2.8. A very unique perspective that I am absolutely thrilled with. Regards Uwe Germany, near Airport Frankfurt am Main
Nice I am tryin* out the om1 micro 4/3. But I also shout all the big brands it’s hard keeping up 4 systems. A system comes out with a lends that makes me buy it. And for some reason I can’t sell the ones I have. I will never be able to enjoy all the cameras and lens I have. I am trying to get to a mental place where I can actually start selling off some of my gear and just get down to one system, but that said there is no perfect system and when we combined them all we can get close, pray for me I need guidance, I do enjoy your channel and your accent. Your fan from Atlanta Ga. USA 😅
Managed to borrow a 400mm prime in Dec 22, great lens, quality amazing, but i missed the flexibility of my 100-400mm . Had a few days over Christmas with a Canon 100-500mm and now having to save up for one.
I have a Tamron 150-600. I had it for 6 years so it isn't like the newer ones. I use it on my canon R6 Mark 11 and my canon 5d mark V1. I think the 5d seems to work better with this lens.
Hallo Jan, also meine Wildlifekombo ist seit 13 Monaten mein Nikkor Z800 PF mit der Nikon Z8 ( vorher Nikon Z6 II ) seit Juni 2023. Hier bin ich seit gut aufgestellt. Dazu kommt dann noch je nach Situation ein Nikkor 500 PF, welches vorher meine Top Kombi war. LG. Günni
At this moment the RF 600 f4 l costs in The Netherlands € 14.999,00 and the RF 1200 f8 l € 23.799,00. So bit to mutch for me. As an amateur I will be using my RF 100-500MM and mayby this spring/summer the 1.4 rf extender 😅
The only lens thats out currently thatll possiblity replace my 100-500 is the 200-800. I would like to add the 100-300 to my kit someday and maybe that 200-500 f4 once it comes out if its not too big but even then the 100-500 i can take everywhere
I got Canon, Nikon, Sony and OMDS Systems in reach - I sold my Sony supertele recently, I' am not willing to pay Canon supertele-prices, here the 100-500 mm must fit, I bought Nikon 4.5/400 mm and 6.3/800 mm - both very sharp and nice and I still prefer a 4.5/400 mm with 1.4 TC over the 6.3/600 mm and 400 mm to 800 mm is the better step up. But the Nikon Z9 still has problems with birds in trees, more then Canon, Sony or even OMDS and if I need faster series, Nikon is not able to keep the sharpness good enough on the eyes or body. From 10-20 frames only a view are tack sharp. So I use my OM-1 with 4.5/150-400 mm since nearly two years now - and for me, this combination beats them all. Stacked-Sensor, very good viewfinder f:4.5 at 800 mm crop against f:6.3 or 7.1 or 9.0 at comparable 800 mm crop. I got the light and nowadays the small sensor is very good even at 10.000 ISO and depending on light and subject even at 12.800 ISO. It is not as clean with backgrounds as a 4.0/600 mm FF could be - no doubt. Nothing is perfect, OMDS is lacking CFX B and right hand power on and has some quirks to get around. But Nikon is still not on top with AF-C for birds, Canon is crazy with his superteles (and the 200-800 mm is no adequate alternative) and Sony is drifting away with the video waves... and CFX A, big data files, not perfect viewfinders, not enough tele-alternatives and so on.
Great video Jan :) I never get tired of looking at your photos ! Some of the best anywhere ! Okay, my thoughts on the 100-500.... Fantastic lens, very sharp, but IMPO, overpriced for not being any faster than it is, and for my uses, too short most of the time. Those Nikon PF lenses are freaking amazing ! But because Nikon doesn't offer a new, modern APS-C mirrorless body, even the 800 is still too short for my uses. If I could ever get ahold of one, from your review, and everything else I've heard about it, I think the RF 200-800 will end up being my go too lens, for 95+% of my shooting. For now, and for all of its faults {and their are many} the 800 F11 + the R7, is the best combo I can find. Oh, when you said the speed of the Nikon F6.3 was not amazing, the funny thing about that is, if I were using that lens, I'd probably be stopping it down to F9 or F11, more often than I'd be using it wide open, as shooting little birds from very close, I need more DOF :)
Thanks for this video Jan. I recently began watching your vids and enjoy them very much. As for me, I am impatiently awaiting an announcement from Sigma about an agreement with Canon to make RF lenses. Canon has really put me off with their reluctance to upgrade the R5 to its full potential. In my opinion, it's an effort to sell the new Mark II instead. I'm not biting. I would love to see a Sigma prime lens in the range of 600 to 800 with a f6.3 or so that would work with my 1.4 x RF extender. Even a f8 would be ok if needed to make the lens light. Of course, good stabilization would be required as well. I have a Sigma 150 - 600 contemporary (EF) that is just as sharp as my Canon RF 100 - 500 but is heavy and bulky with the EF to RF converter. I would be all over a Sigma prime RF lens. I'm sold on the Sigma image quality. I also saved for a long time to get my R5 and RF 100 - 500 but now feel that Canon has abandoned my R5. I won't reward them with another large purchase without reviewing every other alternative. For now, my R5 is very capable even though I know it could be so much more with a "meaningful" software upgrade.
Great reviews and I agree with virtually everything you said. A couple other tips people may find useful: - The Nikon 500PF on FTZ is nearly as good as the 600 mentioned in this video, you are just trading 100mm of focal length to gain 1/3 of a stop of light. It also is bonkers cheap on the used market because so many people have been selling it to move to the 600. You can get them for as low as half the MSRP at this point. In a 1:1 comparison, the 600 is slightly better, but when we are talking about triple the cost, the 500 becomes an insanely good deal. - The Nikon 300PF f/4.0 is the best kept secret in wildlife photography. 300 is a bit on the shorter side for wildlife but it is still very much usable. (For example Tom Mason built his career at 300mm). The magic of this lens though is you get world class image quality in such a small lens. Its bonkers small for what it is. Even compared to other PF lenses. Even if you throw a 1.4TC on it to make it a 440 5.6, it is still significantly smaller than the 500PF mentioned above which is an ultralight in itself. The other thing that makes the 300pf so wonderful for what we do is it has really good close focusing. Most wildlife teles will have a maximum reproduction of 0.17 or 0.18. The 300pf does 0.24. Not a macro lens by any means but it gives you the ability to frame small subjects larger than you would with even a big exotic tele. Its an incredible lens and I'd LOVE to see what a Z mount re-imagining of it would look like.
