Should I grab the RF 100-400mm or is the Sigma 150-600mm with an adapter better for a beginner shooting wildlife on the R10? Im planning a trip to a nature preserve in Florida next month and really want to get some decent shots of herons and maybe some gators without breaking the bank.
My budget is capped at like $650 max so its a bit tight. The Canon lens is super light and native which I like but the Sigma has way more reach for those tiny birds further away. Then again the Sigma is a total brick to carry around all day. Is 400mm on this crop body actually enough for birding or am I gonna be cropping way too much...
I have used both of these setups extensively on the R7 and R10 platforms. For your Florida trip, the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM is the more balanced choice. Because of the 1.6x crop factor on your camera, 400mm provides a 640mm equivalent field of view. This is typically sufficient for herons and gators in most nature preserves where the wildlife is somewhat accustomed to people. The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary does offer more reach, but you have to factor in the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R which adds to the price and bulk. The Sigma is a heavy lens, and using it on a lightweight body like the R10 makes the kit very front-heavy. Carrying that around all day in the heat can be exhausting if you arent used to it. The native RF lens also tends to play nicer with the mirrorless autofocus system for tracking moving subjects. If you find the reach isnt enough, the R10 produces clean enough files that you can crop in post-processing without losing too much detail. Beginners often find that a lighter setup allows them to react faster and get better compositions. Basically, the portability of the RF lens makes it the more versatile tool for a first trip... you wont regret the lighter weight when you're a few miles into a trail.
Honestly, $650 is a pretty tough spot for wildlife gear. I had issues with cheap glass being way too soft in the past and unfortunately 400mm often feels short for small birds. Look into the Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM instead. Its a niche lens and that fixed f/11 is definitely frustrating in low light... but for Florida herons in the sun, the reach is just much better, ngl.
Saving this whole thread. So much good info here you guys are awesome.
> 400mm provides a 640mm equivalent field of view Building on the earlier suggestion, stick to Canon glass. Be careful with adapters because focus hunting is a nightmare. Honestly, just get any native long zoom from Canon... youll be fine.
Works great for me
Coming back to this... unfortunately, $650 is a really tough spot for wildlife glass. I have been pretty disappointed by the f/8 aperture on the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM because the R10 starts showing significant noise once you push past ISO 3200 to keep your shutter speeds up. It is just not as sharp as I expected in anything but bright sunlight, and diffraction starts kicking in earlier than you might think on that APS-C sensor. If you want to go the DIY route to save cash, hunt for a used Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. You can find them for about $550 on used boards. You will need the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R, but that extra light at f/5.6 makes a massive difference for your tracking speed and background bokeh. Another solid choice is a used Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM which is surprisingly fast for the price. TL;DR: The RF 100-400 is light, but used EF L-series lenses give you better apertures and technical results for the same money.
