p.1 #1 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
The spouse and I are spending 3 months in Alaska. We will be travelling by RV, so have the luxury of taking virtually all of our photo gear. For cameras we have an R5 and a 5DS R. The R5 is getting 99% of the clicks. We were hoping for an R5 II for this Summer, but that's looking less and less likely.
Anyway - here's our current "wildlife" lenses:
EF 400mm F/2.8 IS (Version I - the old HEAVY one. Image quality is great, but it's just sooooo darn heavy we avoid using it.)
EF 300mm F/2.8 IS (Also version I. Nice image quality even though it's not the newest/lightest.)
We own both version III EF teleconverters: 1.4 and 2.0. And we have the CIR-PL adapter to use the EF lenses on the R5.
And we own the RF 100-500mm (This gets most of the clicks as my wife walks around and snaps bird/BIF pics).
We are thinking of selling our EF gear and buying modern RF "Big White" glass.
I like the RF 100-300mm F/2.8, but I don't like the current RF teleconverter performance. Adding one of the teleconverters definitely adds the purple/green fringing. I've been hoping to see an RF 100-500 F/4, but that doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon either.
So maybe upgrade to the RF 400mm F/2.8 or the RF 600mm F/4?
For now we will likely buy just one of those three.
We've got ball heads and gimbal mounts and heavy duty carbon fiber tripods, etc., etc. (How else would we ever use that old EF 400mm, right?)
What say the group? RF100-300 and suck it up and use teleconverters? Jump straight to the 600mm F/4?
We've never been to Alaska, and I'm not trying to economize on photo gear for a three month stay. That said, I'm certainly not buying three new lenses for 30k either.
p.1 #3 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
FWIW, I own R5, 100-500, 400 f/4, 600 f/4. I find the RF 1.4x works extremely well on all three lenses and esp. so on the 400 and 600 (2x also good on these). Read thru the forum and you will find that I am not alone in this opinion.
My wife and I are doing Alaska in 25, also on an extended road trip. So I'm very interested to hear about your experience.
p.1 #6 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
JMattH wrote:
I like the RF 100-300mm F/2.8, but I don't like the current RF teleconverter performance. Adding one of the teleconverters definitely adds the purple/green fringing. I've been hoping to see an RF 100-500 F/4, but that doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon either.
So maybe upgrade to the RF 400mm F/2.8 or the RF 600mm F/4?
100-300 if you want a zoom, 400 f2.8 if you want a prime. Most discussions I have read seem to indicate that more members choose the 400 over the 600. You can't get to 400 with the 600, but you can get to 560mm with the 1.4x attached. Like someone else pointed out downhillonwater wrote:
I find the RF 1.4x works extremely well on all three lenses and esp. so on the 400 and 600 (2x also good on these). Read thru the forum and you will find that I am not alone in this opinion.
Both RF TC's work well with my 100-500, and should work better on the 100-300 and 400.
p.1 #7 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
JMattH wrote:
The spouse and I are spending 3 months in Alaska. We will be travelling by RV, so have the luxury of taking virtually all of our photo gear. For cameras we have an R5 and a 5DS R. The R5 is getting 99% of the clicks. We were hoping for an R5 II for this Summer, but that's looking less and less likely.
Anyway - here's our current "wildlife" lenses:
EF 400mm F/2.8 IS (Version I - the old HEAVY one. Image quality is great, but it's just sooooo darn heavy we avoid using it.)
EF 300mm F/2.8 IS (Also version I. Nice image quality even though it's not the newest/lightest.)
We own both version III EF teleconverters: 1.4 and 2.0. And we have the CIR-PL adapter to use the EF lenses on the R5.
And we own the RF 100-500mm (This gets most of the clicks as my wife walks around and snaps bird/BIF pics).
We are thinking of selling our EF gear and buying modern RF "Big White" glass.
I like the RF 100-300mm F/2.8, but I don't like the current RF teleconverter performance. Adding one of the teleconverters definitely adds the purple/green fringing. I've been hoping to see an RF 100-500 F/4, but that doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon either.