I agree with you about both lenses. The low weight of both these lenses makes them a pleasure to use. As intriguing as the new Nikon 180-600 is, it is hard to go back to carrying a heavy lens.
Looks like the nikon 600mm F6.3 is already coming down in price which makes it tempting! I think you right, the lens does look tiny like the 400mm f4.5 but the 600mm would be a better overall birding lens, but I guess I will have to wait for your review 🙂
As I am having a 180-600 mm with my Z8 and I am interested in having a prime Telephoto, whether a 600 mm f/6.3 or a 800mm f/6.3 will be ideal. I am primarily in to bird photography of small birds as a hobbyist and often I am required to walk a lot at distant locations. Of course, 600 mm will be handy, but I doubt it may be an overlap with my existing 180-600 mm. On the contrary, 800mm is heavier, but has better reach. Please suggest.
Hi Jan, How do set up your camera for photos and videos? I'm a bit lost here because for video I would need an ND filter while I do not want that for the photos. Switching between photo and video with adding/removing a filter is quite annoying. Or do you simply use two cameras? To answer your question, my favorite wildlife lenses are the (EF) 600mm 4.0 and the RF 100-500mm. And the 24mm 2.8 (for my camera trapping images ;-p) .
I'm finding the same light weight is such a joy add ok f stops the Nikon with teleconvertor looks good to but hefty .Is there such a thing as a double prime 60 or 600 or 800 at flick of a teleconverter type switch with reasonable f stop and weight .Tech leaps also like ff to apsc switch without mp loss .camera business bit fixated on fps f stops missing some great innovations .Canon user but Nikon's had a great year cameras and innovative or lenses of two flip swivel lens primes on one main lens column
How do you think the 600mm PF would perform on the Nikon ZF? I know the handling will be poor but I have the Smallrig grip which I think might make it manageable. I've read that the ZF has the same AF capability as the Z8/Z9 but I'm not sure if it matches the Z9 with the newer 4.10 firmware. And of course it won't have the stacked sensor and blackout free EVF. I'd plan on adding a better Nikon body down the road, either the Z8 once the new firmware is released or something else depending on what they release. I also have an RF 200-800mm on backorder to compare with my RF 100-500mm on my R5 but I'm still on the fence about the size and weight of the 200-800mm, as well as the worse chromatic abberation and slightly softer IQ. The 600 PF is so appealing for it's lightweight and compact size for travel and excellent quality even with a 1.4x. With a 1.4x I think it'd be great for my upcoming trip to Florida but the only body I'd have for it is the Nikon ZF for now.
Has the 200-800 replaced your 100-500? Im looking at replacing the Sigma 150-600 on my R7. There are some sales on the RF 100-500 atm since the release of the 200-800. Sharpness vs Reach?
Lately I've been struggling with my canon 500mm f4 Version1. It's really starting to get heavy and I'm not enjoying my photography as much as I used to. My arms and back are begging me to get rid of it. I have been holding off on the 100-500 as I still cannot wrap my head around the 7.1 F-stop. I may have to try it or possibly wait for Canon to open up to third party lenses like Sigma and Tamron. So confused 😵💫
I happen to own the 100-500 rf and I consider it an overpriced fantastic lens, especially because of the weight. The nikon PF600 is in my opinion the best lens on the market today being a prime weighing less than 1.5 kg. This could be a reason for me to switch to Nikon, only the amount of money involved is stopping me because besides the lens I would need to buy a Z8 (no other nikon alternatives to be considered).
Main reason why the Z9 is not an option is the Weight. Z8 nearly similar but lighter. Would not want a heavy body on a lens that I selected for it’s light weight
I am currently using two systems. I have been using an Olympus 100-400 F5-6.3 on an OM-1and E-M1 MkII for about a year and a half, with mixed results--some really good results, but some not so good. So, I recently purchased a Nikon Z8 with a 180-600 lens. The lens is backordered so I don't have any results yet. I got the 180-600 because close focusing capability is important, but, for me, 600 mm is probably too short as I use the Olympus at 400 mm most of the time, which means that I am considering getting the Nikkor 800 mm PF instead of or in addition to the 180-600. What is your opinion of the 800 mm PF and why did you choose the 600 mm vs. the 800 mm? Thanks! I enjoy your videos.
Size always matters Jan, but hopefully Trump never again... 😉 Thanks for sharing your beginner photos with us, it gives hope... I'm ambivalent about lenses. Like everyone, I dream of a big prime, but I wonder if I could use it wide open very often. At a usual distance where the subject is large enough in the frame, you have to stop down to 7.1 or 8 to get enough detail over the entire body of the subject. But that puts you in the f-stop range of modern smaller and cheaper lenses like the Canon 100 to 500 or the Nikon 600 PF. With the big prime you have to pay a lot for a slightly better image quality but get a bulky and heavy lens that's hard to travel with on a plane or carry around.
Ok, I don't understand, taking pictures of birds is not something interesting for ordinary mortals to look at, it's just a picture of a bird. When, in addition, as here, they have been corrected in computer programs, so that all reality has been removed and the images no longer reflect what one sees, it is just nonsense.
If you don't get it, you don't get it, fine ... but your description of it is completely incorrect, as is your understanding why people enjoy this hobby.
@darrensmith7949 I would say the comment is a bit harsh, but I guess the second part does make some sense. Isn't part of the reason why we enjoy this that we can relive our great memory of seeing the bird? Then noise reduction is fine, but adding or removing e.g. habitat elements is questionable. Don't get me wrong though: I think Jan's photos and editing are amazing! But I would not completely discard this comment.
I disagree with your first statement, a hobby is never something that can be explained to someone who doesn't share the passion! However, as an old school film shooter I party agree with your second. I still enjoy the challenge of getting the shot in camera which for me at least, has always been what photography is about.
Hobbies are interesting. The one thing in common is they can be a bottomless pit for money and to each his own. However, I like bird photography and see nothing in street photography, landscape photography and portrait photography but interested in macro photography and astro photography. No right or wrongs.
C'mon Canon.....Give us a 600 f/5.6 DO !!!! 🙏
Sony need some more prime lens as well 🙂
I know Glenn!! I tell everyone Canon are marketing geniuses. They give us a litttttle good of a lens here and a liiiiiiitle good of a lens there, making you want one great option. Terrible for the professional but great for their business. It’s on purpose for sure. Never Goldilocks.
