A baby 500 f/4 lens? R7 + EF 300 f/2.8 mk ii

[@PhilThach]

Another great video. We are kindred spirits when it comes to understanding focal lengths and aperture on full frame vs crop sensor cameras as well as with and without a teleconverter. It amazes me how many KZbin photographers just don't understand it, even some really big channels. Thanks for this refreshing content.

[@MatthewRaifman]

Thank you! I love digging into these things too and better understanding them.

[@bradleyrex2968]

Back in the days of DSLRs I used to say my 7D Mark 1 then Mark 2 was my favorite teleconverter. My 400mm F4 DO II was my favorite birding lens.

[@guspath17]

This is a great video! I agree with all your points. I own both 300mm 2.8 ii and 500mm f4 ii with the R7. I use the 500 if I know I will just be on a tripod or handheld not covering too much area. The 300 is sharper than 500 with 2x extender even on the R7. The 300 with 1.4 is sharp wide open at f4. My R5 has become my back up camera now as I prefer reach over full frame. Also my subject is mainly perched birds.

[@MatthewRaifman]

Thank you so much for the comment. I believe it! The 300 is outrageously sharp. I used an adapter and resolved it with the 2x on a 61mp Sony A7RV no problem. I'd rather have that then the rf 100-300 any day because it just doesn't match it.

[@quazisanjeed6395]

Thank you for the video. This is my darling telephoto lens. Use it for wildlife photography with a Canon 2x extender on my APS-H Canon 1D Mark IV. The effective focal length becomes 780mm. Yes, it's a heavy combo so, always set it up on a sturdy tripod. Even with the 2x extender, there is no noticeable quality drop.

[@MatthewRaifman]

Great combo! Thanks for the comment

[@terrysmith810]

I use the original 300 F2.8 Non IS and its a dream with the R7.

[@MatthewRaifman]

I think you have the best value wildlife kit out there

[@chennytango9298]

They just released my dream lens. RF 100-300 2.8. Will be killer paired with my R5

[@MatthewRaifman]

It looks good but wow is that expensive. I’ve found the 300 f/2.8 to lack a bit of reach for birding unfortunately and might move to the 500 f4

[@ivan_dobromyslov]

My dream! Great lens

[@srkiphoto]

Fantastic lens!!!

[@quazisanjeed6395]

Perhaps with a 2x converter; it produces best results on a full-frame DSLR. Sometimes I use it with 5D Mark III and it produces fantastic results. Canon introduced 2x extenders mainly intended for use with the 2.8 tele lenses. I tried the combo on my 7D as well. The results are good but not great. My recommendation is; it should be used either with full-frame or APS-H bodies. These are the combos I regularly use for wildlife photography. Use the bare lens on a full-frame body for indoor portraiture from a distance - nothing like it. The bride looks like a Princess! Thanks again for the video.

[@MatthewRaifman]

I think your comment is spot on. I came to the same conclusion through my use as well. Thanks!

[@vlacarde1]

i agree. i shoot the 300 2.8 with a 2x extender mkII on a 7d mkII and the results are ok. not great, but still usable stuff.

[@quazisanjeed6395]

@@vlacarde1 IMO, 300mm 2.8 + 2x is middle-class photographers' affordable 600mm prime. Far superior to the third party 150-600mm. I mostly use the native composite 600mm on my 1D Mark IV, a DSLR I deeply love. Bought it used from B&H 2.5 yrs ago for 1k dollars.

[@vlacarde1]

@@quazisanjeed6395 and the extender is sharp with your full frame? I agree though. I had a tamron 150-600 and still prefer the image quality of my 300 with 2x tele vs the tamron.

[@quazisanjeed6395]

@@vlacarde1, thank you. With all due respect to users, I never use third party telephoto lens. That's why instead of buying a 1k dollar 150-600mm tele; I patiently saved for EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II + EF 2x III for a 6.6k dollar purchase new.

