OP, I have limited experience with RF glass on my R5... but I have traveled with 70-200 and 100-400 lenses...
Took the 100-400ii to DC on a 70D body and even with the narrow FOV got some great shots.
Took the 70-200 to Europe for a month and had no issues with reach. The aperture and fixed size were very useful though. If birding is something you do infrequently I would look at an adapted lens better for that. IMO, 70-200 for general tele use coupled to a 28mm second body sounds perfect. Especially for travel, the smaller size might be very helpful.
The 24-240 is an RF lens I’m not sure if that is the lens you’re discounting? I have been debating this lens as well for a good walk around lens. I’m a wedding photographer and when I work I work heavy. When I’m shooting for myself I just want light and convenient. I wouldn’t mind shooting some BIF although I haven’t yet. But my understanding through this thread is no go for that short of a focal length . But from hiking to the Grand Canyon to long walks along the Vegas Strip or along a sandy beach , I like the idea of a not so obvious lens and something I can stuff in a small messenger bag and not feel weighted down.
Having said all that if the only two options you ever had were both of the lenses listed in your opening post I guess It’s a toss up. There’s a significant weight difference. I’ve got a 50 1.2 attached to my R6 all the time and a 70-200 attached to my d3s all the time at weddings. Both give me hand claw by the end of the day. And it’s not necessarily enjoyable so I can’t imagine Just walking around with a 100-500 on vacation and not having a tripod (and yes I have holsters and rapid straps). So if weight is a concern at all I’d go with the 70-200. that thing is a beauty of a lens, I borrowed a friend of mine’s and I love the compactness compared to the one I own now. It’s readily available right now and worst case you don’t like it you sell it for the same “loss” of renting it.
For birding, the 70-200 will simply be to short. And, unfortunately, you can't put a TC on the RF 70-200/2.8 L IS lens.
So, of your two choices, only the RF 100-500 makes sense. This lens will be quite slow for indoor sports, but you can crank up the ISO to compensate. And if you're only interested in viewing on a 27" monitor, I suspect the RF 100-500 will end up being OK for sports (though the background blur won't be ideal).
Perhaps a better option? Get the RF 70-200/2.8 IS and also get the RF 600/11 DO IS for birding (assuming that you'll be doing this in relatively decent light and not at dusk/dawn.
I'm new to the forum and look forward to learning as well as helping others as I can. I'm about to buy a EOS R6 and need advice on a single starter lens.
I am an intermediate level amateur photographer and my wife is a beginner. Our main use is general travel photography. I bought her a Leica Q2 as an all-around high quality camera.
The Leica is a full frame camera with a fixed lens (28mm f1.7)
In the past I rented a Canon EOS R and various RF lenses to "supplement " the Leica during our travels, I'm now interested in buying the new EO R6 as it seems like a good camera for my purposes.
I'm contemplating my first and primary lens as either the RF 70-200 f2.8 or the RF 100~500 f4.5~7.1. They are similarly priced. My rationale is that of she shoots with the Leica Q2 the 28mm will be good for landscape photography, street and interiors due to fast 1.7 aperture.
Where the Q2 falls down is on medium/long range telephoto range. My idea is to get one of the previously mentioned lenses to "cover" situations where the Leica is insufficient.
While I stated that my primary use case is an all around zoom tele , I do expect to do some (20%) amateur sports photography (our local tennis club) and occasional wildlife (birding) photography.
Once we begin traveling again I would be inclined to rent (or buy) a 2nd lens to round out my use of the R6 but for purposes of this question lets assume that I will always use just 1 lens on the R6. *Remember that my wife will be shooting with the Leica 28 mm so please frame your answers in the context of my question.
IF you feel there is a better option within the Canon RF series please let me know. I'm not "limited" to just the 2 lenses I mentioned but they seemed like good solutions to my issue.
