I recently acquired an RF 200-800 for an extended trip to Africa and didn't want to lug the 600 plus multiple other lenses around.
I'm going to Panama for birds. I don't know if I should take the 600 or the 200-800. The DOF at F4 on the 600 is so shallow that sometimes the beaks on the birds are out of focus. The smaller aperture on the 200-800 would give me a better DOF albeit at a loss of light and a not-so-clean background.
The body in use would be the R5 Mk2.
You can always use f5.6 or f8 on the 600 but you can't make the 200-800 lens f stop smaller without loosing reach. But, I've never been to Panama and don't know the shooting there. A 400 2.8 with 1.4 and 2x TCs would be a great lens in this scenario.
I don't know Panama but I have used the RF 600/4 or 500/4 IS II in Ecuador, Costco Rica, etc. Rainforest. The 100-500 is always a second lens. You know it is not just the aperture but the IQ center to corner plus the borka characteristics and the ability to use TCs. I have enough images taken with big primes that would have been inferior or not feasible with the tele zooms for multiple reasons.
So much depends on the kind of trip, how much is in relatively fixed or easy to access locations, and your level of expectations.
Jmadhavan wrote:
I recently acquired an RF 200-800 for an extended trip to Africa and didn't want to lug the 600 plus multiple other lenses around.
I'm going to Panama for birds. I don't know if I should take the 600 or the 200-800. The DOF at F4 on the 600 is so shallow that sometimes the beaks on the birds are out of focus. The smaller aperture on the 200-800 would give me a better DOF albeit at a loss of light and a not-so-clean background.
The body in use would be the R5 Mk2.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
Were you happy with the IQ of the 200-800?
Curious as I am heading to the Pantanal in July.
I was pleasantly surprised by the IQ on the 200-800. Now, if the subject is really distant and you are using the 800 end to bring it in, the atmospheric disturbance can be quite noticeable. Otherwise I have been quite happy with the lens quality.
Methodical wrote:
You can always use f5.6 or f8 on the 600 but you can't make the 200-800 lens f stop smaller without loosing reach. But, I've never been to Panama and don't know the shooting there. A 400 2.8 with 1.4 and 2x TCs would be a great lens in this scenario.
Would there be a big difference in the IQ from the 600 at f8 and the 200-800 @ 600 and f8? If there isn't then I'd rather take the 200-800. (Helluva lot easier to lug around!!)
To the OP: Have you photographed birds in Central / South America before? When and where are you planning to photograph birds in Panama?
I have traveled and photographed multiple times in Ecuador and Costa Rica, and am traveling to Panama next February for bird and wildlife photography. I'll be at the Canopy Tower and Canopy Lodge and expect conditions will be similar to my experiences in Ecuador and Costa Rica.
If you will be mainly photographing from canopy towers or near feeding stations - where more light is likely to be available - you could probably get away with using the 200-800, but there do tend to be a lot of low light conditions where the extra stops of light with faster aperture lenses are really helpful. And if you are planning to be photographing mostly from fixed positions - where you can set up with a tripod and not have to deal with the lens weight handheld - I would probably prefer the 600.
When I travel to Panama next year I'm bringing a 100-500 and a 400 DO II, with TC options for the latter. I expect to be in fixed positions for some photography but also moving around a fair bit too, so having the flexibility with lighter setups will be important for me.
gavin_emmons wrote:
To the OP: Have you photographed birds in Central / South America before? When and where are you planning to photograph birds in Panama?
I have traveled and photographed multiple times in Ecuador and Costa Rica, and am traveling to Panama next February for bird and wildlife photography. I'll be at the Canopy Tower and Canopy Lodge and expect conditions will be similar to my experiences in Ecuador and Costa Rica.
If you will be mainly photographing from canopy towers or near feeding stations - where more light is likely to be available - you could probably get away with using the 200-800, but there do tend to be a lot of low light conditions where the extra stops of light with faster aperture lenses are really helpful. And if you are planning to be photographing mostly from fixed positions - where you can set up with a tripod and not have to deal with the lens weight handheld - I would probably prefer the 600.
When I travel to Panama next year I'm bringing a 100-500 and a 400 DO II, with TC options for the latter. I expect to be in fixed positions for some photography but also moving around a fair bit too, so having the flexibility with lighter setups will be important for me....Show more →
I'm also assuming the Panama is similar, but do let us know. I would take that 600/4 if I had it along with the 100-500 to Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rico, Panama or similar places where there is canopy in the area.
gavin_emmons wrote:
To the OP: Have you photographed birds in Central / South America before? When and where are you planning to photograph birds in Panama?