[@marvinlovenfeldt]

Nice. I went with Sigma 50-100 f1.8 art for my R7

[@CreativeScott1992]

Great info on the video , im actually getting this 300mm 2.8 version II next week paired with my R6 Mark II , so super Exited , Coming from the 100-400 5.6 ii

[@MatthewRaifman]

Awesome! I love the lens. It's wonderful. What will you be shooting?

[@CreativeScott1992]

@@MatthewRaifmanhehe yep , i do Only Wildlife and Birds 😁📸❄️

[@MatthewRaifman]

@@CreativeScott1992 you *might* find the 300 to be a little short for that. It depends. For atmospheric wildlife shots, it is amazing. If you want bird portraits, it is short. The image quality and sharpness cannot be matched though!

[@sswildlifevideos]

Beautiful shots and excellent explanation, I use the 100-500 on the R7 for similar reasons. I’ll definitely look into a 300 2.8 if an RF one comes out for the R7!

[@MatthewRaifman]

Thank you! I’ve been loving the work you’ve been sharing in the various groups. The RF one should come eventually!

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

@@MatthewRaifman me too :) Shravan does some beautiful work :)

[@ZE3kr]

now the canon has rf100-300 2.8. Should be better than ef 300 2.8 in terms of sharpness

[@MatthewRaifman]

@@ZE3kr yes, reportedly it is sharper. I’m not sure I’d recommend it though for wildlife. Typically one wants more reach than that. And for half the cost of the rf 100-300 f/2.8, you can pick up an ef 500 f4

[@sswildlifevideos]

@@MatthewRaifman I agree. I'm waiting for the RF 500 f4 or just gonna get the RF 400 2.8. That 100-300 is expensive and not light.

[@ashleymadison9380]

Justed ordered the original to use with my R5. Couldn't justify the price for the mk11. Looking forward to trying it.

[@MatthewRaifman]

Awesome. Great buy! Check the optics when you get it and make sure it’s solid because you can’t repair it easily with canon

[@ashleymadison9380]

@@MatthewRaifman I bought it through KEH. They assured me that it has been tested. And I have 21 days to return it for any reason. Any suggestions other than the obvious on how to check it for any issues?

[@MatthewRaifman]

@@ashleymadison9380 Perfect. Yeah, the obvious is what I’d look for. Check that the IS, AF, and manual focus ring all work. Then scan images to see if they are sharp across the frame and you don’t have one side sharper than other (decentered) but should be ok.

[@birdsofrey]

Ah thanks for making this video! I am looking for a new lens to help me with photographing owls at dusk and this is the exact info I've been trying to find for weeks! 🙏 The comments were so helpful too, sounds like a lot of people considering similar options. I'm torn between this lens, a 500 F4 II, and the 400 DO II. Leaning towards this one because I want to keep shooting handheld and I like the idea of more light - Just worried about the reach. If you could choose the 500 F4 II over this, would you? With that one, Im mainly worried about the weight because I don't love being on a tripod. Have you tried that lens before?

[@Aviator168]

The depth of field is still the same whether using a full-frame or crop sensor, and the bokeh is still the same.

[@Mr48374837]

Very interesting. I have a similar combo with EF 400mm L IS II and it’s just mind blowing however the buffer is terribly slow and at times it’s a pain in the back when your subject moves and you’re left with no extra shots. So, how’s it going with you?

[@MatthewRaifman]

Yeah, no question the r7 can be frustrating to shoot with. I find the wobbles to be most irritating to me. Do you handhold the 400 f/2.8 ii? About 8.5lbs if I remember correctly. I have wondered if that’s a better option for a lens I use on the r7 and r5

[@Mr48374837]

@@MatthewRaifman yes I handhold the lens and it’s pretty okay, but gets heavier by the day.

[@Jessehermansonphotography]

I was new to your channel so what would you suggest, overall. R7 with the 300mm f2.8 or the R5 and 100-500. Sure they are different but which would you choose overall for image quality, keepers, etc etc.