I’d be happy with less expensive and sharper DO than currently offered. 300 f4
with built in TC 🥰
@@KurtisPape yes... agreed 100% and budget friendly options like Glenn has suggested for Canon. Basically we want the Nikon portfolio for Canon and Sony
The one thing that stood out to me (and I bet most people missed) was that you were working an apprenticeship and saved basically all the money you made to buy that first 500mm prime. Dedication/passion are the really overlooked factors in outstanding photography. And "sacrifice"... because everything in life is a trade-off vs something else, and all the hours spent in the field and studio are hours that could have been spent doing something else. You probably had a dozen or more things you could have spent that money on, but you chose the 500mm that put you on the road to where you are.
Life would be easy if we could just take 4-5 bodies, each with a different lens attached, and a guy like a golf caddy who would carry it all and hand us the one we want for this shot. If I could do that, I would ALWAYS have a 600mm F/4 along. But we have to plan our days, and decide what we put in our backpacks and what we leave out that day. A lot of the truly exceptional opportunities are short-lived, and the time it takes to swap out a lens might just mean missing any chance at the shot. So in real life, I wind up attempting the shot with whatever I have in my hands at that moment - maybe it doesn't work out, but at least I had a chance to click the shutter at whatever it was.
THAT is what versatility is about, and the reason the 100-500 is such a great lens. If I was heading out specifically to shoot whooping cranes on a sunny day, knowing they were back in the marsh where I couldn't approach them? I would put that 200-800 lens on without thinking twice. But the cranes come here in the winter when the sun is weak. And if I know that they've been feasting on crabs much closer to where I can position myself? There is zero chance I would fail to use a 600 F/4. Now if I can just get that camera caddy to carry it all for me...
After trying the 200-800mm this has become my favourite. Sold my 100-500mm as the extra 300mm reach (even at a slower f-stop) is so vital to me.
I love mine too. Keeping the 100-500 for those times where 800mm is not needed, which is rare!
On the Z8 with a convertor, the 500mm pf 5.6 takes a lot of beating. Sharp, light it's delivered great results for me.
The 100-500 is a great zoom lens. Flexibility and sharpness is great. The weight is another great feature. R5 + RF 100-500 is an incredible combo. Very good video Jan !
Might be an old lens but it's one of my favourites! It's the trusty canon 400mm f5.6 L prime lens! So light and focuses so quickly, even without IS slow shutter speed shots or possible!
Even with a built in lens hood, such a great lens and its little 300mm brother. I doubt we would see RF successors but it would be good if we did. DO tech maybe
@@mvp_kryptonite, if we got RF versions I would be the first to buy both immediately. I have both of the 400mm and the 300mm and their performance with my R6 Mark II and R7 is amazing. The 400mm f5.6 is such a great lens I bought another as a backup.
@@birbs4life174 yeah the 400mm on the R7 I could see no fps performance drop!
Some very valid points. Both the 600 PF and 800 PF lenses are great options and can be easily hand held. It really depends on the user’s needs for FL. 600 mm is too short for most of my work so the 800 was the more rational choice.
Variety is the spice of life! We are so blessed with all these amazing tools that cater for every job, need, want and pocket!😎👍🏾🙏🏾. 🏴🇸🇪🇹🇹
My current favorite ist the Olympus M.Zuiko 150-400 F4.5 TC1.25x PRO on the OM-1, it's incredibly potent, especially for small birds .... for all rest rest I still have my Sony A1 / A9 III + 600 F4 GM
100-500 for me. if walking a lot, leave extender off, if not walking so much I put on the 1.4. but an extender on that lens is a serious design flaw because it can't retract and makes transporting or carrying it a pain.
I live in western Canada where it is wet and cloudy a large part of the year. Love my 500 F4 during these times but more than happy to set it aside for my 100-500 when the weather improves.
Love the Nikon 600PF lens it’s nice and light and super sharp even using the 1.4TC. I also have the Nikon 180-600mm that’s great to use when you need a zoom and it’s an internal zoom so it doesn’t extend when you zoom.
Hi Jan, very nice video as usual.
I replaced my 600 mm f4 fl ed vr lens with 600 mm 6.3 pf this week. I went out birding only once with my new lens. I am very happy about my decision. İt has faster AF with Z9, amazing sharpening and very handle. Of course it is a f6.3 not f4 however I always shot f8 or f7.1. It also works well on f6.3. I agree with you about high ISO DXo and Adobe denoise works fantastic. I think adobe lens blur will help me, If I need cleaner background in some case.
I was thinking the other day about the 500mm f4 ii I used to own. Using it with a 1DX and 5D mkiii it was superb. My 100-400 f5.6 is only 1 stop slower and the R6 ii is so much better at high iso than the old cameras. Also editing software cleans images up amazingly well. The smaller zooms ultimately trumps the “giant” prime in certain scenarios.
You have a good point about this lens the f7.1 does not matter quite as much as having the flexibility that the 100-500 gives you.
as a Sony shooter. I have been for sure eyeballing the Nikon Portfolio. So many fantastic options for wildlife shooters! cost to switch over though and start over... OUCH! C'mon Sony give us some of these beautiful Baby Primes for the E-Mount lineup!
Hi Jan, over Christmas I sold my Sony setup and moved to the OM -1 with the 100-400 and a couple of weeks ago added the 300 f4 pro. I am extremely happy with the change. A lighter setup is not just better to carry around for 3-4 hours but easier to manoeuvre for BIF . The syncing lens and body stabilisation with the 300 f4 is amazing. The OM-1 offers some great features.
I did the same, and god that 300mm f/4 is soooo damn sharp. Add a 1.4x to it and you have huge reach and amazing IQ.
@@mazaribeiromy 1.4x TC is in the post. 😊 I still want my 100-400 for the closer shots when 600mm ffe is just too much.
Great video, Yes I have the 600 PF and I just love it;)
Something I feel is really overlooked by nikon and sony is magnifiation/close focusing distance on their super zoom/primes. Some bugs or very small birds are too skittish to get close to with a macro lens, but so many tele lenses have awful minimun focus distance so you're left with a "void" where it is hard to capture certain subjects no matter the budget. Third party lenses help, but still i would expect first party lenses to be more versatile, idk?
I use a tamron 150-500 f6.7. Works great for me. Because it’s small. And I can carry it for miles through the woods looking for birds.
