Canon telephoto lenses for birding

B

briansy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
165
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all, I have a canon r5 mark ii (well, two of them!) and a 70-200mm 2.8, a 100-500mm and a 200-800mm.

I started off with a 200-800 and was quite happy with it until I got the 100-500. Since then I've carried both with me on outings but can't seem to get anything decent out of the 200-800. So many blurry pics and even the sharp ones just don't have that crispiness. Would it be worth asking Canon if it's the lens I was given? Or is there something in doing technique wise to cause the disparity. The main issue is subjects Im, say 20 yards away from and which would massively benefit from the extra reach. The zoomed in 100-500 images are still better?

Thoughts? Current plan is to save up for a 600mm prime f4 for that bit of extra reach and obviously the image quality and in the meantime sell the 200-800 and stick with the 100-500.

Thoughts from Canon users?
 
So, the 100-500 is an L lens, despite appearances the 200-800 isn't. IQ goes along with that.

The difference between 500mm & 600mm focal length possibly isn't as pronounced you'd hope, especially when compared to between 400mm & 500mm

Is there perhaps a middle way where you try a 1.4TC with the 100-500? (yes only usable 300-500 (so 420-700)) a lot less like buying a kidney than a 600/4 prime (and the law of maximum inconvenience makes it certain that you'll need zoom when you have the prime on)
 
I’ve only had the RF 200-800mm on a test drive for a few days and used in on a R6 and R7. I was pleasantly surprised and got some good results. Perhaps a return to Canon is in order.
 
I have the 100-500, and got the 2x converter. Yes it sucks you can’t withdraw it in past 300, but the quality is still terrific
 
briansy said:
You're welcome to borrow mine if you live near London!
Click to expand...

Thank you but I’m sure Canon will do a proper test. Perhaps the R5 ii sensor is too demanding for this lens, but you should be able to some decent shots. A member here posts photos from I think a R3 and the 200-800 and they look good to me.

What are your main subjects?
 
Hunny monster: you say:

The difference between 500mm & 600mm focal length possibly isn't as pronounced you'd hope, especially when compared to between 400mm & 500mm

Can you explain this to me in basic terms? I.e. what sort of difference is the 500-600mm focal range gap in actual metres in the field? And what is it between 100-200 and 600-800? I understand you're talking about some sort of law of diminishing returns when it comes to focal length but it would be helpful if you could quantify this so I understand what you're saying in real terms
 
OH had the 100-500, gave it up as it didn't seem to give her the results her old EF 100-400 did. has a bit of seller's regret as finding something as good as the EF was is proving a bit tricky... And she wants an L.

I know someone who has the 200-800 and he was saying that it does take some getting used to... it doesn't sound like one of the lenses that you can instantly acquire subject and get flawless images straight off....
 
briansy said:
Hunny monster: you say:

The difference between 500mm & 600mm focal length possibly isn't as pronounced you'd hope, especially when compared to between 400mm & 500mm

Can you explain this to me in basic terms? I.e. what sort of difference is the 500-600mm focal range gap in actual metres in the field? And what is it between 100-200 and 600-800? I understand you're talking about some sort of law of diminishing returns when it comes to focal length but it would be helpful if you could quantify this so I understand what you're saying in real terms
Click to expand...
Try it yourself on your 100-500 - take a pic of something dull like a regular brick wall at 100mm FL, same place 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm - now count the number of bricks you can count across the frame.

It doesn't follow a linear relationship... Rather from 100-200 should be a bigger proportionate drop than 400-500.

That said, as a birder whatever you have you want more :coat:
 
briansy said:
Birds.
Click to expand...
Apologies, I should have read the title again.

As is usually mentioned I recommend you try Test drive. This gives you the opportunity of trying the camera/lens for a couple of days for free, subject to paying a deposit. They have the EF 600 mm and the RF 1.4 converter in their range.
 
briansy said:
Hello all, I have a canon r5 mark ii (well, two of them!) and a 70-200mm 2.8, a 100-500mm and a 200-800mm.

I started off with a 200-800 and was quite happy with it until I got the 100-500. Since then I've carried both with me on outings but can't seem to get anything decent out of the 200-800. So many blurry pics and even the sharp ones just don't have that crispiness. Would it be worth asking Canon if it's the lens I was given? Or is there something in doing technique wise to cause the disparity. The main issue is subjects Im, say 20 yards away from and which would massively benefit from the extra reach. The zoomed in 100-500 images are still better?