[@MatthewRaifman]

Hey! Welcome. Great question. Generally, I’d say get the R5 and the 100-500. The R5 is a better camera due to the better shutter and full frame 45 mp sensor. It’s more versatile and the files coming from it are nicer. The faster sensor readout speed and softer mechanical shutter means that you will get more keepers when shooting with the R5. The 100-500 is an extremely sharp lens and the photos can be amazing either that combo in good light. It doesn’t offer great depth of field to isolate subject unless you are close to the subject. The benefit of the R7 and 300 combo that you get exceptional glass at in a more affordable and lighter package than the full frame equivalent (500 or 600 f4). The 300 f/2.8 is sharper than the 100-500 and more contrasty. Also if you are shooting in lower light conditions and/or you want blown out backgrounds then the R7 and 300 f/2.8 is worth considering. For me, personally, I find the rolling shutter of the R7 to be so frustrating that I would just get the R5. I think I’ve gotten certain shots with the maximum pixels on subject of that R7 that I might not have gotten with the r5. I also prefer the slightly more customizable AF of the R7 over the R5. I’ve gotten extremely good images with the R7 but it makes you work harder for them than the more effortless R5.

[@Jessehermansonphotography]

@@MatthewRaifman great breakdown. That definitely complicates some of my thought process. lol I haven’t shot 24mp in so long that I am not sure I could do the R6ii but I owned the R6 and liked it. I went back to Nikon D850 because I was expecting the z8 or z7iii but I have given up on that and the R7 with the 300mm seemed like a great option since I shot the 500pf and think that is a good focal length for me. I appreciate you input, it helps for sure

[@MatthewRaifman]

@@Jessehermansonphotography Yeah for sure. It’s just about budget. If you have the money, the R5 is recommended. The R5 will become cheaper as the R5ii is expected this year. The R7 is an excellent camera for its price. Also, you might look at the Sony A7IV with the 200-600G lens. That’s a very good combo and is in the same price bracket. I used to shoot the d850. Amazing camera! I miss it some days.

[@davepastern]

you must have more light there than we do down under!!! Using a 500f4 IS (mark 1) at f4 with the R3 in the dense temperate rainforest canopy of Lamington National Park saw me shooting down like at 1/400, f4 and ISO 25600 and still have the images underexposed by ~ half a stop.

[@MatthewRaifman]

Yeah, I suppose we might compared to dense rainforest. We don’t have any rainforest in New England! The lower light situations I shoot in are more due to time of day (sunrise/sunset) than due to foliage. I’m envious of your shooting conditions though!

[@Tzunami07]

Your das Looks Like a nice Person you are blessed

[@angelogarciajr5356]

That is pretty cool. I would like to see you use that set up for Friday night lights (football). I use my EF 300 f2.8 for friday night lights paired with my 1Dx series 1 or my R6 and it works great in low light sports. F4 might not work too well paired with my R7. I might try it because I cant afford a 400 and would like more reach. Be great for day games. Experiment time. Thx

[@MatthewRaifman]

Thanks for the comment. The light coming through to the sensor will be the same as your other cameras, so it shouldn’t be an issues for low light. However, I would be more concerned with the field of view being tighter. I bet you’d get some great portrait shots in the field. Test it out!

[@ikoknyphausen198]

I do not understand the DOF calculation you mentioned. This lens projects the exact same image on to the back of the camera. A crop sensor will only capture a smaller section of said projected image. In other words, if the tip of the subjects nose is sharp and the earlobes are sharp, but the mullet is getting blurred out, it will be the same regardless of whether you take the portrait on a crop sensor or full frame. As you already pointed out the amount of available light is also the same for both sensor sizes.

[@MatthewRaifman]

Ah yes. Ok, the idea I was trying to convey is that in order to fill the frame with the same capture (a form of equivalence, image equivalence perhaps?) you would need to step back and the depth of field would be that of around f/4.

