Best primes for wildlife photography: 400 vs 500 vs 600mm pros & cons

[@alexandermckown1409]

Best Wishes for "Camera Lady". Hope swift return to good health. Alex

[@BrentHall]

Thanks Alex!

[@RichardBO9]

Very timely video. An hour ago I was trying to photograph elk 200 ft away with my 70-200. Need a longer lens. Torn between an 200-800 and the EF 400mm DO ii. I don’t usually shoot birds. Mostly elk, deer, and horses. I have noticed how much difference your 500 has made to your image quality over the RF 100-500 you had. I’m loving my R5. Should have sucked it up and made that purchase 4 cameras ago. 🤠

[@Infernosaint]

Just came back from Scotland myself, where we rented the RF 400 2.8, and it was amazing to use! Mostly had the 2x extender on, so if I would ever be able to, I would probably get a 600. Nice to see some shots from your trip, and looking forward to the next video. And wishing a speedy recovery!

[@i7Aziko]

Great video as always, Brent! Wishing you and Camera Lady all the best :)

[@BrentHall]

Thanks, I appreciate that!

[@SimoneSteuxner]

thanks for this great video, it was a first for me and exactly what I was looking for. I for sure will check out more of your videos! Best wishes for the camera lady, hope she is well soon! Greetings from northern Sweden. :)

[@BrentHall]

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[@mabramek]

thank you for all your thoughts, it's very helpful

[@lcador9]

I certainly sympathize with your left arm issues and limitations. Such is why I added the Nikon 600mm f/6.3 with a 1.4TC to my 600mm f/4 option. At "half the weight" and when light is good, it is my lens of choice. Shooting both at f/8, the images produced are equally wonderful. I must admit that having superior post-processing skills does help ameliorate most initial image quality differences.

[@BrentHall]

That is such an awesome lens! I wish Canon had something like it.

[@peterlebengood7160]

Always enjoy your content whether it’s talking bits or taking photos. Hang in there and hope Camera Lady can bounce back soon.

[@BrentHall]

Many thanks!

[@terryleasa161]

I'm fortunate enough to own the RF600f4. I absolutely love love love the lens.

[@BrentHall]

It really is incredible!

[@ilpoheikkila4773]

Great video again!

[@mikecastles]

Hired a 100-400 tamron for my trip earlier this year, and it was the minimum I would recommend. Good video and sending my best to you, camera lady and the whole family.

[@cerealkiller4248]

I have a 500/4 for use on my R6. Previously, I used the 500/4 with a 7D and a 1.4xTC I had been waiting forever for Canon to release the R7, I eventually gave up and went FF. The very thing I was worried about disappeared, I now use my 500/4 bare, no TC's, and i find it great. You shouldn't be shooting small birds from 20m then cropping the pic to death anyway. It seems hard to take a bad pic with a big white prime. Once it locks focus, you're good to go. The IBIS on the R6 allows me to handhold. With a Black Rapid strap, its very versatile as a walkaround set up.

[@DwainHannibal]

Great video Brent I have used my Canon 500 mm f4 L IS II, mainly with the 1.4x III paired with the R5 for the past year and half. Your mention about travel is very accurate, I have traveled to Florida, Canada a few times and Costa Rica (from Oregon) during that time. The lens is super sharp but I have been fortunate enough to move up to the RF 600mm f4 so I don’t need it any longer. The used camera companies want to low ball everyone and then mark the price up by 2+ grand. So, if anyone is looking for an excellent lens and extender and wants to save money, let me know. The lens is in excellent condition, no scratches. Cheers!

[@MS-yk3yu]

What is the price you are willing to part with that lens?

[@DwainHannibal]

@@MS-yk3yu​​⁠$4500 with the 1.4 teleconverter (version 3) and the RRS foot with built in arca Swiss mount. All caps and hard case included.