I must admit that I like the look of the Nikon Z8 so the Nikon lens definitely gets my vote as that would be the Camera and lens system that I would have if I was not using my Leica M lens.
Thanks very much Jan for sharing your thoughts on this topic, which is very relevant to me. I have to admit that the Canon RF 1-5 has grown on me some (good IQ and light weight and quick AF) but I still don't like the awkwardness when it comes to extenders. Due to the lack of reach at 500mm, my 1.4x lives on that lens most of the time for birds. However, I have missed unexpected photo opps due to being limited in the zoom range by the 1.4x. When out in wild areas, anything can happen in an instant. For example, getting some photos at 700mm of some ducks out on the water only to have a rare duck species come from seemingly nowhere in flight right over my head but only to end up with clipped wing images due to not being able to zoom back out completely -- frustrating. I could name other examples but you get the point -- it does happen with that lens -- sometimes can't get the shot or composition desired during surprise moments, defeating the purpose of a zoom. Also, looking at indoor controlled lab photos by this lens at a well known website (high contrast black and white shots of fine detailed print/images on a poster indoors), this lens looks essentially identical in IQ to the Sony 2-6, both with and without extenders (admittedly a subjective eyeball assessment on my computer screen). So Canon is charging about a $1K premium for the reduced weight tech advance of this lens compared to the heavier but equally good IQ Sony. I'm not sure the Canon RF 2-8 will be the answer given that it has noticeably worse IQ compared to the Canon 1-5 based on the aforementioned website. However, I'm not sure how applicable these kinds of indoor lab comparison images are to actual field practice given post processing software's ability to smartly sharpen softer photos -- maybe you would have some thoughts on this?? I mean after all, you have certainly displayed some amazing photos taken with the Canon RF 2-8, some even with an extender. What I'm looking for is a very functional, well rounded, well thought out, good IQ zoom out to at least 600mm, easily packable in the field for day hikes, to be paired with a light, well thought out, compact prime at 600mm that delivers the outstanding noteworthy IQ that primes do, for the times when outstanding sharpness really is a must. In regards to that prime I seek, I think Nikon has the answer with their 600mm ZVRS, so I've also considered buying this lens and a Z8, and probably their 180-600 zoom. But that then begs the question whether Canon will have the same in a year or so, which would make my life much simpler. I've been tempted by the Canon big primes for their outstanding IQ, but they are far far less attractive to me due to their size, weight, and cost -- basically not meeting most of my needs -- but they would provide exceptional IQ for times when photo opps are near my vehicle, and if I could get a reasonable deal on a used on. Thanks again, kind regards.
the big prime lens I feel is really the only way to go - most of us shoot at the long end of these zommies anyhow and as you said I can use my 1.4 extender have 840 mm of reach on my R5 at F5.6 - YES its heavy - but I want the best image I can have when I'm in the field - I purchased a used F4 600MM EF VER 2 a year ago - adapted it to my R5 and haven't used my 1-400 maybe twice since -
My first love was the Nikon 300mm f/2.8. When I decided to try mirrorless and switch to canon, the rf 100-500mm came calling and hasn’t disappointed. Now just need to try the r5 with it.
I really love my 100-500 it really is a perfect lens for me at this point.
I bought the Nikon Z800 6.3 and have no problem walking around with it, for an arthritic 61 yo. I’m also very happy with image quality.
Have the 600mm PF. The combination of weight and IQ is worth the f/6.3
For me 600 PF is too expensive, but there is similar more affordable option - Nikon 400mm/4.5 which with 1.4 TC should be close to 600PF, and perform better in low light (without TC)
As a birder who takes photos I need to be mobile. My current lens is the OM System 150-400 with a 1.25X TC built-in giving the "reach" equivalent of 1000 mm in FF. but not being a burden to carry. Being a zoom lens I can go wider if my subject comes close. If so inclined, I can pop a wide angle pancake lens in my pocket.
Thank you for your thoughts. I have the "old" 500 mm PF and want to change to the 600 mm PF this year (wait until the price drop down from list price). For me it is important how the camera and lens combo fits in my hand (not to top heavy) and the flexibility to change my position to get a better foto. With a better fitting lens-camera-combo I have more fun in the field (for me wildlife is my hobby).
My holy trinity for the Z8 would be Z20 mm f1.8, the announced Z28-400 mm super zoom and the PF600. The main reason for this choise is that the 28-400 will enable me to shoot prototype much anything without having to change the lens, so it’s ideal for traveling. The 20 mm and 600 mm primes enable me to focus on what is special like astronomy and wildlife, which would be special missions. The Z8 at this time seems to be the best compromise between pixel count, read out speed, size and weight.
My favorite wildlife lens is the Sony 200-600! The super sharp lens is so versatile. I go nowhere without it.
Agree with you. The 100-500 Canon has been fantastic for me. The F10 with a 1.4 X is a good combination when there is eough light.
I absolutely love mine. It’s my go to specialty since I can’t afford a prime.
I sold my RF100-500L and bought myself a Nikon Z9 & Z600/6.3S VR PF. I’m very happy with the images that I’ve got with this Nikon combo and considering to go all Nikon now.
Glenn is exactly right come on Canon give us a small 600 mm lens not the F11 but a 5.6 to maybe a 6.3 aperture .
Jan one of my favorite Canon lenses is definitely the ( Toy Lens ) the 400 F5.6 lens , my favorite bird in flight lens of all time and many other very well-known Bird Photographers use this lens as well .
Hi Jan
I’m canon so original wow lense was the 100-400. Was an early adopter for the 100-500 and have enjoyed from the beginning. Main benefits are easy carry, light weight for flight shooting, macro capability and the image quality. What’s not to like. Occasionally you need more reach but teleconverters work well. Just need to consider the background
Nice video Jan. Great job as always. 👏🏽
I had the RF 100-500mm, but sold it fairly quickly, felt I needed a bit more reach. Wouldn’t call it rubbish, but I think it’s still a bit overpriced. 🙂
Which one of these two would you choose to pair with a Canon R5… Canon EF 600mm F4 L IS USM (version 1) or Canon RF 200-800mm? Shooting conditions are 50/50 low light and good lighting.