[@bastienjorignenaturaliste]

Hey, Thanks for sharing your experience. I am also shooting with the 300mm f2.8 II + R6II (and the R6 before that) and it performs very well. This is an amazing lens and the autofocus performs even better since I switched from dslr (5DIII) to mirrorless. Actually I use it almost continuously with the 2x TC III extender attached (for birds), the loss of quality and AF velocity is very low (videos and stills) and totally acceptable. The IQ is marvelous even with the 2x TC, especially if you manage to fill enough space in the frame with your subject. Cheers

[@MatthewRaifman]

It’s such a wonderful lens. It’s really a testimony to its sharpness that it can handle the crop sensor and 1.4x TC too. I have often wondered if the less would perform well with the R6II and I’m intrigued by that combo. When I used the 2x TC with it on the R5, it lost a little too much IQ for my liking. It could be my copy of the TC but it could have also been that the 45 mp were too demanding when the 2x is attached. I’m holding my breath for the R5ii though and resisting the urge to pick up the R6ii. Looks like a phenomenal piece of kit though.

[@Jessehermansonphotography]

Nice! I sold the R7 because the shutter shock. Now that I know what it is, I am actually buying it again. Debating the ver 1 or ver2 of this exact setup. I don’t have a lot of actual reviews of the resolution of the ver1 (is) Glad to hear this is killer

[@MatthewRaifman]

Ugh, I’m with you. The body is seriously hampered by shutter options. Mechanical had the shutter shock and ES has rolling shutter but you can certainly get extremely high detail, sharp images in ES. It’s just a lower hit rate despite great AF. The heavier lens makes it a little harder to steady the body and reduce rolling shutter in ES. I’ve never used the v1, only v2, but I’ve heard from folks that the v1 is basically the same level of sharpness just less IS and not quite as good with TCs.

[@davepastern]

​@@MatthewRaifman the shutter readout speed for the R7 is very slow, somewhere along the lines of ~60ms (the original R6 is around 37ms from memory, and the R5 much lower at 17ms). I elected to go with the R3 because of this - having a good shot with rolling shutter ruining the background just would ruin images for me. Until Canon adopts BSI stacked sensors more commonly, this will continue to be an issue. I personally think the r7 is sub-standard - poor high ISO performance, rolling shutter issues, poor UI and no battery grip. They are all deal breakers for me. I really wish Canon would have done a pro oritentated APS-C camera and thought things through properly, rather than offering a sub-standard product.

[@MatthewRaifman]

@@davepastern I couldn’t agree with you more. I have owned both the R7 and R5 and the rolling shutter on the R7 is outrageous. It also has really bad shutter slap. I wish they had put a much faster sensor and added the third wheel for the R7. I would have absolutely paid an extra $1000 for a mirrorless upgrade to the 7Dmkii. I’m holding my breath for a 60 mp R5ii that will have a crop mode. All that said, my hit rate is much lower with the R7 than it is with the R5 but I do always get a few frames that are exceptionally sharp and well framed with with the crop effective field of view and the sensor does render nice images. ISO is surprisingly ok. I suspect they updated the 90D sensor in this regard. I can shoot at ISO 10000 without much trouble after processing with DxO.

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

I rented the R7, and took the first 200 shots with MS. OMG ! It sounding like I was slapping a spatula on an aluminum cookie sheet ! And I had blurred shots as fast as 1/250th ! Horrible ! I then switched to ES and has SO many sharp shots, all the way down to 1/40th :) Loved it so much I ordered one of my own, before even returning the rental :) Funny thing is, I already own the R5, but now I'm wondering how much, if ever, I will use it anymore ?

[@davepastern]

@@Chris_Wolfgram so, you're saying the R7 is better than the R5? Righto...

