So I finally picked up an R7 for some birding around the backyard and local trails here in Oregon but im stuck on the glass. I keep seeing people rave about the 100-500mm L lens because the quality is insane but its like three grand which is way over what I wanted to spend. Then there is that new 200-800mm which seems cool for reach but is f/9 at the long end too dark for PNW woods? I dont wanna carry a tripod everywhere.
Here is what I need:
- Budget is around $2000 max
- Needs to be handheld-friendly
- Sharp enough for small songbirds
- Native RF only
Is the 100-400mm too basic or should I just save up for the big white ones...
> Is the 100-400mm too basic or should I just save up for the big white ones... Honestly, the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM is way better than its price tag suggests. I carry it when I dont want to deal with a heavy bag and the autofocus is snappy enough for chickadees and nuthatches. It is basically the weight of a water bottle, which is huge if youre hiking through the mud in Oregon. If you really want that extra reach tho, the Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM fits right in your budget at about $1900. It is a bit of a beast to hold though. f/9 at the long end sounds scary, but the R7 sensor handles noise pretty well if you expose correctly. Tbh, in those dark PNW woods, you are gonna be at high ISO regardless of which lens you pick unless you spend twelve grand on a big prime. If I were you, Id start with the 100-400mm. Its so cheap that even if you upgrade later, you might keep it for light travel days. Another trick is to keep an eye on the Canon refurbished store for the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM. Every once in a while it drops close to your $2000 limit and that lens is basically magic on the R7. Decent compromise between weight and reach.