6:22 hmm I bet it'd be 800/f6.3, fantastic piece of gear at 1/3 cost of Canon and 2/3 its weight
My wow moment was definitely when I switched from 6D Mark 2 to R6. That new AF features were pretty amazing. I prefer zoom lenses, I tried the 800mm f11 but sold it some time ago. Long time I used the sigma ef 150-600 mm but last year I switched to the rf 100-500 L. I'm happy with that setup. Very versatile, I took pictures of damselfly as well as birds. I recently bought the 2x extender, but didn't had the opportunity to test it.
I will say that Nikon 400mm 4.5, 600mm 6.3 and 800mm 6.3 are superb for long time out in the nature, low weight do matter !
Canon RF 100-500 wins easily. Can hike for miles with it attached to the camera, stop and shoot a few landscape shots while in pursuit of birds or other wildlife. With it's light weight and superior handling, I can even quickly maneuver around snapping amazingly sharp images of butterflies in flight. No other lens can do all of that and do it so well. Rented the RF 200-800 for a week and the extra size and bulk compared to the smaller and more nimble 100-500 was a significant disadvantage when on the move. Not to mention how well the 100-500 fits inside an average size backpack. And, you can forget about even trying to jam the larger lens and camera connected together in any backpack- extremely difficult if not impossible. The extra reach of the 200-800 might come in handy in some circumstances (as in a stationary set up) but the 100-500 trumps it in every other category.
Hi Jan, this is indeed an interesting angle to compare lenses !
As an engineer, I'd like to quantify this size (focal length) versus f-stop dilemma, so I came up with what I'd call the bokeh-power: just divide the focal length by the f-stop. Like this it's obvious your beloved 600/4 is the (heavy) king beyond doubt with a bokeh-power of 125, while the 100-400/8 only reaches 50. The great 100-500/7.1 gets a 70, but the new 200-800/9 clearly beats this with 89 .. and I did notice it already in my first shots with the 200-800 of woodpecker at our feeder on a dull morning.
Next up are the 150-600/6.3 zooms and the 600/6.3 with 95. Glenn's dream 600/5.6 would yield a pretty nice 107.
Based upon these numbers, the 600/6.3 doesn't seem to have much more bokeh-power than the 200-800.
At first sight it may be odd to compare both, but they can render nearly the same background while the 200-800 is half a kilo heavier, but is much more versatile, gives more reach and costs less than half the 600/6.3.
I'm ready to believe the 600/6.3 may have better optical quality, but for non-pros it looks to me the 200-800 promises more fun and flexibility at a much more affordable price while reaching nearly the same bokeh quality.
Maybe you'd need to do a shootout between these 2, but for a fair comparison you'd better wait until getting the R5ii with stacked sensor ;-)
Interesting. Would love to see this in a side-by-side test. This would make me favor the 100-400 5.6 over the 100-500 7.1. Boca scores are identical, and the older lens is thousand dollars cheaper. I love blown out backgrounds . with 45 megapixels on Canon R5, cropping in the extra 100 mm (Would be a worthwhile trade-off to save $1000.
@@unknownKnownunknowns Hi Steven, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast. I used to love my 100-400Lii while still shooting APS-C on the 70D. After upgrading to the R6, I was left craving for reach. in a combo deal, I sold the 100-400/5.6 to get the R5 & 100-500, so I couldn't compare both lenses using the same body, but the 100-500 is a clear improvement in every way. You also need to be aware the "reported" focal length is determined when focusing on infinity. When focusing on a closer object, the 100-400 is rather a 370mm, while the 100-500 remains very close to 500mm. Duade made a video about this somewhere summer 2022.
As a result the bokeh-power of the 100-400/5.6 is lower than what you'd think.
You also have to consider which subjects you're shooting. I have just added the 200-800 because I still wanted even more reach for skittish small birds ..
Additionally, when getting either the 100-400/5.6 or 100-500/7.1, you should watch out for the right deal: I paid my 100-500 about 2500 Euro in August 22, and my friend picked it up on black Friday 22 for below 2400, while the "normal" price is 3250 Euro. In 2020 I paid 2000 Euro for the 100-400Lii, and sold it in 2022 for 1800, while since covid the regular price hiked to 2800 Euro. When opting for the 100-400 anyway, you should consider looking for a second hand in good condition.
@@WernerBirdNaturehaha, that bokeh power sounds like a Kai trademark waiting to happen. Interesting about the 100-400ii and its 100-500 successor. I shoot sports and love the EF70-200ii but when I go for a stroll in the woods I would take my lately acquired 100-400ii. I get to pick the regular adapter or the 0.71 for a boost of light and closer to intended focal length on the R7. For the used price they are now in the uk, even in the last month have gone from £1,100 ish to £800 so I couldn’t let that go. I agree, the RF functionally and improvements are way better. I have the 600/11 and used the 15-35, 70-200, 28-70 and they are sharp and super fast in focusing. 100-300 I can’t wait to rent in the summer. I see Canon now releasing lenses that weren’t possible in the EF era, those will likely make me pick up more RF (or even a FF body)
@@mvp_kryptonite Indeed, for your use case the 100-400Lii offers great value for money while light may be as crucial as reach and bokeh 👍
I've used the r5 + 100-500 RF lens for a couple of years and loved it to bits, BUT I wanted those lovely smooth backgrounds you can only get with f4. So I bought a gazillion year old 500mm f4 EF lens. It's big and heavy, I can only handhold for a couple of shots and I miss a lot of shots just because it's big and awkward. But the shots I do get are amazing (for me!) and the ability to shoot at high shutter speed and in low light is incredible. I recently put the 100-500mm back on for a trip and had so much fun using it but was disappointed when I got home and saw the images, they're ok but needed a lot of noise reduction and digital magic (time I'd rather spend outside). In short - you need both! Big prime for amazing images, lighter telephoto for flexibility and portability. And THEN just to add to the collection I also still drag out my old 70-300mm EF lens for photographing bigger wildlife.
I have the Nikon 600pf and have taken in a few months probably more photos with it than anyone on the planet ( >200k +); my 180-600 zoom and 800pf are feeling very neglected and my 500pf is 4sale. For me it can deliver the miracle shot/s and eliminate missed opportunities to a degree restricted only by human skills imperfection (I'm getting old!) and the limitation of the Z8 body AF system (looking forward to the new Z8 firmware update, eh!).
When you use the "spray and pray" method in those quarter second moments in time like when the rainbow lorikeet takes off in the opposite direction quartering towards you at 60-70km/h after the first 3 metres of acceleration and you fire your burst having to remove your eye from the viewfinder and you review the back of the camera and am amazed at the result/s when you know the depth of field is miniscule at 7.9m and f6.3, 1/3200 with the eye & face perfectly in focus and the intricate feather detail present (where most 'tographers struggle on a perched bird!), then, eh, you know you have something special, that's the definition of precision, IMHO.