[@jamesseward9263]

I use the same setup and it beats buying a 400mm f2.8 for carrying around! Lol! A lot cheaper too! Lol! Well it’s only f4.5 depth of field is you multiply the distance to your subject by 1.6 to get the same field of view of a 300mm. If the distance remains the same then it’s an actual f2.8 depth of field. In all cases the light gathering exposure remains same whether full frame or crop. I’m I correct? With a 1.4 then it’s an f4 depth of field and exposure at the same distance without. Correct? 😊 Great video! Thanks 👍

[@MatthewRaifman]

Yeah, totally! So much lighter. I'd love the 600 f/4 mk iii at just over 6 lbs but that simply isn't happening. Yes, I think you've got it. There are a lot of ways to think about this and this is a great tool for visualizing depth of field: dofsimulator.net/en/. Most discussions talk about change distance to the subject, but we don't have that choice in wildlife photography so I typically think of the distance as fixed. In my head, I'm comparing basically an R5 + 500 f/4 to the R7 + 300 f/2.8 (perhaps ignoring the difference between 45 mp and 33 mp and pixel size for a moment). The field of view is basically the same between the two combinations. At a distance of 10 meters, the R5+500 f/4 will have a DoF of 8.8cm. At the same distance, the R7+300 f/2.8 will have a DoF of 10.8cm. Slightly more DoF (because it's a 480mm f/4.5 equiv) but close. And absolutely, the light gathering capability determined by the entrance pupil does not change.

[@jamesseward9263]

@@MatthewRaifman i totally agree! 👍 Another thing you can consider with the R7 is using a speed boost which may not give you shallower depth of field but will definitely give you an extra stop of light and almost full frame field of view. 😉

[@kennethcheong4498]

Nice video. I have this exact combo and love it, even with the 1.4x and the 2x TCs. For the EF TCs, you need to use the mk iii versions, as those are the best.

[@MatthewRaifman]

Yes absolutely. The mark iii versions are ideal

[@matthewbell1968]

I'm thinking of getting this exact same combo for my R7, currently I've got the 100-500 which is essentially very good but 7.1 is a limit. So you can go r7-ef/RF adaptor/TC/300mm f2.8 as a set up, do you still get all the AF points? How do you find the AF performance? I guess with the crop factor you've got a 672mm lens at f4??

[@kennethcheong4498]

@@matthewbell1968 I've since gotten the R6ii as my main body. The R7 I still use when I need more reach. As for your questions, AF points, yes all work. AF performance is still good, though I prefer the R6ii.

[@matthewbell1968]

@@kennethcheong4498 thanks for that, much appreciated 👍

[@MatthewRaifman]

@@matthewbell1968 yup, you get all the Af point and the focusing is fast. It’s probably not quite as fast as the rf100-500 with its dual USMs but I couldn’t really tell. For the field of view/effective focal lengths on the r7: 300mm f/2.8 becomes 480mm With 1.4x TC, 420mm f/4 For light hitting the sensor the aperture is consistent with full frame (ie f/2.8 or f/4). For effective depth of field, multiple the aperture by 1.6x Let me know if you have other questions

[@vitorthomecechetto4384]

With the first version, or II ?

[@MatthewRaifman]

Version 2 but I know folks getting great results with the version 1

[@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife]

Thanks for the video! I am planning a trip to Hawaii for our 10th wedding anniversary. I can’t bring my EF 600mm f4 II lens (as much as I would like to!!) so I’m looking at options. I have the 100-500L with my R6 and I will probably bring it for more environmental landscapes, but compared to the big lenses it absolutely sucks IF you are really a picky professional in terms of background blur. Plus the low light issues and I’m not going to bring my better Beamer flash so I’ll be limited in deep forests. So I’m looking at the EF 300mm 2.8 II versus the EF 400mm DO II lenses. Have you used the DO? I know it’s a great option but I think the 300 can serve as a better “zoom option” with all the TC IIIs to use. So if the birds are close I can just use the bare lens or with a 1.4. I don’t think I can afford an R7 on top of another lens so I’m debating the lenses right now only. Also I’m selling my amazing 11-24 f4 L lens even though it’s awesome, it’s such a pain to lug around being so huge. Your lens has much better close focus than the version 1 300 I hear? I think I’ll try to find the second version but if you have any experience with the DO II please let me know thanks man!!