[@hsmphoto]

Am not sure of a viable option for most here, or even for myself in the long run, but this is how my options have progressed over the 5 years I've been at it and still mostly a hobbyist ofc. Started with the nikon 200-500/5,6 , and later aquired a Sigma 500/4,5 prime since found it on a local forum for 600 usd. After setting up my own tests to compare the 2 at 500 I found the sigma prime to be superior. Then traded in these 2 and some other stuff to get my first pro lens in the 300/2.8 vr. Really wanted to try this cause where I live is in the darker north, and most shots I really liked so far have been larger mammals. The quality was a big step up again for the shots that had the animal big enough in the frame. I did test this one with various tc's versus cropping in, and found the 1,4 tc to be a clear winner if something is small in the frame - clearer nutrition lable on small bottle etc vs cropping in. So I think I've ended up in a good spot with a large range of options. Still haven't used crop mode on my ff, but will try this out as well for potential benifits to autofocus etc. Really like these small birds in the forest. So with one lens, a tc, and crop mode I can have the wide range of 300/2.8 to something equvalent to 630 mm f4 or f5,6 depending on how you see it, without any noticable falloff in iq I believe. Apologize for the long text. Thanks for a great channel.

[@cathco9]

Great video. Thanks, Brent! Feel better, Camera Lady.

[@jefferyrobbins3468]

Hope Camera Lady feels better. Sorry to hear that. I also have the EF 500 f4 II prime, which I bought used, for my Canon R5, which I always hand hold. 500mm isn't enough reach most of the time for birds, so my 1.4x (III) teleconverter lives on that lens, and I like shooting at f5.6, f6.3, f8 anyways. The lens is excellent in regards to build quality and optical quality (for when razor sharp photos are a must). However, I'm not a big fan of f4 lenses because they are usually not enough DOF wide open at distances which I like to photograph smaller birds (20 to 30 feet away), they are big, heavy, not pleasant to hike with, and expensive (including repairs). To save a few ounces on mine, I use a portable nylon Velcro-on lens hood. But it is OK when I am photographing near my vehicle when I don't need to hike far, or doing 'setups', or in my backyard (startles people walking by though). My preference for a sharp prime that fits my needs would be the Nikon 600mm pf f6.3 lens. However, Canon has no equivalent lens like that and I don't really want to support 2 brands of cameras. For hiking around (which is what I do most), I currently use the Canon RF 100-500mm, but again, my 1.4x lives on that lens so it isn't ideal because of that, since it will only zoom back to 420mm. I'd like to try the 200-800 zoom, but I can't find one for sale yet. Nikon seems to have the best selection of wildlife lenses that check all the boxes. Kind regards

[@lcador9]

I love my Nikon 600mm f/6.3 and Z8 combination. My only regret is not dumping the Canon gear sooner. I am 77 and am no longer reluctant to take a reasonable hike. I took the combination to Magee this spring and was delighted with the mobility the combination provided. I returned with about 200 superior warbler images after several prior years of somewhat disappointing results with much heaver and/or more limited reach options. Life is short!

[@sgpork]

Right. For long lenses. Nikon has the best or more selection available. I mean sure. All brand has the big prime. But dang. 1st not everyone CAN afford or WANT to spend that money for it. 2nd. Even if they can and have all the money to spend. Not EVERYONE want to carry something so big and long and heavy thing. Almost 2.8kg sometimes more. Lets just say 3kg. Out to the field not having to + other weight like camera body.. battery. Tripod maybe and etc. I wish other brand could come out with long lenses like Nikon that are also long prime but maybe 5.6 or 6.3 etc. not only 2.8 n f4. Heck if they can make 400 f2.8 or 600 f4. Smaller. Sub 2kg. Same af speed and imagine quality. Sure.. I’m sure many would even pay afew thousands more to get it. But nah. Currently. They are huge and heavy like heck. To bring out n use in the field really takes passion or unless someone pay the photographer enough.

[@Richardisonline]

Awesome.. thanks, Brent, for talking about this.. really appreciate it and wishing camera lady a speedy recovery 🙏 😁

[@marcinbaraniecki1034]

All the best for Camera Lady! Hope she will feel better soon!