All for now, but think about this reversal: you could have your 200-800* on the tripod rather than the 600 f4 prime, and have the 600pf ready for anything on the Z8, as it can do everything very very well (I have the 24-200 for < MFD of 4m, plus landscape, ...).
* = is it really 800 ? , asking for a friend, cheers, I like your work
I skipped on 200-800mm mainly because it is a bit soft at 800mm even comparing to 800mm f11. I like my Olympus 100-400mm and Canon 800mm f11 because they are so light. They let me get to places I would never get to with my Sigma 500mm Sport. But Sigmas IQ is out of this world!
I love the RF100-500 in combination with the R7 and R6II. With TC it is sharper than the EF predecessor and has 100mm extra reach.
Just purchased the 100/500 and absolutely love it, it’s so sharp
Hi Jan, I guess we can’t over look how far technology has come. As a re inspired wild life shooter options are so wide open. The R7 is very different from my OM10. Yup that’s how old I am lol. Given only one option I’m interested in your opinion RF100-500 or RF 200-800 as first replacement for the 100-400 on my R7? Thanks for the great content
Who else here is using Canon EF 200-400mm 1.4x + 2x extender? I just love that lens...for now...we'll see.
Double barrel prime my pref say a 60 f 2 and a 600 f 6.3 slider to move lens over the mount keep the weight down .have the speed and clarity of prime s with some versatility of a normal view .
Like you, the purchase of a Z600 or even 800mm interests me a lot with a Z8 (Just seeing if Nikon will do the same AF update announced for the Z8 as that of the Z9) that makes 2 systems to manage but in all this is less expensive than the RF600F4 alone and as Canon is not at all concerned with creating mid-range lenses this tempts me greatly
Just bought the 600 pf, but do not yet have it in my hands. The light weight was a major factor. Trading in my 500 pf.
Unless you have deep pockets, or have a well established career as a wildlife photographer, I don't think the 600mm f/4 is even remotely an option. That said, the super zooms can get very good results as long as you have the right conditions and you learn the lens well. I have my eye on the Canon 200-800, but I have concerns of how they made the collar non-removable. That may be enough of a disappointment to make me wait for something else in the way of third party.
Still stuck with the Tamron EF 150-600mm G2 but sooner or later I will upgrade to the Canon RF 200-800mm.
I love the PF lenses and had the 500 which was just a tiny bit short. However, it seems a little excessive to have two 600mm lenses! But..... they are clearly such different bits of kit that I think I probably will.
For my (more limited) wildlife shooting, I’m planning on the 180-600 this spring. I like staying with zooms on the long side. Still not in stock anywhere but hopefully soon 👍🏻
I am looking at the new Sony 300mm F2.8 (for 420mm F4 and 600mm F5.6 with TCs). I think my perfect lightweight lens would be a 400mm F4 at about the same weight as the 300mm F2.8... which should be doable...
Hello Jan, great story about your lenses! Thank you for sharing it with us. When it comes to lenses for wildlife, I think along the same lines as you. I prefer my RF 600 f/4.0 prime lens and also my RF 100-500mm zoom lens. Maybe some people will be shocked. But I came from the combination EF 70-200 mm f/2.8 + 1.4x or 2x EF extender. First used on an EOS 20D, then on an EOS 40D. Then I bought a used EF 500mm f/4.0 prime lens and used it with my EOS 5D Mark III. And I was amazed and really impressed with the prime lens and the capabilities and results.
In the analog days I had the T-Noflexar 400mm f/5.6 (Rapid Focus Lens) from Novoflex. I used this prime lense with a Canon AE1 program SLR. You proberly don‘t know such a lense. It was a real highlight back then ;-)
I could be wrong, but wildlife photgraphy includes for me also the macro photgraphy of Insekts. Here I use my RF 100 mm f/2.8 L MACRO IS USM prime lens. Sometimes togeter with Intermediate rings.
Have you ever tried to photograph an amphibian (frog, fire salamander, etc.) with a wide-angle lens? I love this. I do it with my RF 24-70mm f/2.8 (at 24mm) or with the RF 35mm f/1.8 or RF 16mm f/2.8. A very unique perspective that I am absolutely thrilled with.
Regards
Uwe
Germany, near Airport Frankfurt am Main
I would very much like RF versions of the 400mm f5.6L and 300mm f4 L. They are my favorite lenses because of the amazing sharpness and weight.
Not for me. I have owned the 800mm pf Sony 600 f4 while the f stop speed is nice finding the right background is not all about the depth of field .
Nice I am tryin* out the om1 micro 4/3. But I also shout all the big brands it’s hard keeping up 4 systems. A system comes out with a lends that makes me buy it. And for some reason I can’t sell the ones I have. I will never be able to enjoy all the cameras and lens I have. I am trying to get to a mental place where I can actually start selling off some of my gear and just get down to one system, but that said there is no perfect system and when we combined them all we can get close, pray for me I need guidance, I do enjoy your channel and your accent. Your fan from Atlanta Ga. USA 😅
Managed to borrow a 400mm prime in Dec 22, great lens, quality amazing, but i missed the flexibility of my 100-400mm . Had a few days over Christmas with a Canon 100-500mm and now having to save up for one.
I have a Tamron 150-600. I had it for 6 years so it isn't like the newer ones. I use it on my canon R6 Mark 11 and my canon 5d mark V1. I think the 5d seems to work better with this lens.
Hallo Jan, also meine Wildlifekombo ist seit 13 Monaten mein Nikkor Z800 PF mit der Nikon Z8 ( vorher Nikon Z6 II ) seit Juni 2023. Hier bin ich seit gut aufgestellt. Dazu kommt dann noch je nach Situation ein Nikkor 500 PF, welches vorher meine Top Kombi war. LG. Günni
At this moment the RF 600 f4 l costs in The Netherlands € 14.999,00 and the RF 1200 f8 l € 23.799,00. So bit to mutch for me. As an amateur I will be using my RF 100-500MM and mayby this spring/summer the 1.4 rf extender 😅
The only lens thats out currently thatll possiblity replace my 100-500 is the 200-800. I would like to add the 100-300 to my kit someday and maybe that 200-500 f4 once it comes out if its not too big but even then the 100-500 i can take everywhere
I got Canon, Nikon, Sony and OMDS Systems in reach - I sold my Sony supertele recently,
I' am not willing to pay Canon supertele-prices, here the 100-500 mm must fit,
I bought Nikon 4.5/400 mm and 6.3/800 mm - both very sharp and nice and I still prefer a 4.5/400 mm with 1.4 TC over the 6.3/600 mm and 400 mm to 800 mm is the better step up.
