icantbebigwill wrote:
I've jumped from system to system for years now, and it's great for one thing... emptying your wallet. My passion is wildlife, particularly birds. While I make a decent living, having kids really limits your spare funds, so I can't afford (or justify) the big primo primes.
That's why I ended up with Canon. The 200-800, while not a world beater, is an incredible option for someone like me with limited funds. To replicate this lens on any other system would require an expensive teleconverter which will negate any IQ advantage said lens may have had.
I'm in the same boat - over the past few years I've tried all of the systems, including Fuji and the m4/3 systems, and have come to the conclusion that despite a few gaps in the lens lineup, Canon is the best all-around system for someone like me that shoots a wide range of subjects. It has enough resolution and class-leading dynamic range for landscapes, the best focus bracketing for macro work, and the best AF system for wildlife.
The only all-around system that really competes with Canon is Sony, but the cost of entry is a bit higher than I would like, since I would need an A1 and an A7R V in order to match what my current EOS R5 does. The Sony 200-600 is a nice lens; I currently have it and the RF 100-500 sitting on my desk. I wish the 100-500 had the reach of the 200-600, while at the same time I wish the 200-600 was as sharp or focused as close as the 100-500. Both are great lenses, just in slightly different ways.
A lot of the debate I see on these threads are from people chasing specifications, or quoting hearsay about lens sharpness, but I guess those armchair exercise are a lot easier than getting out and making actual images - something which all current camera systems can do remarkably well these days.