Thoughts? Current plan is to save up for a 600mm prime f4 for that bit of extra reach and obviously the image quality and in the meantime sell the 200-800 and stick with the 100-500.

Thoughts from Canon users?
Click to expand...
Just a few thoughts which could affect the IQ either singularly or congruently :
1) Not L lens and so image quality at furthest end is weaker. Try stopping lens down to see if it improves.
2) Heat haze over long distances or even differences in air temp.
3) Cheap filter on lens.
4) Not having a suitable fast shutter speed.
5) High ISO files and incorrect processing of said files.
6) Faulty lens.
7)After using a better lens your expectations are much higher than what the lens is capable of.
 
hunnymonster said:
Try it yourself on your 100-500 - take a pic of something dull like a regular brick wall at 100mm FL, same place 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm - now count the number of bricks you can count across the frame.

It doesn't follow a linear relationship... Rather from 100-200 should be a bigger proportionate drop than 400-500.

That said, as a birder whatever you have you want more :coat:
Click to expand...

What you are saying in as many words is that 100-200, is 200% - i.e double the "zoom"/focal length, but 400-500 is only 125%, so only 25% more.

In answer to the question, unless you go for one of the sigma variable zooms, the dark canon 600mm or 800mm prime, I think F8 and F11, or a big white prime, I am not sure there are many other options. If you didn't have the 100-500 I'd suggest the 400 F5.6 maybe but no benefit over what you have.
 
Last edited:
@briansy welcome to the slippery slope. For great results, in my opinion, you do need as much reach as possible and as wide an aperture as you can manage. I went down this path some years ago and was only happy with the results once I had the 600 F4. Mind you, it takes some getting used to and a lot of practice to track birds in flight (dot sight can help). I have the EF mark 3 and it works very well with the R5 and R1, I have no need to change to the RF version. If I was looking at it again now I'd test drive the RF 100-300 f2.8 and TC.
 
TimHughes said:
@briansy welcome to the slippery slope. For great results, in my opinion, you do need as much reach as possible and as wide an aperture as you can manage. I went down this path some years ago and was only happy with the results once I had the 600 F4. Mind you, it takes some getting used to and a lot of practice to track birds in flight (dot sight can help). I have the EF mark 3 and it works very well with the R5 and R1, I have no need to change to the RF version. If I was looking at it again now I'd test drive the RF 100-300 f2.8 and TC.
Click to expand...
Hi Tim, this is what I will eventually go for I think. I am going to rent one for an upcoming trip to Utah and wait until a 600 f4 with a built in extender comes out in a couple of years time (hopefully). It's really weird but I keep seeing folk post pictures from their r7s which clearly looks better than the r5 mark ii I have and I am reading that for zoomed in shots of birds a decent distance away, the design means there are smaller / more pixels giving a more detailed image? If so, do I need to be getting an r7?!
 
briansy said:
Hi Tim, this is what I will eventually go for I think. I am going to rent one for an upcoming trip to Utah and wait until a 600 f4 with a built in extender comes out in a couple of years time (hopefully). It's really weird but I keep seeing folk post pictures from their r7s which clearly looks better than the r5 mark ii I have and I am reading that for zoomed in shots of birds a decent distance away, the design means there are smaller / more pixels giving a more detailed image? If so, do I need to be getting an r7?!
Click to expand...
Maybe… R7 has a higher pixel density so more to play with for the same cropped sensor area. That’s not a path I’ve gone down. Others will be able to make more informed comments. Many other factors come to play - field draft, lighting situation, post processing.
 
PS actually I’ve gone the other way with changing to R1s which are 24mpix. The larger pixels are better for low light. In most cases I don’t miss the extra pixels of the R5. I still have access to them - they’re now my daughter’s cameras - if needed.
 
with increased pixel density, the trade off is increased interference which shows up as "noise". You gain the ability to crop harder, but with increased noise, you may not get the same quality of detail. The same debate happened with the 7D came out and the 7D Mark II.
 
andrewc said:
with increased pixel density, the trade off is increased interference which shows up as "noise". You gain the ability to crop harder, but with increased noise, you may not get the same quality of detail. The same debate happened with the 7D came out and the 7D Mark II.
Click to expand...
So basically, I would see a clear benefit in the R7 in prime conditions when iso kept low but keep the R5 in the bag for when light is rubbish?
 
200-800 has a pretty weak mtf... And r5 will be pretty much hitting diffraction limit wide open... Add to that common pitfalls of 800mm photography and you have what you have.
It could be an acceptable spy lens on my basic r6; wouldn't use it for anything else.
R5 really requires quality primes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top