What lens should I actually be looking at for wildlife on the new R5 Mark II? I finally pulled the trigger on the body but now I'm stuck between two very different paths and its honestly driving me a little crazy. I mainly shoot birds and gators down here in the Florida swamps so I definitely need reach, but the light can get pretty tricky under the canopy.
Right now I'm torn between the RF 200-800mm and the RF 100-500mm L. The 200-800 seems like the obvious choice for the extra reach but that f/9 at the long end makes me nervous, especially since I do a lot of shooting at dawn. On the other hand, the 100-500 is an L lens and supposedly sharper but is 500mm gonna be enough for those tiny warblers? I could add a 1.4x extender but then I'm spending even more and losing light anyway.
My budget is capped at about $2800 because the R5II already ate most of my savings. I have a big trip coming up to the Everglades in less than a month so I need to make a move fast. Is the image quality on the 100-500 worth the loss in focal length or should I just go for the big zoom and rely on the R5's sensor to handle the high ISO?
Honestly, go for the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM! The reach is just amazing for those tiny birds and youll save a ton of cash.
- Get a Wimberley WH-200 Gimbal Tripod Head II with the extra money
- Pick up some Canon LP-E6P Lithium-Ion Batteries The R5 II sensor handles high ISO like a beast so f/9 isnt scary at all, seriously!
> the 100-500 is an L lens and supposedly sharper but is 500mm gonna be enough I would suggest checking comparison charts on The-Digital-Picture first. Make sure to consider that the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM has better weather sealing for that Florida humidity. The Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM reach is tempting. But f/9 at dawn is rough. Be careful. High ISO isnt always a magic fix, even with the R5II sensor.
Saving this whole thread. So much good info here you guys are awesome.