[@MatthewRaifman]

Nice! Firstly, congratulations! You've reminded me that my 10th is coming up next year and I should start planning now. :-) Definitely agree that the 100-500 will be a good travel choice that gets you a lot of coverage and will be useful for wildlife and landscapes. I haven't shot the 400mm DO II, but I did consider it and chose the 300 f/2.8 because it gives one the versatility of a low light champion and performs very well with the TCs. From the reviews I've seen, I think the 300mm is sharper than the 400, which would explain why it performs better with the TCs and it also is a bit cheaper on the used market, I think. Not sure if you're talking about buying or renting, but I would probably rent a lens for the trip over buying just in case you weren't considering that already. Yes, that's right. The 300 mk ii can focus a bit closer (6.5 feet vs a little over 8 feet) than the mk i version. If you're shooting in daylight, though, the 100-500 is WAY better for close focusing (3ft) and max magnification. I think the 300 f/2.8 paired with the 100-500 is a nice combo though because you have a low light performer that can deliver great blurry backgrounds when you want it with the 300 f/2.8 and a lighter weight lens for BIF tracking and landscapes with the 100-500. Just my two cents. You can't go wrong probably. I hope you have a great trip!

[@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife]

@@MatthewRaifman thanks Matt!! I just came from the beach this morning, here in NC. It’s in the 60s today, crazy! I’m trying to photograph the Razorbill that migrate up this way. They pop up out of the water every now and then. I didn’t get him today but I’ll try again the end of the week!! The 600mm on a gimbal, I admit I’ve been shooting since 2008, mostly handheld with the 400mm f 5.6 and then the 500mm f 4.5 before I purchased the 600mm about 5 years ago. It’s funny but I always hated the gimbal until I got better at it. Now it’s actually very effective for me, even with flight shots. But the handheld ability of the smaller lenses is so fun and freeing. I’m a hobbyist bodybuilder so the weight isn’t too bad and I get lean from all the heavy carrying lol so it has its benefits. But it’s so nice to just run and gun!! I am probably gonna take your recommendation for the 300mm and I totally get that renting for Hawaii would be a great option. But I am stubborn and the thought of spending $400 to rent a lens that I could instead put money towards is frustrating to think. But you got a point, I may not need it all the time. Still thinking this over though! I appreciate the congrats. With my personality, I am a lot like Owen Wilson in the Big Year (hopefully you have seen it) so I have to try to be better as a man in that I don’t focus completely on the birds on the honeymoon lol. I do tend to prioritize birds sometimes and it’s a fault of mine. Have you been to Hawaii? They say there are a lot of birds there, so I’ll have my hands full!! I’ll keep you posted if I get the lens. Still also considering that 400mm DO II as well. Some of the best action bird photographers have used the lens with the 1.4 and 2x with great results!! The only downside is the MFD is not great. Although it’s not usually a problem for birds unless they are right in front of you. Thanks again sir!!

[@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife]

@@MatthewRaifmanI’m still on the fence!! I have an R6 and I use it mostly on mechanical shutter. Do you get the shutter shock issue with the R7 and the lens? Do you use electronic mostly to prevent this? Still debating this lens versus the 400mm DO. Please advise thank you.

[@MatthewRaifman]

@@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife hey! The shutter shock issue is driven more by the camera I believe. You shouldn’t have issues on the R6, right? Both mechanical and electronic shutters on the R5 provide reliably sharp shots in my experience and I would think the R6 would too. I’ve actually been thinking about trading in the ef 300 f/2.8 mk ii for either a 500 f/4 or the 400 f/4 do ii so I think it’s smart to consider. It’s about the reach. I’m ditching the R7 and going back to using the R5 because I found the shutter options to be too frustrating on the R7. With full frame, the 300 isn’t enough focal length for birding on its own. How did you like the 500 f4.5. It’s ancient, but lightweight compared to the 500 f4 mk I. Not sure I can’t afford the 500 f4 mk ii at this point, but that’s probably what I’ll aim for.