[@Jonathantuba]

For me using the Sony system, the 300 GM f2.8 which just came out in March is perfect for wildlife photography hand held. At just over 3lb this is only half the weight of the 400 or 600 primes and works perfectly with teleconverters giving me additionally an 420mm f4 and 600mm f5.6 as I require. Currently in Alaska photographing bears, 300mm is fine, while when shooting birds I use continually with 2x teleconverter - and at $7k it is almost half the price as a bonus. Yes, I can’t go beyond 600mm, but my experience is it is very difficult to acquire target of flying birds at 840mm+, and even then atmospheric distortion beyond 600mm is far more often an issue. So this new 300 has really changed my wildlife photography life, particularly as someone in my 60’s less able to hold a heavy prime for prolonged periods.

[@BrentHall]

That's definitely an incredible lens!

[@Proacguy2-vi6cv]

Great video. I have the 300 mm F 2.8 sometimes used with a 1.4 converter. I also use a zoom 150 to 600 mm F 5 to 6.3 and Nikon P950 25 to 2000 mm F 2.8 to 6.3. This covers my needs for wildlife photography.

[@bhekking]

Very informative! None of these options are in my price range, but hoping for some decent 3rd party lenses...someday

[@BrentODell]

I think the Sigma 500/5.6 for Sony E and L-Mount looks interesting, but I don't have either system so have no way to test or need to buy one. Obviously, it's a stop slower, but it's also only about 9 inches long and around 3.5 pounds. I hope Camera Lady recovers soon! Being sick sucks so bad.

[@ElBoyoElectronico]

I own the RF100-500 and my main subject are birds. I have been saving up for the RF600 f4 for quite some time, but I am nowhere near close to having the funds ready. As a father of two and husband I am glad to have a wife that approves of my hobby and someday I will buy that lens. One thing a lot of people tend to forget, a lens like that is quite a stable investment, meaning it will hold its value for quite a while. As someone who is mainly focused on birds the 600mm is my most logical choice.

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

My best wishes for you and especially Camera Lady.

[@BrentHall]

Hey thanks John, I really appreciate it!

[@RogerZoul]

I hope camera lady gets well soon! Somehow, of late, I find myself in a situation where I own three (3) big Canon teles: the EF 400 mm F4 DO mk 2, the EF 500 mm F4L mk 2, and the RF 600 mm F4L. That 400 DO is so small and compact that I would never part with it and it works well on my R7. The RF 600 is my new goodness and, as you said, weighs less than the 500. So now the 500 mm F4L mk 2, which is in great shape, needs a new home. It is a great lens, but I just wanted to own one before I leave this earth. It is retirement present from me to me.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

Best wishes for a speedy n full recovery for the camera lady’

[@TooGood79]

Cool Video Brent. I was considering these very options for a purchase next summer. My needs are a bit different than yours since sports are my main focus and income but I love waking up at 4:30 in the morning to go out and shoot the amazing PNW wildlife! With that being said, I have the RF 100-300 but was considering whether to purchase the RF 400 2.8 or Go up to the RF 600 4. Of course the 400 would be more conducive for sports but the 600 could kind of handle both sports and wildlife (Albeit sports would have to be paired with the 100-300) Anyways, thanks for the pros and Cons viewpoint on some things to consider outside of just reach and aperture. I hope Camera lady heals up soon!

[@ronjenkins4257]

A budget consideration: EOS R7? Is the gain in reach from APSC obviated by loss in image quality? Noise reduction software is pretty amazing these days.

[@BrentHall]

The R7 is definitely a worthy budget camera. I owned one for a while and certainly got some great stuff with it. Ultimately though, it let me down too many times and I just got more frustrated than not with using it, so I sold it. Not saying it's a super bad camera or anything, just wasn't for me.

[@Hvitkinn]

So happy with my Olympus 300 f4 😊

[@baramirm1509]

Thank you for another great video. One point worth considering is the value when selling your lens again. The EF lenses will probably lose more value than the RF ones. Maybe this can influence some decisions? It certainly influenced mine.😊 Hope Camera Lady gets well soon, greetings from Switzerland 🇨🇭 , Barbara

[@rickgonzalez6345]

Really appreciate your efforts, i hope Camera a lady gets better soon!!!

