lighthound wrote:
If the IQ of this lens is nearly as good as the 100-500 such that it's difficult to see without pixel peeping, why would anyone choose the 100-500 over this lens considering the three major advantages of lower cost, 200mm longer reach and no need for a TC.
Because it zooms out to 100mm.
I regard the 100–{400,500}mm and 200–{600,800}mm lenses as two different classes of lens. An example where you’d want the 100–400mm is shooting from a Zodiac in Antarctica, where you’re quickly switching between landscapes and seals. (Somehow, I brought make many admired photos with 180mm as my longest lens down there; 400mm would get you lots of shots.) In other situations – for example on some safaris – you want the extra length and don’t need or are prepared to forgo the wider focal lengths, and for that the 200–600mm class is more suitable.
Sony still offer their 100–400mm lens for one purpose, and their 200–600mm for the other. Nikon also offer the two. Canon up to now had one and not the other, and for some reason people bought into the system wanting the 200–600mm class when only the 100–400mm was available.
I bought the EF 100–400mm II and later the RF 100–500mm because that’s the class of lens I need. Occasionally I do the type of shooting where the 200–600mm class would be better, and for that a teleconverter on the lens I do have will have to do. It’s really no different from someone who rarely takes formal portraits pressing into service their 70–200mm f/4 rather than going out and buying an 85mm f/1.2 for the few times they do.
lighthound wrote:
If the IQ of this lens is nearly as good as the 100-500 such that it's difficult to see without pixel peeping, why would anyone choose the 100-500 over this lens considering the three major advantages of lower cost, 200mm longer reach and no need for a TC.
Because it zooms out to 100mm.
I regard the 100–{400,500}mm and 200–{600,800}mm lenses as two different classes of lens. An example where you’d want the 100–500mm is shooting from a Zodiac in Antarctica, where you’re quickly switching between landscapes and seals. (Somehow, I brought make many admired photos with 180mm as my longest lens down there; 400mm would get you lots of shots.) In other situations – for example on some safaris – you want the extra length and don’t need or are prepared to forgo the wider focal lengths, and for that the 200–600mm class is more suitable.
Sony still offer their 100–400mm lens for one purpose, and their 200–600mm for the other. Nikon also offer the two. Canon up to now had one and not the other, and for some reason people bought into the system wanting the 200–600mm class when only the 100–400mm was available.
I bought the EF 100–400mm II and later the RF 100–500mm because that’s the class of lens I need. Occasionally I do the type of shooting where the 200–600mm class would be better, and for that a teleconverter on the lens I do have will have to do. It’s really no different from someone who rarely takes formal portraits pressing into service their 70–200mm f/4 rather than going out and buying an 85mm f/1.2 for the few times they do.
lighthound wrote:
If the IQ of this lens is nearly as good as the 100-500 such that it's difficult to see without pixel peeping, why would anyone choose the 100-500 over this lens considering the three major advantages of lower cost, 200mm longer reach and no need for a TC.
Because it zooms out to 100mm.
I regard the 100–{400,500}mm and 200–{600,800}mm lenses as two different classes of lens. An example where you’d want the 100–500mm is shooting from a Zodiac in Antarctica, where you’re quickly switching between landscapes and seals. (Somehow, I brought make many admired photos with 180mm as my longest lens down there; 400mm would get you lots of shots.) In other situations – for example on some safaris – you want the extra length and don’t need or are prepared to forgo the wider focal lengths, and for that the 200–600mm class is more suitable.
Sony still offer their 100–400mm lens for one purpose, and their 200–600mm for the other. Nikon also offer the two. Canon up to now had one and not the other, and for some reason people bought into the system wanting the 200–600mm class when only the 100–400mm was available.
I bought the EF 100–400mm II and later the RF 100–500mm because that’s the class of lens I need. Occasionally I do the type of shooting where the 200–600mm class is idea, and for that a teleconverter on my 100–500mm will have to do. It’s really no different from someone who rarely takes formal portraits pressing into service their 70–200mm f/4 rather than going out and buying an 85mm f/1.2 for the few times they do.
lighthound wrote:
If the IQ of this lens is nearly as good as the 100-500 such that it's difficult to see without pixel peeping, why would anyone choose the 100-500 over this lens considering the three major advantages of lower cost, 200mm longer reach and no need for a TC.
Because it zooms out to 100mm.
I regard the 100–{400,500}mm and 200–{600,800}mm lenses as two different classes of lens. An example where you’d want the 100–500mm is shooting from a Zodiac in Antarctica, where you’re quickly switching between landscapes and seals. (Somehow, I brought make many admired photos with 180mm as my longest lens down there; 400mm would get you lots of shots.) In other situations – for example on some safaris – you want the extra length and don’t need or are prepared to forgo the wider focal lengths, and for that the 200–600mm class is more suitable.
Sony still offer their 100–400mm lens for one purpose, and their 200–600mm for the other. Nikon also offer the two. Canon up to now had one and not the other, and for some reason people bought into the system wanting the 200–600mm class when only the 100–400mm was available.
I bought the EF 100–400mm II and later the RF 100–500mm because that’s the class of lens I need. Occasionally I do the type of shooting where the 200–600mm class is required, and for that a teleconverter will have to do. It’s really no different from someone who rarely takes formal portraits pressing into service their 70–200mm f/4 rather than going out and buying an 85mm f/1.2 for the few times they do.
Nov 04, 2023 at 04:31 PM
Previous versions of melcat's message #16383525 « Canon 200-800? »