[@gary_michael_flanagan_wildlife]

@@MatthewRaifman hey buddy! This is exactly why the purchase has been so difficult. I own and love the 600mm II lens and it’s phenomenal. Even sharper than the new RF version. And that is saying something. With the 2x at f10, it’s very difficult to tell you have an extender on. And I am a picky b$stard lol. It’s a tough call. Focal length is everything. For you, the 500 II would probably be best. BECAUSE the 600 II is just so heavy that it’s great on the ground for shorebirds and for birds in forests on a tripod. But you will miss the handheld fun that you have now and that I had with the old 500. So it depends how important hand held is for you. I’m a bodybuilder and it’s still tough to handhold the big 600. And certainly not for long. I will probably go with the DO lens but if we are patient I think there are some great new canon lenses coming out soon. I may still get the 300 but it’s hard to go that low from a larger lens and focal length you are right. But I like that you can handhold the 300 and if you can get close, you have a great combo there. It’s a tough call man!! And the old 500 was great! I have sold quite a few images taken with that lens. I also won some contests with my 400mm f 5.6 too so they are all good!! Good luck though!!

[@YouSnoozeYouNooze]

You might consider a Deity or Rode shotgun mic

[@MatthewRaifman]

Haha yeah. Audio was garbage. Got the pocket 3 with wireless lav coming. Figure I can shield that from the wind.

[@weaverrealestatephotograph7716]

Which version of the extenders were you using?

[@MatthewRaifman]

Mark III. Definitely recommend using the mark III TCs with any of canon’s mk ii or mk iii great whites.

[@jeromeThailande]

I have the non IS ,not good with x2 converter exept at f14 ,the 300f4 works well with the x2 for 400 bucks, mine has the blades stuck at f4 and f4.5 but it's still perfect even with the x2 ,I bought an other one but it's hazy ,it's hard to find one good, I bought a third one non IS even better

[@MatthewRaifman]

Yeah, you definitely take on a bit more of the struggle when buying used gear. Hopefully you were able to return those?

[@jeromeThailande]

@@MatthewRaifman no I had a post paid discount on the hazy one ,that's all but the f4 is very cheep 400 bucks

[@vintermane_2728]

What’s your opinion on the 400mm 5.6 for those on a budget with the r7?

[@MatthewRaifman]

Great budget option! I love the build quality of that lens and the attached lens hood. It’s very sharp. My copy was sharper stopped down, so something to consider. No IS puts a lot of burden for stabilization on IBIS which isn’t great for telephotos. You might consider either that lens or the rf 100-400 f/5.6-8. It’s a very sharp lens but obviously will suffer more in lower light situations. That said it has IS and is very light. If you plan to stop the 400 f/5.6 down to f/6.3 or f/7.1 it isn’t that big a difference. Just a thought!

[@vintermane_2728]

@@MatthewRaifman thanks so much for the reply! I’ve been looking at a few different options and had similar thoughts on that lens.. I’ll take your thoughts into consideration!

[@mvp_kryptonite]

@@vintermane_2728 the 400L 5.6 is great IMO, as Matt says, no IBIS so watch your shutter speed but at the price they go for now used, you can find a gem

[@matthewbell1968]

Is that lens on the r7 approved list? I think I read somewhere that it wasn't but I could be wrong....

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

This is a very interesting lens option. I just so rarely shoot as short as 480 or 600mm.... My RF 800 F11 is certainly slow, but the 1280mm equivalent suits me more more often. + light, and cheap :)

[@tc6912]

Amazing that we are talking about an ISO cap of 12800.

[@MatthewRaifman]

I know, it’s remarkably. You definitely lose dynamic range that high but the image quality is still reasonable to my eye

[@inzkulozik]

Has anyone seen a comparison between that lens and the RF100-500?"

[@MatthewRaifman]

Ah, I had both at the same time and wish I had done a proper comparison. Ultimately I took the ef 300 out more than the 100-500 because sharpness was comparable but the DoF was preferable on the 300. Any morning or evening session, the 300 f/2.8 is much preferred due to more light gathering.