[@BrentHall]

Many thanks!

[@billmac1956]

I like your thinking always like your videos I use the R5 have the 500mm f4 is ii and should use it more as its a great lens however i tend to use the RF100-500mm.

[@BrentHall]

The 1-5 is an awesome lens. Hard to beat for portability and performance.

[@mikeandjoannie]

Family always comes first. Hoping Camera Lady turns the corner soon! Thanks for the video.

[@paulgranone3662]

The Sigma 500mm f/5.6 DG DN OS Sports Lens (Sony E) has been a fantastic lens on my Sony A7 IV. The Sigma 500mm is the perfect size and weight for hiking and taking photos hand held. The Sigma 500mm is currently available in Sony E and Leica L. Maybe some day Canon will allow 3rd Party Full Frame lenses so Canon users can benefit.

[@Shannon-q2n]

God speed to you all! Get well soon and you rock!😁💛

[@crxbb9506]

Great video , interesting comparison. Hope your spouse has a quick recovery

[@BrentHall]

Thanks man, that's much appreciated!

[@darinl848]

i shot some birds yesterday with my RF 200-800mm and over 90% were at 800mm but i would like more background separation and more reach as some of these shots were heavily cropped. i was considering a fast prime with a TC but my biggest concern is the WEIGHT.

[@BroScro]

I'm shooting with an aps-c, fuji x-t4. i shoot in some partly shady woods with a 90 f2 and an 80mm macro 2.8. Trying to get reach and shoot birds in these trees. Do pro quality photos in this scenario require an f4 or wider supertelephoto prime lens to be captured? or do you think i can get by with a fuji 150-600mm f5.6-8 zoom lens?

[@philipphill9518]

I am willing to cut a lot of corners for both reach and portability, which seem opposed to one another, until you consider the RF800/11, which works very well for my purposes. Sure, my ISO is mostly stuck at 6400 but the R6 sensor and modern noise reduction make that an easily fixable problem.

[@jfphotography69]

Been shooting the Sigma 500mm f4 sports for four years now with excellent results, it's also tac sharp with the Sigma 1.4X TC. Been shooting it with the D850 with the battery grip, and for the last two years with the Z9, which is a D850 on steroids. I also pretty much shoot the Sigma 500mm f4 sports hand held, and I am 55 years old, only time it's on a tripod is when I shoot video. Bought it new for $6K, the Nikon version was $10,300 and the Canon I believe is $9K. Would love to get the Nikon Z 400mm f2.8 1.4x TC, but even at the current sale price of $13K is a bit steep for my bank account.

[@danerio]

You could make an in-depth smartphone vs camera comparison video, as these high-end phones are more than enough for casual photography. It could be called “ does gear matter” or something like that.

[@HansMartinØvre]

Great video, but... Im an old guy, retired, and dont have that amount of money to buy my dreamlenses. And handheld, the wight is also a thing to think about. So, I have for now, ended up with a RF800/11 and a G2 150-600. I use the 800/11 the most, but are using the 150-600 when I can get close up to small birds. I dont have photo as a living, so Im fine with what I have. And I also live only 15 minutes from one of the most importent rest areas for migrating birds, in spring and fall, in the middle of my country. So even if I cant afford the best lenses on the marked, Im quit satisfied.

[@mgregorian]

What if you are in the jungle photographing in low light situations? 2.8 would be king over the F4 no?

[@gpfeiffer1]

Sorry to hear about your wife. Hope she feels better soon. Since I try to do a lot of birds in flight stuff, I just don’t see a prime as practical (or affordable). The 100-500 works well. The 200-800 is great for sitting birds, but unwieldy for all but big slow birds. Ok for eagles but impossible for swallows.

[@FQ8]

The older I get (I'm in my early 60s) the lighter I wanna go..and why I mostly use my R7/RF 100-400. Its a great lightweight combo. I'm also interested in the OM-1/100-400 for the same reason but the mrs will kill me LOL

[@BrentHall]

That's definitely the best lightweight combo out there! I absolutely love my RF 100-400 and keep it with me at all times. Great for travel, scouting, or just chill hiking outings.