But the Nikon Z9 still has problems with birds in trees, more then Canon, Sony or even OMDS and if I need faster series, Nikon is not able to keep the sharpness good enough on the eyes or body.
From 10-20 frames only a view are tack sharp.
So I use my OM-1 with 4.5/150-400 mm since nearly two years now - and for me, this combination beats them all.
Stacked-Sensor, very good viewfinder f:4.5 at 800 mm crop against f:6.3 or 7.1 or 9.0 at comparable 800 mm crop. I got the light and nowadays the small sensor is very good even at 10.000 ISO and depending on light and subject even at 12.800 ISO.
It is not as clean with backgrounds as a 4.0/600 mm FF could be - no doubt.
Nothing is perfect, OMDS is lacking CFX B and right hand power on and has some quirks to get around.
But Nikon is still not on top with AF-C for birds, Canon is crazy with his superteles (and the 200-800 mm is no adequate alternative) and Sony is drifting away with the video waves... and CFX A, big data files, not perfect viewfinders, not enough tele-alternatives and so on.
The Nikon compact primes are sooooo tempting. Sony/sigma plz respond
Sure are!
Great video Jan :) I never get tired of looking at your photos ! Some of the best anywhere !
Okay, my thoughts on the 100-500.... Fantastic lens, very sharp, but IMPO, overpriced for not being any faster than it is, and for my uses, too short most of the time.
Those Nikon PF lenses are freaking amazing ! But because Nikon doesn't offer a new, modern APS-C mirrorless body, even the 800 is still too short for my uses.
If I could ever get ahold of one, from your review, and everything else I've heard about it, I think the RF 200-800 will end up being my go too lens, for 95+% of my shooting.
For now, and for all of its faults {and their are many} the 800 F11 + the R7, is the best combo I can find.
Oh, when you said the speed of the Nikon F6.3 was not amazing, the funny thing about that is, if I were using that lens, I'd probably be stopping it down to F9 or F11, more often than I'd be using it wide open, as shooting little birds from very close, I need more DOF :)
800pf is my fav but if I had an extra 10k sitting around I’d go for the 600 tc. I really liked using the 400mm 4.5 though
Thanks for this video Jan. I recently began watching your vids and enjoy them very much. As for me, I am impatiently awaiting an announcement from Sigma about an agreement with Canon to make RF lenses. Canon has really put me off with their reluctance to upgrade the R5 to its full potential. In my opinion, it's an effort to sell the new Mark II instead. I'm not biting. I would love to see a Sigma prime lens in the range of 600 to 800 with a f6.3 or so that would work with my 1.4 x RF extender. Even a f8 would be ok if needed to make the lens light. Of course, good stabilization would be required as well. I have a Sigma 150 - 600 contemporary (EF) that is just as sharp as my Canon RF 100 - 500 but is heavy and bulky with the EF to RF converter. I would be all over a Sigma prime RF lens. I'm sold on the Sigma image quality. I also saved for a long time to get my R5 and RF 100 - 500 but now feel that Canon has abandoned my R5. I won't reward them with another large purchase without reviewing every other alternative. For now, my R5 is very capable even though I know it could be so much more with a "meaningful" software upgrade.
100-500mm is amazing. If only it worked with TC properly. So flexible as walkaaround lens.
That Nikon lens is nice!
Great reviews and I agree with virtually everything you said. A couple other tips people may find useful:
- The Nikon 500PF on FTZ is nearly as good as the 600 mentioned in this video, you are just trading 100mm of focal length to gain 1/3 of a stop of light. It also is bonkers cheap on the used market because so many people have been selling it to move to the 600. You can get them for as low as half the MSRP at this point. In a 1:1 comparison, the 600 is slightly better, but when we are talking about triple the cost, the 500 becomes an insanely good deal.
- The Nikon 300PF f/4.0 is the best kept secret in wildlife photography. 300 is a bit on the shorter side for wildlife but it is still very much usable. (For example Tom Mason built his career at 300mm). The magic of this lens though is you get world class image quality in such a small lens. Its bonkers small for what it is. Even compared to other PF lenses. Even if you throw a 1.4TC on it to make it a 440 5.6, it is still significantly smaller than the 500PF mentioned above which is an ultralight in itself. The other thing that makes the 300pf so wonderful for what we do is it has really good close focusing. Most wildlife teles will have a maximum reproduction of 0.17 or 0.18. The 300pf does 0.24. Not a macro lens by any means but it gives you the ability to frame small subjects larger than you would with even a big exotic tele. Its an incredible lens and I'd LOVE to see what a Z mount re-imagining of it would look like.
I agree with you about both lenses. The low weight of both these lenses makes them a pleasure to use. As intriguing as the new Nikon 180-600 is, it is hard to go back to carrying a heavy lens.
Looks like the nikon 600mm F6.3 is already coming down in price which makes it tempting! I think you right, the lens does look tiny like the 400mm f4.5 but the 600mm would be a better overall birding lens, but I guess I will have to wait for your review 🙂
Where do you see the price drop happening, and what is the drop to?
@@benlibro7798 just on Aussie websites like digidirect, from $8500 down to $7000
It never hurts to have and shoot multiple systems, except for the bank account. Especially with what you do, you need to be multi-lingual so to speak.
As I am having a 180-600 mm with my Z8 and I am interested in having a prime Telephoto, whether a 600 mm f/6.3 or a 800mm f/6.3 will be ideal.
I am primarily in to bird photography of small birds as a hobbyist and often I am required to walk a lot at distant locations.
Of course, 600 mm will be handy, but I doubt it may be an overlap with my existing 180-600 mm. On the contrary, 800mm is heavier, but has better reach.
Please suggest.
Sony 300/2.8 w/2x extender vs the Nikon 600/6.3 comparison could be interesting.
Wonderful video Jan!
Hi Jan,
How do set up your camera for photos and videos? I'm a bit lost here because for video I would need an ND filter while I do not want that for the photos. Switching between photo and video with adding/removing a filter is quite annoying. Or do you simply use two cameras?