[@Hodenkat]

It's a very nice lens, but at $6000 US it's just not in a lot of people's price range. Almost literally twice the cost of the 100-500 which itself are out of many photographers price range.

[@MatthewRaifman]

No question it’s pricey. I bought mine used for a lot less. Also, as I mention in the video, the ef 300mm f/2.8 IS mk i provides similar performance with a little more weight for less than the rf 100-500 used. And in addition, the non-IS original ef 300 f/2.8 is also excellent and can be had for less than $1k used. Plenty of options in this range for all budgets.

[@ArcanePath360]

Nice, but why does your audio sound like you are talking into a phone? I would invest in a decent lav mic if you want to get the subs you deserve for your content

[@MatthewRaifman]

Yea, hate the audio on this. This was recorded with the Dji mic that comes with the Dji pocket but it was insanely windy. Figured better to hear my words and cut the wind rumble in lower frequencies than have the wind noise. Is there a mic you’d recommend? I agree with you!

[@ArcanePath360]

@@MatthewRaifman You don't need to spend a fortune, and I've found recording with a phone's basic sound recorder with a fairly cheap shotgun mic on a short wire (shorter wires get less interference) gives pretty good results. In wind, just be sure to have a big fluffy dead mouse cover on it. You get them for lav mics too which might suit you better. But no matter what, using a program like Davinci Resolve can cut out external sounds with it's AI voice isolation and make it sound more pro with a multiband compressor. I've saved bad audio with software alone. What I've learned NEVER to do is use the audio from the camera if I can help it... I only use this to sync the audio I captured with my phone to. In Resolve, you can auto align 2 audio tracks automatically so it takes seconds, or just look at the waveform and align yourself. For some reason the amp in cameras, even new ones like the R7 just spit out so much noise with hiss and rumble, no matter what mic you plug into it. My cheap Huawei phone has a noise free amp (though you need a different connector, which my mic came with for phones) and the sound quality is night and day. I have the Deity D4 mini which sits on my camera and hook it up to my phone out of the shot. A shotgun mic like that does a good job isolating noise more to what is directly in front of it, filtering out the rest. It comes with a wind filter and the 2 types of connectors to fit to a phone or camera

[@robertwlittlejohn]

depth of field doesn't change just because you're using a crop sensor.

[@MatthewRaifman]

It depends on how you think about it. From a technical definition, sure. But from a practical use case, if one has a full frame with at 500 f/4 on it and a crop sensor with a 300 f/2.8 on it. If you match the field of view, the depth of field will look the same in the two lenses. This is my point. Alternatively, if you put the 300 f/2.8 on a full frame and walk toward the subject such that the field of view matches the 300 f/2.8 on the crop sensor, then the depth of field will be more shallow on the full frame.

[@robertwlittlejohn]

@@MatthewRaifman appreciate the response. I guess i get frustrated that many out there think the depth of field of the lens changes somehow when it's put on a crop camera. As you said it's the field of view that actually changes...Getting a lens for a crop camera that's equivalent in both field of view and depth of field to a particular full frame lens is the difficulty....

[@MatthewRaifman]

@@robertwlittlejohn Absolutely, I think I understand it though admittedly my head starts to cloud over sometimes when analyzing it all. You're absolutely right though, that is the challenge. For the sake of precision, I appreciate you mentioning it because I do try to be precise with my language though I often fail. Have a good day.

[@robertwlittlejohn]

@@MatthewRaifman yes it confuses many...i started with micro four thirds where crop "issues" are even more magnified (pardon the pun)...i spent the first 6 months trying to figure out what the hell people were talking about...luckily R7 owners are looking for reduced field of view...not a lens that looks exactly like a 50mm F1.4 does on their R5...

[@untouchable360x]

I am not buying a lens that costs more than my car.

[@MatthewRaifman]

Fair enough. If interested in a lower cost option, check out the ef 300 f/2.8 with no IS. Under $1000. Just get a good copy because repairs are challenging on older glass.