[@terryleasa161]

Brent you should seriously check out Whistling Wings (Ron Bielefeld) speed shooter harness. I'm just a satisfied customer. I think with your bad arm it would work great for you.

[@crxbb9506]

I used Ron’s harness with a rented RF 600 F4 last winter at Bosque myself.

[@hstein27]

The RF 400 2.8 is so incredibly balanced, I can't believe it weighs over 6lbs. I have the EF 600 MK II and it's just not hand-holdable for me. Here's hoping there's an RF 200-500 f/4 zoom lens on the horizon to replace the EF 500. If it weighs less than the RF 600 it could be a good alternative....but stupid expensive I am sure.

[@BrentHall]

Yeah, the RF primes are so nice it's just stupid. I'd be curios about an RF 200-500, though I haven't heard anything serious about it. I think it's be VERY pricey and also probably kind of heavy as well.

[@vaooch8687]

Hey, do you think the canon 300mm f4 L IS with 2x converter could be a good wildlife lens on a mirorless body?

[@BrentHall]

I mean, if that's what you have, then you gotta make it work. I had that lens for a vey long time and I used it mostly with a 1.4x tc, which was okay, but not great. Personally I never had very good results with the 2X on it, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to get decent images, just more of a struggle.

[@vaooch8687]

@@BrentHall Okay, thank you for your reply, I don't own the lens, so I will go with the 800mm f11 for better image quality

[@timnichols3795]

I use Nikon's 500pf, and I will say that 500mm is nice, because you're close enough to 600mm that you can crop into 600mm if you need to without sacrificing all of your megapixels. I have also had scenarios where having the wider focal length has gotten me photographs that I wouldn't have been able to get with 600mm though. 500mm is a good focal length for photographers who primarily photograph ungulates. If you photograph dangerous mammals frequently (i.e. bears), or if you do a lot of bird photography, 600mm and 800mm are definitely better focal lengths. With all of that said, if someone would trade my 500pf for a 600 f/4, I'd take the deal without question.

[@PatrickSmeaton]

For most of my life, I never had anything longer than 400mm and it was almost always too short for wildlife, and always too short for birds. It was very frustrating. I have the Nikon 180-600mm lens now. That extra 200mm's is incredibly helpful...not that I don't still long for more focal length though. The ability to handhold my Zf and that 180-600mm at 1/80 is why I went with that combo. Otherwise I would've bought a used Canon body, the 400mm f/4 DO IS II, and both TC's.

[@davidbarr9475]

Question with the r6 mk.2. Is the 500 f4 version 1? Not a good pick? Or keep saving and go version 2? Thanks Brent great video

[@KevinNordstrom]

Hey David, I'm not sure on Brent's suggestion will be, but what I've researched is the mk1 is larger, heavier, older, (1999) and Canon no longer services the mk 1. So if the motor goes out, or you receive a bad copy, you got an expensive paperweight you wont be able to even resell. If you get a good copy of the mk1 it may be worth the savings, but honestly I'd probably save up a little more for the mk2. Which Canon still services, it's a little newer (2012) lighter, faster to focus on RF mount, and is sharper than the mk1. However it all comes down to budget. If all you can afford is the mk 1, if you pick up a good copy, it may be worth it, just understand Canon no longer services them.

[@davidbarr9475]

@KevinNordstrom oh cool hey thanks my friend. Just thinking about a 60th birthday for me. At end of August I'm getting the rf 100mm 2.8 and the rf 800mm f11 and bew camera bag/ backpack. This fall and winter is going to be fun. I love the Mindshift 26 liter green backpack

[@KevinNordstrom]

@@davidbarr9475 yeah i was looking into that same bag. Seems like its a solid bag. I have the 2.8 macro for flowers and insects. Its a great lens, i think you will like it.