So maybe upgrade to the RF 400mm F/2.8 or the RF 600mm F/4?
For now we will likely buy just one of those three.
We've got ball heads and gimbal mounts and heavy duty carbon fiber tripods, etc., etc. (How else would we ever use that old EF 400mm, right?)
What say the group? RF100-300 and suck it up and use teleconverters? Jump straight to the 600mm F/4?
We've never been to Alaska, and I'm not trying to economize on photo gear for a three month stay. That said, I'm certainly not buying three new lenses for 30k either.
I would suggest the RF 400. It works great at 560 and 800 with the TC's. Swiss Army knife.
With that said, I have not been lucky enough to shoot Grizzlies up there but I've heard people get pretty close in some areas. If yes, the 400 would be my choice.
p.1 #8 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
We spent a week at the Katmai Lodge in '22, I had a 5D4 + 100-400 II and my wife had an R7 with RF 100-400. We got wonderful shots of bears, eagles, sea birds, seals, sea otters, & etc. On this trip I didn't feel the need for more reach. We weren't after small birds or shooting animals at night, although I did bring my landscape and night sky lenses. I don't know what your shooting conditions will be.
I now have an R5 and 100-500 which would be my current choice. If I were after smaller or somewhat distant animals I might consider the RF 200-800.
p.1 #9 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
I photographed the Katmai bears last September. I did it with a EF600 f4, RF 100-500 and an RF 24-105. I used my 600 almost exclusively. I feel the 100-500 compliments the 600 nicely but in no way replaces it or any big white. I like the 600f4 but the 400 2.8 and 500f4 are good choices too. I have (and love) the 300 2.8 but I find it too short for most wildlife.
My advice to your question would be if you really like your 400 either adapt it or get the RF version to save weight. If you are looking for a bit more reach/ less extender use then the RF/ EF III 600f4 would be great.
I continue to adapt my EF600 until we see what the RF super telephoto lineup will look like. I am hopeful we'll see some zooms, built in TC's and possibly some more DO stuff. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we'll have any of it in our hands this summer.
p.1 #10 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
I do lots of bear photography and my three most used lens are 100-400, 200-400f4 and 600f4 (long shots with 1.4x). The 100-400 I use most in the car in good light. But much of the best shots are at dusk and dawn where f4 is ideal and the 100-400 is too slow. The 200-400 tends to get the best pictures because they tend to happen in low light and the animals are moving (zoom and f5.6) and the best shots are when they are closer in. The 600f4 excels when you find a subject a long way off - it tends to get the best wolf shots.
I still think that the EF 200-400 [to 560/f5.6] is the best bear lens because of zoom and f4 (low light) and flip in adapter.
I would not be fixated on RF lens. I would also not be fixated on primes. I would be trying to cover scenarios.
You lack a fast zoom in medium range and a long fast lens.
The best selection now ignoring your current kit for bears is likely 200-800 (car shooting with extreme zoom range and relatively light and close to same iq as 100-500 at 500), 200-400 (low light and zoom) and 600f4 (long shooting with 1.4x in low light).
100-300 is too short and expensive and you would always have the 1.4x on it. This is an ideal lens for someone who shoots sports and wildlife - not predominantly wildlife.
You already have the 100-500. It's a good lens but a bit slow and does not have 500-800. But it would be expensive to trade down to 200-800.
I am not sold on RF 600 being a big upgrade on EF 600. You could save some money and buy a used EF 600v3 (same weight as RF).
What about either:
200-800 and used ef 600f4v3 [sells the rest]
used 200-400 and 600f11 and your 100-500 [sell the rest]
p.1 #11 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
artsupreme wrote:
I would suggest the RF 400. It works great at 560 and 800 with the TC's. Swiss Army knife.
With that said, I have not been lucky enough to shoot Grizzlies up there but I've heard people get pretty close in some areas. If yes, the 400 would be my choice.
