Canon R5 mark ii - advice on lenses

B

briansy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
165
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, first post, my name is Brian, I'm 45, originally from Ireland and live in Wimbledon in London. Before Christmas I purchased my first proper camera for a 3 week trip to Patagonia. A Sony RX10 mark iv. Lovely bit of kit and super easy to use. The focal range is 24mm-600mm and I found it especially good for birds and animals where the difference between the camera and my phone were pronounced. Interestingly, and this is just as an aside, I found that the quick post processing on my Samsung S24 made the landscape shots on the trip look way better than on the Sony - and for landscapes, I just didn't have the time or inclination to do all of the post-processing to make the Sony images as good or better - being able to whip the camera out of my pocket and back in made the long hikes manageable. That being said, I do love a landscape pic and could see myself eventually foregoing the phone for this.

In any event, I have been enjoying the camera greatly - specifically for birds and animals. And have been getting out on weekends to RSPB sites, wetlands nature reserves etc and I'm finding myself getting more and more frustrated with the limitations of the Sony in low light and where objects are far away - soft pics and lots of noise. Still decent, but I think it's a case of much wants more. I was originally inclined to go with a Sony A7RV as I am used to the Sony interface now but after further research (lens choice, video availability, stacked sensor and fps) has led me to decide on the Canon R5 mark ii.

My question is what lenses to get. I am keen on getting a telephoto lens, a 50mm prime lens for general street photography and portraits and possibly a 28-105mm (although I'm not sure I'll really do much landscape photography on the camera truth be told. I love landscape photography on my phone for the speed, flexibility and excellent results without needing to do any more processing than possibly a quick auto correct on lightroom. But am happy to purchase it and have it in my possession for when the fancy takes me. For now, please assume that cost is no major object, bar not wanting to be seriously profligate!

Telephoto lens:
I am torn between the 100-500mm and 200-800mm. The massive size will play a part for sure but also the fact that at the lower end, having no range between 100 and 200 could feel quite inflexible. The guy in the camera shop suggested I could get a 70-200 and a 200-800 but will I really want to swap out my lens to get the 70-200 snaps? Thoughts? Instinctively I feel I would like more range than 500mm, but I feel that the lens and camera combination will mean I can crop significantly and still get way better images than I can produce with the RX10.

50mm lens:
There is the cheap as chips 1.8 50mm for 200 quid and then there are the 1.2 and 1.4 ones. Street photography I do on my phone but would like to get into this on my camera. Are the 1.2 and 1.4 really night and day compared to the super cheap 1.8? I do love the bokeh effect, I just don't know if I have the inclination to learn enough to properly get all the benefits of a pricier lens with more open aperture if it's a lens I am unlikely to use as often as the telephoto lens.

Your thoughts on all of this would be very greatly appreciated!!
 
I have both the rf 100-500 and the rf 200-800, for birds it's the longer lens that I use every time, even with the "extra" reach of my R7, it also plays pretty well with the rf 1.4 tc for even more crazy reach. I tend to use the rf100-500 more in the summer for butterflies and dragons as the short minimum focal length makes it super useful. I would hate to have to choose between them as they do different jobs for me.
 
turbotoes said:
I have both the rf 100-500 and the rf 200-800, for birds it's the longer lens that I use every time, even with the "extra" reach of my R7, it also plays pretty well with the rf 1.4 tc for even more crazy reach. I tend to use the rf100-500 more in the summer for butterflies and dragons as the short minimum focal length makes it super useful. I would hate to have to choose between them as they do different jobs for me.
Click to expand...
The question I have is: do you leave the house saying: "I'm off to shoot butterflies only"? Or birds only? I would mainly use the camera with extra reach but would it be a big loss not having that 70-200 reach? At most nature reserves or wetlands or woodlands probably not. But then in off to Skomer island in April to see the puffins and I understand they come right up close to you and the 70-200 would work a charm in that scenario. But then it's a case of: how frequently do I change from 70-200 to 200-800 as I make me way through the island and am encountered with different scenarios, birds close, birds far etc - what does your approach to this tend to be? Two cameras and a little sling on each side for them to rest securely, ready to switch between them at speed? Or just one and accepting that what is outside the focal range will simply be lost? Just wondering as am a total novice and am not sure whether the hobby will fizzle out or develop into an all consuming obsession!
 
50mm f1.8 gets properly sharp at f6.3 corner to corner and autofocus is not very dependable. This may work for some but personally you just get sigma art or all the way to rf 1.2. money doesn't seem to be an issue for you so why settle for obvious compromise
 
If I'm going somewhere with mixed habitat then I tend to take both lenses with me, one on the r7, the other in my pack. Certainly on my patch, I have an idea of what will be about depending on where I go but neither lens is a heavyweight so I take em both.
Maybe start off with RF 100-500, and chuck in the RF 1.4 tc for extra reach if and when you decide you can't live without MORE reach in an affordable package get the RF 200-800, The L lens is perhaps the more versatile of the two due to the shorter minimum focal length. I think you will want more reach though as 500mm on full frame is surprisingly short for little birds unless you have a hide and or feeders to tempt them closer.
 
Thanks so much turbotoes! It feels like it would make more sense to get a 70-200mm 2.8 L lens and a 200-800. I've watched enough YouTube videos by now to deduce that the image quality is really small between the two at 200-500 but after 500 the 200-800 seems to be clearly better than the 500 either zoomed or with the extender. I guess I'll just need to figure out how often I'd be inclined to swap out the bigger lens for the 70-200. Maybe when my subjects aren't going anywhere in a hurry and so I have the time to take my time and just change them out at my ease? I suspect this would be the case with the puffins at Skomer when they are up close.

Any thoughts you might have on the 70-200 2.8l lens would be appreciated!
 
I've only ever had the ef 70-200 f/2.8 mii, I sold it and have regretted ever since, it was a super lens, fast, gorgeous IQ but seemed rather heavy at the time. The EF version takes a tc, the original RF one does not but the newer Z version does take an RF tc.
 
If I may (not an R user)...

My basic kit is an EOS 7DII, with an EF-S 15-85mm and EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L II USM and these get used for 90% of what I do with a camera. I also have an EF 1.4x III which is in the bag, but doesn't get a lot of use.

I've had the 100-400 for about 10-years and it's an outstanding lens IMHO and is seen being used by professionals around the globe. It's very versatile and stays on my camera most of the time when we're out looking at wildlife and birding. The RF 100-500L looks to me like it's based on the 100-400 II, so it will be well made. The reviews seem very favourable and it'll cover a lot of ground. Even then 400 or 500mm is still not enough reach from some locations and in low light are just not fast enough. I guess that's why the big white lenses (500mm and 600mm f/4) come out to play (wish I had one). Getting closer to the subject is key when it comes to bird photography.

If I was to go to an R5 or R6, then I would get an RF 24-105 f/4L to go with it as a walkabout lens and keep my current EF 100-400. I would be more interested in the RF 100-500 than the RF 200-800 on the basis that the former fits more use cases.

As for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L lens; these have always been well regarded and seen on Canon bodies used by professionals all around the globe. I've no reason to think that the RF version is anything less than excellent. However, for wildlife/bird photography, 200mm is going to be on the short side.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top