[@BrentHall]

Yeah, what Kevin said is legit. It's not that it's not a good pick, but I think there's better options out there for the money. I think the mk i versions are in the same price ballpark as the RF 100-500 (maybe a bit cheaper?), and personally I'd rather have that than a mk i prime. It's got better tech, fluorine coatings (which the mk ii primes have) better IS and is native rf mount. You can definitely still get great stuff with the mk i primes though. I know quite a few people who have them and get awesome images out of them. I thought about getting a mk i so many times over the years, just because of the aperture and price, but in the end I valued all the other perks of the 1-5 over just the aperture, especially with tech getting better and iso not being an issue anymore with the new bodies and software. That being said, that reasoning for me was only for the mk i versions vs the 1-5. The mk ii versions are vastly superior to both the mk i primes and to the 1-5. And lastly just reiterate, don't underestimate how stupidly heavy and unbalanced the mk i primes are. For me that was the absolute biggest turn off when considering them. I made a whole long video about why I picked the 500 mk ii and my thought process if you're interested: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6eZdmOrjK-fqrcsi=Wh7_ZUIBlDx6KrhF

[@davidbarr9475]

@BrentHall thanks so much. Your always a joy to watch and learn from. If I ever fall in to a bunch of money one day. I would love to join you on one of your seminars.

[@georgemorlock8991]

You've been a lot of help getting started, I have a question, I am using cap cut video editor and now I am unable to upload videos ,and I'm looking for another free video editor. I shot my first or second astrophotography attempt at Shenandoah mountains using Samsung s23 hyperlapse catching meteorites and such spent many hours editing and lost everything I had in cap cut cuz I was instructed to empty cache and data and lost everything I've done for 6 months😢😢, was only a 3 1/2 minute video but did have hyperlapse which I slowed down tremendously not sure if that had something to do with it,. Thanks in advance for any advice or input Brent. I'm bummed

[@georgemorlock8991]

Can't upload tap to try again

[@georgemorlock8991]

I can't believe it. After OCD for a few hours I figured out when I used my Samsung S Pen to put dots on Cassiopeia on the video, that one thing inhibited me from uploading my video once I removed the dots it uploaded. Now that's wonky!

[@raypurkissukwildlifeandlan5361]

I use a canon 300 2.8 ii coupled with a 2x ii converter and 5div and get great images......just a shame the lens doesn't have the converter built in so as to switch between the two focal lengths.......likewise fir the 400 2.8 also 👍👌

[@martharetallick204]

Lately, I am finding my 105 to be perfect for birds. HUH??? Let me explain. There are mourning doves building a nest right outside my kitchen window. And I am there for it. 😊

[@bluejays5660]

I realize your a Canon shooter but was wondering if you have an opinion on the Nikon 600 & 800PF lenses?

[@BrentHall]

I think they're incredible and I'm highly envious of nikon shooters for having them as an option.

[@GordonRunklePhoto]

I"d go for the 600; most of my wildlife is shot on my 180-600 w/ 1.4x teleconverter. Gaining those extra stops would be very welcome!

[@BrentHall]

Like I said, reach is king! 😜😁

[@GordonRunklePhoto]

@@BrentHall #SizeDoesMatter 🤣

[@mikeem09]

Family always comes first.

[@jimbruton9482]

Best wishes for Camera Lady. Her systems you describe are similar to Covid. I assume she's been tested. I finally got over it a few days ago. It drains all your energy.

[@7inrain]

With my Sony 200-600mm I am using the very long end with the overwhelming majority of pictures that I take. So if money were no issue it would be the 600mm F4 for me, hands down. But 14K EUR... *cough-cough*

[@tomdearie5165]

I find a lot of my very best shots - the wall hangers - are under 400mm. But, a lot of times, there is no real shot without 600mm (or more), so I carry a very light 400mm f/4.5 and a lightweight 180-600 zoom. On my recent trip to Vancouver Island photographing Pacific coastal wolves, some shots were within 20 ft and a 600 prime would have been too much glass. But others were hundreds of meters and the more glass the better. I have a video at about 800m of a wolf harassing a bear off the tidal flats - the 200-500mm I was using at the time was barely long enough to get “proof of sighting” video. But I would rather have had that 800mm + a teleconverter. 😎

[@lukasladis9236]

I just do it as a hobby with cheaper gear. I have 300mm f4 lens but with 1.5x crop sensor. For larger animals and birds it is doable. But for small birds it is almost impossible for me. Maybe I will try 1.4x teleconverter some day I don’t want to spend too much on it, I don’t make any money with it.