To answer your question, my favorite wildlife lenses are the (EF) 600mm 4.0 and the RF 100-500mm. And the 24mm 2.8 (for my camera trapping images ;-p) .
I'm finding the same light weight is such a joy add ok f stops the Nikon with teleconvertor looks good to but hefty .Is there such a thing as a double prime 60 or 600 or 800 at flick of a teleconverter type switch with reasonable f stop and weight .Tech leaps also like ff to apsc switch without mp loss .camera business bit fixated on fps f stops missing some great innovations .Canon user but Nikon's had a great year cameras and innovative or lenses of two flip swivel lens primes on one main lens column
how do you thing about these tow sets :Sony 300F2.8GM with telecon , Nikon 400F4.5 with telecon?
How do you think the 600mm PF would perform on the Nikon ZF? I know the handling will be poor but I have the Smallrig grip which I think might make it manageable. I've read that the ZF has the same AF capability as the Z8/Z9 but I'm not sure if it matches the Z9 with the newer 4.10 firmware. And of course it won't have the stacked sensor and blackout free EVF. I'd plan on adding a better Nikon body down the road, either the Z8 once the new firmware is released or something else depending on what they release.
I also have an RF 200-800mm on backorder to compare with my RF 100-500mm on my R5 but I'm still on the fence about the size and weight of the 200-800mm, as well as the worse chromatic abberation and slightly softer IQ.
The 600 PF is so appealing for it's lightweight and compact size for travel and excellent quality even with a 1.4x. With a 1.4x I think it'd be great for my upcoming trip to Florida but the only body I'd have for it is the Nikon ZF for now.
I don't think I will ever be able to afford a 600mm F4, I ❤ my RF100-500
I have a canon 100-400 mk2 , and use a 1.4 converter? Thinking about the RF 100-500, in your opinion which one would you use
Great videos Jan
Thanks.....
Hi , which is the best wildlife photography lens for canon eos r10. Great videos
Has the 200-800 replaced your 100-500? Im looking at replacing the Sigma 150-600 on my R7. There are some sales on the RF 100-500 atm since the release of the 200-800. Sharpness vs Reach?
Lately I've been struggling with my canon 500mm f4 Version1. It's really starting to get heavy and I'm not enjoying my photography as much as I used to. My arms and back are begging me to get rid of it. I have been holding off on the 100-500 as I still cannot wrap my head around the 7.1 F-stop. I may have to try it or possibly wait for Canon to open up to third party lenses like Sigma and Tamron. So confused 😵💫
Nikon 600PF? So why not the 800PF? 😊
Because then you're getting away from the smallness factor.
I happen to own the 100-500 rf and I consider it an overpriced fantastic lens, especially because of the weight.
The nikon PF600 is in my opinion the best lens on the market today being a prime weighing less than 1.5 kg. This could be a reason for me to switch to Nikon, only the amount of money involved is stopping me because besides the lens I would need to buy a Z8 (no other nikon alternatives to be considered).
There is a Z9, but that won't help your bank account problem.
@@marcel8189
Main reason why the Z9 is not an option is the Weight. Z8 nearly similar but lighter. Would not want a heavy body on a lens that I selected for it’s light weight
That's a good reason.@@Wim-Minnaard
I am currently using two systems. I have been using an Olympus 100-400 F5-6.3 on an OM-1and E-M1 MkII for about a year and a half, with mixed results--some really good results, but some not so good. So, I recently purchased a Nikon Z8 with a 180-600 lens. The lens is backordered so I don't have any results yet. I got the 180-600 because close focusing capability is important, but, for me, 600 mm is probably too short as I use the Olympus at 400 mm most of the time, which means that I am considering getting the Nikkor 800 mm PF instead of or in addition to the 180-600. What is your opinion of the 800 mm PF and why did you choose the 600 mm vs. the 800 mm? Thanks! I enjoy your videos.
What about the ef 400mm f2.8?
Which kit do you recomend for 2000grand?
Did you ever get a chance to properly test the 800 PF? I am looking for a lens that is a bit longer than the 600.
Not yet. I have used it here and there but never done a full review
Looking forward to it, if you do.@@jan_wegener
"My first camera was a [digital camera], I'm that old"...
My first camera was a Praktica MTL 3....
Well, my first real camera, I did shoot some film but not very seriously
😍
How is the autofocus speed of the 600 PF? I remember the older 300 PF being horribly slow.
My 300 PF & 500 PF have always been very fast, so you’re probably just using a slow body…
@@bavorosiers7953 I was using a D7200 and could not accept the focus speed for birds n flight. I sold it for a good price.
Size always matters Jan, but hopefully Trump never again... 😉 Thanks for sharing your beginner photos with us, it gives hope...
I'm ambivalent about lenses. Like everyone, I dream of a big prime, but I wonder if I could use it wide open very often. At a usual distance where the subject is large enough in the frame, you have to stop down to 7.1 or 8 to get enough detail over the entire body of the subject. But that puts you in the f-stop range of modern smaller and cheaper lenses like the Canon 100 to 500 or the Nikon 600 PF. With the big prime you have to pay a lot for a slightly better image quality but get a bulky and heavy lens that's hard to travel with on a plane or carry around.
Ok, I don't understand, taking pictures of birds is not something interesting for ordinary mortals to look at, it's just a picture of a bird. When, in addition, as here, they have been corrected in computer programs, so that all reality has been removed and the images no longer reflect what one sees, it is just nonsense.
If you don't get it, you don't get it, fine ... but your description of it is completely incorrect, as is your understanding why people enjoy this hobby.
@darrensmith7949 I would say the comment is a bit harsh, but I guess the second part does make some sense. Isn't part of the reason why we enjoy this that we can relive our great memory of seeing the bird? Then noise reduction is fine, but adding or removing e.g. habitat elements is questionable.
Don't get me wrong though: I think Jan's photos and editing are amazing! But I would not completely discard this comment.
I disagree with your first statement, a hobby is never something that can be explained to someone who doesn't share the passion! However, as an old school film shooter I party agree with your second. I still enjoy the challenge of getting the shot in camera which for me at least, has always been what photography is about.
Hobbies are interesting. The one thing in common is they can be a bottomless pit for money and to each his own. However, I like bird photography and see nothing in street photography, landscape photography and portrait photography but interested in macro photography and astro photography. No right or wrongs.