The famous Eagle Tree on Samish Flats, people have reported seeing 10s of eagles in this tree. Sadly was bare today except for a flock of blackbirds on one side. All the birds were too far away today for the 100-400 so they're in the 800 thread.
I picked one of these up today - nothing except test shots taken, and I have no idea when I'll actually get to shoot anything worthwhile, but I couldn't resist having a 400mm lens I could actually fit in my bag and not worry about it due to size.
One thing I will say is that I am eminently impressed with the construction on this lens. The zooming is the smoothest on any of my RF zoom lenses (which include the 70-200/2.8L), and no wobble on the lens tube at all - just solid. A nice surprise on an affordable consumer grade zoom.
Jman13 wrote:
I picked one of these up today - nothing except test shots taken, and I have no idea when I'll actually get to shoot anything worthwhile, but I couldn't resist having a 400mm lens I could actually fit in my bag and not worry about it due to size.
One thing I will say is that I am eminently impressed with the construction on this lens. The zooming is the smoothest on any of my RF zoom lenses (which include the 70-200/2.8L), and no wobble on the lens tube at all - just solid. A nice surprise on an affordable consumer grade zoom. ...Show more →
Yup. That lens is a dream come true. Lightweight, well-built, sharp and wonderfully inexpensive. It's a pleasure to shoot with. I had intended for this lens to tide me over until the 100-500 comes down to my price. After using it, I'm not certain I will upgrade. I think you're going to like it.
Very nice, and I love the back ground. I´ve just looked through the RF 600/4 thread with some additions, trying to understand what all the fuss is about, and... after a while those totally blurred out backgrounds just... fill their quota...
So I stopped for about 5 minutes on my way home from work today, to try to catch a few bird shots. Was mostly unsuccessful. Did get an OK shot of this chickadee, though the backlit branch in the foreground is distracting, but I couldn't really move given how skittish the chickadees were today.
And here's a shot of another bird hopping around between all the branches and trees. I post this one not because it's a good photo (because I am well aware it stinks), but because I was super impressed by how well this lens focuses on the R5...the bird Eye AF was just finding and locking on to the birds even though they were completely backlit, and I was dealing with tons of branches in both the foreground and background. AF is very fast, and very accurate in my limited time with it so far.
Amazing shot Tony. I'm also impressed that you managed to find enough light, the few times I've been able to go out there's no way I'm shooting 1/2000s@f9ish and 640 ISO more like 1/2000s@f8 and 10200 ISO or worse. Might also be subject distance, need to work on my fieldcraft.
billyboy wrote:
OK, but why would you use an extender at 100 mm on a 100-400 instead of just the lens itself at 140mm? Or, with respect to the 100-500, there have been a lot of complaints about not being able to use an extender between 100 and 300mm - which would be the FOV equivalent of 140 - 420mm, well within the natural range of the 100-500 - this seems so obvious I wonder if I'm missing something. It surely can't be for improved image quality . . .
The whole point of a zoom lens is to cover a range of subject distances quickly. Who wants to stop and unmount a TC every time a subject approaches? With the 100-500 + TC limited to 420-700 (not even a 2x zoom range) you may as well use a 600/11 that's far cheaper and lighter.
billyboy wrote:
OK, but why would you use an extender at 100 mm on a 100-400 instead of just the lens itself at 140mm? Or, with respect to the 100-500, there have been a lot of complaints about not being able to use an extender between 100 and 300mm - which would be the FOV equivalent of 140 - 420mm, well within the natural range of the 100-500 - this seems so obvious I wonder if I'm missing something. It surely can't be for improved image quality . . .
The advantage of a zoom lens is that you can change to a wide varierty of focal-lengths in seconds. There are many situations where sports or wildlife photographers can't change position and their subject will move in a second. Changing lenses in seconds is not an option. A zoom lens is.
Say I have a 1.4x TC on my 100-400mm, giving me a temporary 140-560mm lens for extra reach. Now after taking a shot of a deer at 560mm, I want to take a wider shot of something else within seconds, I just zoom to 140mm.
Imagemaster wrote:
Thanks. Gotta make hay while the few hours of sunshine comes around.
The old enigma where we need f2.8 & f4 lenses with 400mm to 600mm reach, yet they are two God damn large and heavy for me to pack around and wield.
Oh to be young again.
I started looking for light weight gear on the MFT side before settling on R5+800 f/11+RF100-400 and an RF 24-240 for travel. I've been very pleased with the consumer grade light weight zooms even if the lack of light in the winter months has meant not many keepers. A dilemma for camera makers as the heavy pro zooms probably have the best margins but probably don't sell very many units.
Having said that I'm young enough to heft the 600 f/4 just feel rather a target if I did and my spouse would be quite upset. I might get a 300 f/2.8 when those get cheap enough and put extenders on it to compromise.
TakesRandomPics wrote:
I started looking for light weight gear on the MFT side before settling on R5+800 f/11+RF100-400 and an RF 24-240 for travel. I've been very pleased with the consumer grade light weight zooms even if the lack of light in the winter months has meant not many keepers. A dilemma for camera makers as the heavy pro zooms probably have the best margins but probably don't sell very many units.
Having said that I'm young enough to heft the 600 f/4 just feel rather a target if I did and my spouse would be quite upset. I might get a 300 f/2.8 when those get cheap enough and put extenders on it to compromise....Show more →
I'm curious on your thoughts on the RF 800, and image quality between it and the 100-400. I'm very much considering selling my Sigma 150-600, as the 100-400 is so much lighter and compact for everyday use, not to mention better AF and perhaps marginally better image quality. But I think I'd like to have the 800 to replace the long end, as I don't shoot super telephoto often, but I do shoot it occasionally, and would like the reach of the 800. If the 800 has quality similar to the 100-400, that's god enough for me.
Jman13 wrote:
I'm curious on your thoughts on the RF 800, and image quality between it and the 100-400. I'm very much considering selling my Sigma 150-600, as the 100-400 is so much lighter and compact for everyday use, not to mention better AF and perhaps marginally better image quality. But I think I'd like to have the 800 to replace the long end, as I don't shoot super telephoto often, but I do shoot it occasionally, and would like the reach of the 800. If the 800 has quality similar to the 100-400, that's god enough for me.
I have the RF 100-400, 100-500 and 800 f/11 (+R5 and R6, and RF 1.4x and 2x), which I share with my wife. The RF 100-400 and 800 f/11 is a nice combination. In my opinion, if you are going for a more expensive option, the RF 100-500 + Tcs is the best. The 100-500 outperforms the 100-400, as it should do with that price differential. In addition, with the RF 2x, I find it is at least good as the 800/11 in terms of resolution and IQ.
cpe1991 wrote:
I have the RF 100-400, 100-500 and 800 f/11 (+R5 and R6, and RF 1.4x and 2x), which I share with my wife. The RF 100-400 and 800 f/11 is a nice combination. In my opinion, if you are going for a more expensive option, the RF 100-500 + Tcs is the best. The 100-500 outperforms the 100-400, as it should do with that price differential. In addition, with the RF 2x, I find it is at least good as the 800/11 in terms of resolution and IQ.
I'm sure that is the case. However, the 100-500 + 2x TC is $3,300. The 100-400 and 800mm are $1550. I don't use long lenses enough to come close to justifying double the price. I'm just trying to get a feel for the IQ of the 800mm, using the 100-400 as an example (say, at 400mm). Not on the same subject at the same distance, but in general image quality.