[@varma.visuals]

How does the EF 600 F4 II perform on R5 with adapter ? I am on the fence and worried of focusing issues if any. Appreciate if you can share some feedback /your experience. Thanks

[@BrentHall]

Zero focusing or performance issues with the adapter. It's flawless and fantastic.

[@varma.visuals]

@@BrentHall Thank you 🙏

[@LiquidNS]

It performs fantastically! I was using it with my 1dxmkii and r5 with adapter, and it actually speedier and accurate on my r5 than the 1dxmkii. Almost seem like it’s built for the rf system 😂

[@varma.visuals]

@@LiquidNS thank you. Hopefully these EF lenses work with R5 Mark II aswell.

[@wanderland_xyz]

So far--or at least this is what I tell myself--I'm fine with the RF 100-500mm, since it's plenty sharp at 500mm and f/7.1, and the DOF at those settings is shallow enough for most purposes. Mostly I just know I can't afford those big primes, even used. :) Best wishes to Camera Lady, being below 100% for that long definitely stinks! Bright side: at least she's out of commission during the awful heat of summer when it's no fun to be out anyway?

[@BrentHall]

Yeah, filming out here in the summer really isn't that fun 🫠

[@OhhhhhhhBugger]

My experience: The 400 is too short and IQ looks worse with teles on it than the 500 and 600. Not sure why this is, but probably has something to do with the low F-stop number. The 500 is actually ok, especially on a cropped body like the R7, which gives you 800mm equiv. focal length at a DOF of F6.3, (actually F6.4, but f-stops aren't super accurate anyways). The 500mm mkii from Canon is the sharpest and most contrast laden lens I have ever used, even sharper than the 600mm mkii, and it takes TC's very very well. The 600 mm is probably the best focal length overall for small birds. If you put it on an R7 it will give around 960mm of focal length at f6.3 DOF. A 1.4x TC will give you 840mm at F5.6 with a 600mm lens on FF cameras. I would not recommend the 600mm mkiii or RF version.They are soft with TC's attached. They are double the price tag and do weigh less, but at the cost of IQ. It's because they trimmed so much glass out of the original design. The smaller, thinner lens elements can't resolve as much detail as the mkii's can. For me, the main caveat of all of these primes is the minimum focus distance and weight/size. If weight is more of an issue, dump Canon and switch to Nikon LOL. They make really really good primes now. They don't have very good crop bodies these days though.

[@danwhitton7966]

Patiently waiting for the RF200-500 F4L. Rumors say the end of the year.

[@BrentHall]

I would definitely be interested to see what that would look like. Not gonna hold my breath for it though.

[@treelee8485]

Most can afford a big lens, the question is at which quality !

[@Ericbjohnston5150]

Canon1200mm best for critters close up. Jk.

[@sgpork]

Still waiting for some tech breakthrough where the 400 600 big prime can be less than 3kg. While price is high and most people concern about getting these lenses is always price. Not bragging. But heck. I would even pay double if they can make it 1.5kg. The problem I am not buying them is they are too cumbersome to travel with and too heavy and troublesome to use it out in the field. Size and weight matters. I dont care the price. Because I only pay once and I can earn money back. But size and weight is forever whenever you use it.

[@richardfink7666]

....or buy mft and all your problems are solved: lighter, cheaper, more reach etc.

[@BrentHall]

Nah I'm good. I tried that for a while. It was nice but I still prefer my canon gear.

[@mvp_kryptonite]

1200mm lens it is then 🤣 tbh, it just depends on your subject. Rent the lens to see if it suits Hope your wife improves and gets back to full health

[@RetrieverTrainingAlone]

RF 400mm f/2.8 around $12,000 new RF 600mm F/4 around $13,000 new in 2024.

[@BrentHall]

Yep...like I said in the video, that's a hard pill to swallow, for sure!