Flash advice

[Bob Monkhouse]

Based on what I read on your ambition and experience, I think the RF 100-400 is very suitable for you to use on the R7. I expect it to perform better than the mark I of the EF 100-400. The f5.5 to f8 sounds worse than f5.6, but it is one-stop. It will matter in low light, but f5.6 does not much. My experience is that when light is fading, the moment f8 would be too dark, the 5.6 becomes too dark within a few minutes. For low light sports, it is f2.8 for a reason.
I shoot sports (mostly) and have the expensive f2.8 glass for it. But sometimes when I go to a local club to socialise rather than to go full out with my photography, I bring my RF 100-400 and one camera, just for fun and shooting while talking along the sidelines. It can deliver in those cases, also with the R7. I own a RF 100-500 as well, which isn't that big either, but still I sometimes prefer to take the RF 100-400 for its size and weight. I would not do that if the RF 100-400 could not give me decent results. Enough keepers after the match, more than people would want to see or I want to edit/ post process.

Off course the RF 100-400 can not be used on your 600D. You indicated that you wanted a lens that works on both your 600D and R7. If that remains important, the EF is the way to go. I would expect for the sports you will be using the R7 over the 600D (after getting used to it) as the main camera and expect you not to use the 100-400 on the 600D that much. The R7 will just perform better in comparison to your 600D regarding AF and ISO. But that is just my expectation and you should determine for yourself how important the requirement is to have a lens compatible with the 600D and the R7.

Brilliant post,thank you! I'm back from the Broads tomorrow so will take some time to digest your advice but it looks like I'll go for the rf 100-400mm.

 

[Phil V]

I’ve got the RF 100-400 and I did recommend it I believe.
Because it’s designed for mirrorless you can ignore the smaller max aperture to some degree. Of course there is a reason the faster lenses exist, but you pay a premium for that. But for clarity, the RF version of the old 100-400L is a 100-500 and that’s f7.1 at the long end.

For amateur use, the rf100-400 is easy to carry, hand hold for hours, and it doesn’t take up the space that the old L lens does. I reckon it gives the mk1 a run for its money quality wise whilst maybe not quite as good as the mk2.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Any recommended stores to get the Godox TT32 specifically the Nikon version? A number of them seem to be out stock leaving ones with pricey delivery or low ratings.