I would not get rf400 with the plan of 1.4x or 2x unless you had some other goal for it. Bears move a lot and you don't want to fuss with adapters with a bear around [thus 200-400 is ideal but zoom especially]. 2x degrades the image too much. 400 with 1.4x is a bit short to complement your 100-500.
p.1 #12 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
Scott Stoness wrote:
I would not get rf400 with the plan of 1.4x or 2x unless you had some other goal for it. Bears move a lot and you don't want to fuss with adapters with a bear around [thus 200-400 is ideal but zoom especially]. 2x degrades the image too much. 400 with 1.4x is a bit short to complement your 100-500.
The 200-400 is a great value if someone wants the versatility. I sold mine and moved on. If someone like large apertures the 400 2.8 is pretty magical. The RF 2x does not degrade the image too much for wildlife, I've shot quite a bit with that combo. It's also much much easier to handhold compared to the 200-400. Primes don't bother me too much when shooting wildlife. I took the 200-400 and RF400 to Africa and I preferred using the 400. I never lugged the zoom over there again. It was a nice field sports lens for me back in the day.
I guess it comes down to personal preference but based on what I've heard and having owned the 200-400 for many years, I would be bringing the RF 400 if it was me. Nikon has the dream lens with their built in TC if the OP wants to think about buying a Z8 instead.
p.1 #13 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
I have been to Katmai 10+ times and McNeil twice. You can check out some of my photos https://nature.ooo/
Here are the options I have tried over the last decade in Alaska :
Option1:
EF 500mm F4 IS II on primary body
EF 24 - 105 on backup.
I started with this about 7 years ago. It was great for bear portraits and overall landscape, but I started to want the flexibility of a zoom. But I was missing too many intimate shots, as action developed fast.
Option 2:
RF 100 - 500 on primary body
EF 24-105 on backup
Simply loved the flexibility of 100-500; it was my most used lens and the poor EF 500 F4L II, would not see any action even when I would take it with me on a trip. I always did, but after not using it 2 years in a row, I stopped taking it.
Option 3:
RF 400mm F2.8 on primary body
RF 100-500 on backup, 24-105 on standby
I wanted to experiment with more light and shallower DOF, had an opportunity to purchase 400mm and pulled the trigger. It was a joy to use, even with 1.4x. With 2x, often the haze became an issue. I did 3 different bear trips last year (and 3 safari trips in India), but I missed some shots that I wish I could have taken when the bear got too close. I was always feeling like I had the wrong lens on for the situation that would be fast developing.
Option 4:
RF 100 - 300mm f2.8 +/- 2x primary body, I am not afraid to switch converters in field, even in a river.
RF 24 – 105 F4 on backup body
This is what I plan to go to Alaska with this year. I think this offers the best blend of flexibility and IQ for fast-developing situations. I will have more thoughts to share after this year's trips to see if this would be the right long-term answer or not. While the IQ would not be as great as RF 400mm 2.8 with extenders, I think I will be able to get shots that I otherwise would have missed.
It gives me 100mm more reach than 100-500 and 2/3rd of a stop of light. I am hoping that this to be my go-to combo moving forward, especially when I am wading in the river/lake. Otherwise, the hunt will continue. Given that 200-500 RF is pushed to next year, was my deciding factor to pull the trigger on 100-300. If you decide to go this route, you may want to order this soon, as they are back ordered in about 90 days. I used Texas Media Systems here in Austin TX and they were able to get one to me quickly.
p.1 #14 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
Wow! Thank you all for the insightful, helpful answers. I knew this was the right place.
Follow-up question: I already own the EF Extender 1.4x III and EF Extender 2.0x III. I also own the EF to RF Circular Polarizer adapter. Is there a reason to buy the RF600/RF 400? Or should I just buy the EF600 III/EF400 III? I believe they are optically identical. And I think I'd save a fair amount of money by just using my existing teleconverters rather than trading them in and buying the RF Extenders.
p.1 #15 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
JMattH wrote:
Wow! Thank you all for the insightful, helpful answers. I knew this was the right place.