FWIW-All my photography is strictly viewed on 27" iMac and iPad so I don't envision doing any print or enlargements. That said, image quality is important to me hence my thinking to go with one of the "L" series lenses.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Given you own a Q2 and are looking for a high-quality RF L, the 70-200 is going to punch the hardest in that regard. There is also a lot to said for having the extra wide FOV of 70mm for a walk-around lens, and that would give you zero gap from Q2 crop to the start of your telephoto. You'll also love the f/2.8 aperture steady through the entire range.
I'm glad you're going to rent them both – in the end that's the only way to really know what's right for you.
First let me compliment you on some excellent photography. Really nice work. Second thank you for the detailed and thoughtful answer. I'm inclined towards the 70~200 as it will provide us with a gapless shooting range from 28 mm (Leica Q2) to 200 with the RF 70-200.
Of course one option available to me is to buy the 70~200 as an all purpose walk around lens and simply rent a 100~500 or future RF super teles when I expressly want to shoot wildlife. Decisions, decisions.
Thanks for the lens size comparison photos. Very helpful.
drimer wrote:
If birding is something you do infrequently I would look at an adapted lens better for that. IMO, 70-200 for general tele use coupled to a 28mm second body sounds perfect. Especially for travel, the smaller size might be very helpful.
They say the "best" lens is the one you have on you. The 100~500 looks a bit intimidating as all all purpose everyday lens but I think I will rent both and try them side by side.
Candidly I'm not sure how much I will need the range from 70~100 mm as well as the faster aperture offered by the 70~200 but it's compact form factor and lower weight are definite considerations in my purchase equation.
eephoto wrote:
The 24-240 is an RF lens I’m not sure if that is the lens you’re discounting? I have been debating this lens as well for a good walk around lens. I’m a wedding photographer and when I work I work heavy. When I’m shooting for myself I just want light and convenient. I wouldn’t mind shooting some BIF although I haven’t yet. But my understanding through this thread is no go for that short of a focal length .
JMO.
It isn't that I'm philosophically opposed to a wide angle, merely that the Q2 already offers me that FOV along with 47 mp resolution! I just figured we already have the range 28~70 (fixed focal length digital cropping 35/50/70 in Q2) covered so it was "better" to have dedicated all purpose tele to compliment the Q2.
I am looking at the 24-240 and it certainly is an appealing "one and done" option.
This hobbyist got both, each on the first day of availability. If I had gotten the 100-500 first, I might have hesitated on the 70-200. Which would you miss more: 70-100, or 200-500? Or the speed?
That said, the 70-200 at 70 is a remarkably handy lens that is virtually all purpose.
I suggest considering an RP with the little kit zoom, if it's really a travel camera you're carrying all day.
Optics Patent wrote:
This hobbyist got both, each on the first day of availability. If I had gotten the 100-500 first, I might have hesitated on the 70-200. Which would you miss more: 70-100, or 200-500? Or the speed?
Yep that's the dilemma/question I'm evaluating. Although I haven't used it yet, one of the purported advantages of the R5/R6 is the IBIS. If I'm thinking it through correctly the IBIS seems to negate some of the "benefit" of the faster aperture of the 70-200 for MY use. If I was doing lots of indoor sports or concert work I could see the benefit of the faster aperture.
As before, I think it's going to ultimately be down to a subjective evaluation of how "comfortable" I feel lugging around either go the two lenses.
EB-1 wrote:
I think you will be missing a lot below 70 or 100 mm. Maybe get the 70-200 and add a 24-70 or 24-105. I suggest the 24-240 as a one and done lens. You can rent first to see if the IQ is OK for your needs, but if you only have 20MP it should be fine.
I picked up the RF 24-240mm lens last week as a travel/walk around lens. I got a chance to use it some this weekend and was very pleased with its performance. It is surprisingly sharp through most of the frame. The biggest weakness is in the corners where it requires some heavy lens correction. I will be using this lens quite a bit. It can even deliver decent bokeh for closer in subjects with such a long zoom available. For a travel lens it would work great being supplemented with a couple of small fast unstabilized primes. The R6's IBIS would make these lenses a very good supplement to this lens.
Matsaly wrote:
I am looking at the 24-240 and it certainly is an appealing "one and done" option.