I have traveled and photographed multiple times in Ecuador and Costa Rica, and am traveling to Panama next February for bird and wildlife photography. I'll be at the Canopy Tower and Canopy Lodge and expect conditions will be similar to my experiences in Ecuador and Costa Rica.
If you will be mainly photographing from canopy towers or near feeding stations - where more light is likely to be available - you could probably get away with using the 200-800, but there do tend to be a lot of low light conditions where the extra stops of light with faster aperture lenses are really helpful. And if you are planning to be photographing mostly from fixed positions - where you can set up with a tripod and not have to deal with the lens weight handheld - I would probably prefer the 600.
When I travel to Panama next year I'm bringing a 100-500 and a 400 DO II, with TC options for the latter. I expect to be in fixed positions for some photography but also moving around a fair bit too, so having the flexibility with lighter setups will be important for me....Show more →
I have photographed all over mid- and S. America, including Costa Rica, Ecuador (twice) plus the Galapagos Islands, Colombia, Argentina and Chile. I'm leaving for Panama on Sunday and will be there for 10 days. Our route is Darien Lowlands, Torti River Forest, Pipeline Road, Metropolitan Nature Park, Los Quetzales Trail and Chiriqui Highlands. I am told the walking areas are mostly flat and wide!
In the past I have always had the 600 with me and I feel "bad" leaving it behind. I might just take both if I can fit the 200-800 into my carry-on!!
If Canon had produced that 300-600/5.6 instead of it being yet another vorpware scam, there would not be such a massive gap in Canon tele lens options.
I did Panama Canopy Tower and Canopy Lodge with a birding group. Not a bird photography trip. Limited logistical space. I only had my RF 100-500 plus a 1.4x TC. That worked well. The 600mm f4 would have allowed higher shutter speeds in the forests and better bokeh all around. 840mm or 1200mm would have been nice too. No regrets on my choice. Bring both the 600 AND the 200-800 if logistics will allow.
EB-1 wrote:
If Canon had produced that 300-600/5.6 instead of it being yet another vorpware scam, there would not be such a massive gap in Canon tele lens options.
EBH
---------------------------------------------
jmckayak wrote:
I did Panama Canopy Tower and Canopy Lodge with a birding group. Not a bird photography trip. Limited logistical space. I only had my RF 100-500 plus a 1.4x TC. That worked well. The 600mm f4 would have allowed higher shutter speeds in the forests and better bokeh all around. 840mm or 1200mm would have been nice too. No regrets on my choice. Bring both the 600 AND the 200-800 if logistics will allow.
Couldn't agree more. I have the Canon EF 200-400 f4 with the 1.4 TC built in. That is nearly 2 lbs heavier than the 600 f4 and I only take it to Africa where you get much closer to the wildlife and you don't really need the 600. I keep thinking that Canon would come out with a similar lens like the 300-600. That would be great.
If I can fit the 200-800 in a bag I will take that also!!
Thank you for all the suggestions and friendly banter. I will provide FB when I am back (or even when I am in the field if time and technology permit such activity.)
Jmadhavan wrote:
Would there be a big difference in the IQ from the 600 at f8 and the 200-800 @ 600 and f8? If there isn't then I'd rather take the 200-800. (Helluva lot easier to lug around!!)
I have not done a side by side comparison, however there are others on Youtube, that have done this comparison with images, such Duade Paton. Check his video.
Methodical wrote:
I have not done a side by side comparison, however there are others on Youtube, that have done this comparison with images, such Duade Paton. Check his video.
I have seen a few of his videos but didn't see a comparison. I'll go back and look again. Thank you.
jmckayak wrote:
Bring both the 600 AND the 200-800 if logistics will allow.
Now that is not an advice I could get behind - if two lenses, then the 600 and 100-500. All lenses are obviously a compromise, but bringing a _big_ and slow lens in addition to a very big and fast one seems like the wrong choice.
I have the 100-500 and 200-800 next to each other in the drawer and whenever I open it, I question my life choices and take the 100-500, with the sole exception of air shows. There's the question of "is this is an ok lens?" yes absolutely. "Is it an inferior compromise to just about anything else?" Yes absolutely.
stanj wrote:
Now that is not an advice I could get behind - if two lenses, then the 600 and 100-500. All lenses are obviously a compromise, but bringing a _big_ and slow lens in addition to a very big and fast one seems like the wrong choice.
I have the 100-500 and 200-800 next to each other in the drawer and whenever I open it, I question my life choices and take the 100-500, with the sole exception of air shows. There's the question of "is this is an ok lens?" yes absolutely. "Is it an inferior compromise to just about anything else?" Yes absolutely....Show more →
I don't have the 100-500 anymore. It, therefore didn't feature in the equation, so I took both the 600 and the 200-800! I'm in Panama now. 😂.