Follow-up question: I already own the EF Extender 1.4x III and EF Extender 2.0x III. I also own the EF to RF Circular Polarizer adapter. Is there a reason to buy the RF600/RF 400? Or should I just buy the EF600 III/EF400 III? I believe they are optically identical. And I think I'd save a fair amount of money by just using my existing teleconverters rather than trading them in and buying the RF Extenders.
I don't really see using an RF extender with any of the lenses.
And after I trade in my old EF 300 F/2.8 and EF 400 F/2.8, the only other EF lens I'll have left is the EF 11-24 F/4.
So keep the EF extenders and buy the EF big white? Or swap them out and buy the RF big white?
Thanks again, this has all been very helpful....Show more →
It sounds like budget isn't a big concern and you've already made the switch to RF so I wouldn't confine myself to an expensive great white when we already know they are dated.
Once you've made a complete switch to RF you'll never need to worry about needing an EF to RF adapter which is liberating.
Go BIG or stay home!
p.1 #16 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
lighthound wrote:
It sounds like budget isn't a big concern and you've already made the switch to RF so I wouldn't confine myself to an expensive great white when we already know they are dated.
Once you've made a complete switch to RF you'll never need to worry about needing an EF to RF adapter which is liberating.
Go BIG or stay home!
But are they really dated? Aren't the current RF 400 and 600 identical to the current EF 400 and 600, except for permanently attaching an RF adapter to them?
p.1 #17 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
JMattH wrote:
But are they really dated? Aren't the current RF 400 and 600 identical to the current EF 400 and 600, except for permanently attaching an RF adapter to them?
Canon will never make another EF body or lens. To me that means EF gear is dated.
Optically the mark III's are almost identical to the RF's but electronically they are different beast. The RF versions can utilize all 12 pins which from what I understand helps the AF speed and tracking. Probably more comes along with it than that but that one thing I've read.
The other thing is depreciation. The EF will drop faster than the RF.
p.1 #18 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
lighthound wrote:
Canon will never make another EF body or lens. To me that means EF gear is dated.
Optically the mark III's are almost identical to the RF's but electronically they are different beast. The RF versions can utilize all 12 pins which from what I understand helps the AF speed and tracking. Probably more comes along with it than that but that one thing I've read.
The other thing is depreciation. The EF will drop faster than the RF.
Very fair points. Thank you!
p.1 #19 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
Get the RF versions; Adapters is yet another moving piece that adds complexity. Plus there is that extra 0.5 Stops of IS.
And if the rumored 1x-2x adapter does come to bear, you would want to have the RF version. ( I personally like the RF extenders more than EF as well).
JMattH wrote:
Wow! Thank you all for the insightful, helpful answers. I knew this was the right place.
Follow-up question: I already own the EF Extender 1.4x III and EF Extender 2.0x III. I also own the EF to RF Circular Polarizer adapter. Is there a reason to buy the RF600/RF 400? Or should I just buy the EF600 III/EF400 III? I believe they are optically identical. And I think I'd save a fair amount of money by just using my existing teleconverters rather than trading them in and buying the RF Extenders.
p.1 #20 · I Could Use Lens Recommendations for Wildlife in Alaska (Bears!!!)
Thanks for starting this thread. It's quite timely for me, and the responses have been very informative.
I have an R3, EF 70-200/4 IS (version 1), EF 300/2.8 II, EF 1.4 III, EF 2.x III, RF 100-500 and RF 1.4x, along with some shorter fast EF primes (indoor sports). Since my recent retirement, I've been holding off on starting my wildlife photography travels (Alaska, Central/South America, Africa, ...) waiting for the R1 and an RF replacement for the EF 500/4 II (either prime or zoom), but it doesn't look like they'll be in time for this year. That's left me wondering if the 100-500 along with 1.4x is sufficient for Alaska, or if it's going to be too slow, and I need to buy or rent an RF 400 or 600. I've been planning to ask the company/guide I'm planning to use, but hadn't gotten around to it yet. My other question is whether 400 or 600 is better for bears at Lake Clark. Obviously, I can use extenders, but if I'm going to be using one all the time, I might was well get a 600.