IMO, you should rent this lens. I recently purchased one with reasonable expectations of how it would perform. So far it has well exceeded them. It will be on my R the bulk of the time as it delivers far sharper results through most of the frame than a lens with this range should be able to do. It also has decent AF and IS. The wide end might be redundant for you but you just might find it useful at times. What I am going to like about this lens is that I can pack it in a carry on bag with a few extras and have plenty of room to spare. From what you describe about how you consume your content (i.e. 27" monitor), it just might work well for you.
Matsaly wrote:
Although I haven't used it yet, one of the purported advantages of the R5/R6 is the IBIS. If I'm thinking it through correctly the IBIS seems to negate some of the "benefit" of the faster aperture of the 70-200 for MY use. If I was doing lots of indoor sports or concert work I could see the benefit of the faster aperture.
As before, I think it's going to ultimately be down to a subjective evaluation of how "comfortable" I feel lugging around either go the two lenses.
I wouldn't worry about IBIS. Both stabilize well, so you will do great handheld at 500. Subject motion may often be the limit.
The 70-200 is much more compact and light feeling almost like a normal mid range f2.8 zoom. The 100-500 is great but not in that category.
Matsaly wrote:
I'm the OP. I don't mind you spending it for me but why the 24~240 and the 100~500? Wouldn't the RF 24-105 be the better match with the 100~500?
I still say 24-240 because if you want a one and done in the instance you don’t feel like carrying the 100-500 at the same time, you’ve got a longer range then the 24-105.
Matsaly wrote:
I'm the OP. I don't mind you spending it for me but why the 24~240 and the 100~500? Wouldn't the RF 24-105 be the better match with the 100~500?
The main reason I would choose the 24-240mm over the 24-105mm is to have the extra 135mm reach available in a fraction of a second versus having to swap lenses to have it available. The biggest reason I wanted the 24-240mm is to catch the photo opportunities that come and go very quickly and having to swap lenses means they are missed. Also, I am sure there are times where we all have a lens on the camera and see a somewhat interesting photo opportunity that requires a lens change. Then we just pass on the photo because changing lenses to obtain the shot is too inconvenient or might cause you to miss a photo opportunity with the lens that is already mounted. This is where a lens like the 24-240mm lets you have your cake and eat it too.
One last thing I will mention is that the 24-240mm is a relatively small, lightweight and affordable lens. You could buy the 100-500mm and supplement it with the 24-240mm without a big penalty to carry it or pack it for travel. IMO, it is a Swiss Army knife lens that nearly everyone would find useful since it performs quite well for what it is.
eephoto wrote:
I still say 24-240 because if you want a one and done in the instance you don’t feel like carrying the 100-500 at the same time, you’ve got a longer range then the 24-105.
Ah..I see your point. Thank you for the more thorough explanation of your recommendation.
PicGuy wrote:
The main reason I would choose the 24-240mm over the 24-105mm is to have the extra 135mm reach available in a fraction of a second versus having to swap lenses to have it available. The biggest reason I wanted the 24-240mm is to catch the photo opportunities that come and go very quickly and having to swap lenses means they are missed. Also, I am sure there are times where we all have a lens on the camera and see a somewhat interesting photo opportunity that requires a lens change. Then we just pass on the photo because changing lenses to obtain the shot is too inconvenient or might cause you to miss a photo opportunity with the lens that is already mounted. This is where a lens like the 24-240mm lets you have your cake and eat it too.
One last thing I will mention is that the 24-240mm is a relatively small, lightweight and affordable lens. You could buy the 100-500mm and supplement it with the 24-240mm without a big penalty to carry it or pack it for travel. IMO, it is a Swiss Army knife lens that nearly everyone would find useful since it performs quite well for what it is....Show more →
For all the above reasons plus the "endorsements" offered by other users I will add the RF 24~200 to my "rental" list. Given that I "consume" my content on a 27' iMac I'm pretty confident the IQ of any of those lenses will be more than sufficient for my needs.
