Upgrading from Sigma 150-600mm contemporary to Canon RF 200-800mm

D

davholla

Messages
3,475
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Obviously it's an extra 200mm but do you notice the extra reach? Can you photograph birds in flight? How does it work with teleconverters?
 
Not sure I would upgrade given the aperture range, which will only be worse using a teleconverter. I suggest you use Try the Kit before you change.
 
I guess it depends a lot on your main subjects and the camera body you are pairing it with. I was not that impressed with the 200-600 given its size.
 
I almost jumped earlier this year and almost did the very same 'upgrade'. I needed a bit more reach but the aperture on the Canon was off putting. I managed to talk myself out of it and I still have the money to spend on something else that I know I will (really) need when the time comes. I'm glad I didn't buy it as it would've been useless to me in the situation I had planned for it, due to the aperture.

I considered the RF100-500L, which is a far superior lens but I already have a 100-400L mkii, which gives me similar numbers with the mkiii 1.4x teleconverter. I take the converter off when the light drops.

Sticking with what I had, I had to slow down and really take my time focusing on my subject. I am now working on bringing my subject closer and into better light, rather than buying any new gear to get a little more reach but would come with other caveats, I think it would be a disappointing change, so I will be keeping my Sigma, which has served me very well and my copy seems to be a very sharp one. Maybe not quite as sharp as my Canon but it's up there.

I did consider Olympus and their 300 f4, or the same lens on a Panasonic but when I did the research, whilst they are very capable cameras and lenses, I don't think it would've worked for me in my situtation.

That's my feeling on my situation, your situation may be different but new gear isn't always the answer.

I do though wish Canon would make lenses with slightly better apertures for sensible money. The big white primes are stunning things, they are works of art but they are not always practical and even used, they are silly money for the average hobbyist. There was a rumoured RF500 5.6 on the horizon a few months ago but that's gone very quiet. Despite that lens having an aperture of f5.6, I'd probably be interested in it if it ever became a reality and I'm guessing it would be around or sub £3k.

I'm making what I have work and getting decent results now, I've learned the site and my subject and spent a lot of time with them and this alone has improved my images of them, without spending a penny on new gear. (y)
 
Last edited:
R63_5804-1500.jpg
I've been using a 200-800 for a while now, with an R7 and now an R6mk3

Having been used to the quality of a 100-400L I was a bit underwhelmed on initial use but I think most of what I've struggled with has been my technique not the lens. And as for chasing birds about at 800mm well if you can do it at 600mm you probably won't notice much difference.

No it's not as sharp as my 100-400L but given it's price I do think it's worth it, just don't expect 800L type "pop" in your images.

As said before borrow one from "Try the Kit" a great service and if you are lucky they may send it a day early for no extra cost.

HTH

David
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comparison. The last image looks out of focus however.

I did try the lens last year and it was better than expected. It was a bright day when I used it and I was concerned that the max aperture would be limiting in less favourable conditions.
 
Brentor said:
Thanks for the comparison. The last image looks out of focus however.

I did try the lens last year and it was better than expected. It was a bright day when I used it and I was concerned that the max aperture would be limiting in less favourable conditions.
Click to expand...
It is sadly it is hard to say whether that is user error or the lens. I still think that the first image is better at that distance than the 600mm could obtain - of course how many photos will be like that is hard to say.
 
I should (too late now) have done this test. At a suitable distance got an assistant to bounce a tennis ball and see what percentage of photos were in focus. As testing on trained birds is difficult (not impossible if you have a friendly falconer) that would have been a good comparison. I say this in case anyone else is thinking of testing these or others lens.
 
I’m not sure this is a fair comparison.

You are using a different camera and very different settings. The shutter speed used on the 7Dii of 1/2000 seems very high for almost static ducks. Looking at Flickr I much prefer the first image.
 
I hope you don’t mind me nitpicking but the 7Dmkii one is at ISO 6400 whilst the R7 is at ISO 1250. Did the Sigma have the lens hood on at the time you took the photo?
 
Brentor said:
I’m not sure this is a fair comparison.

You are using a different camera and very different settings. The shutter speed used on the 7Dii of 1/2000 seems very high for almost static ducks. Looking at Flickr I much prefer the first image.
Click to expand...
You are right about the the settings.
 
Mintchocs said:
I hope you don’t mind me nitpicking but the 7Dmkii one is at ISO 6400 whilst the R7 is at ISO 1250. Did the Sigma have the lens hood on at the time you took the photo?
Click to expand...
No nitpicking is good before spending lots of money the settings I think are responsible for the different ISOs
 
I think you should be able to get better results from the Canon 200-800, but I think it is harder with the extra pixel density/crop on the R7 vs the full frame bodies, as you're basically running at 1300mm on what equates to a much higher MP body, so you have to utterly nail focus & handshake at those resolutions as every mistake is amplified.

I've got the PoS RF 800 F11 STM on the R6 mk1, contemplating a 200-800 just for the faster AF, smidge sharper, ability to zoom out a tad occasionally, and when a robin lands on the nearby fence post, so you don't have to take 6 steps back because it's actually 2m nearer than the 6m minimum focus on the fixed 800.

This is ISO 4000 1/1250, bit of bump the shadows & tone but otherwise not much done.

20250620-512A8507.jpg

Cropped, colours, ISO 1600 1/800

20250926-512A1135.jpg

I'd love to beat on the fixed 800, F11 FFS, plastic as hell, but £ for performance I can't actually fault the damned thing.
 
Even f5.6 massively hampers af in low light on r6, not just some old dslr. I cant imagine what f9 would do at dusk... Accuracy goes out of the window first, so sharpness will take a further hit. One for bright light safaris.

Nikon, sigma and now sony all have decent options. Not fast but not this ridiculous. 400 4.5 is actually the perfect spot, but you will not be doing much wildlife which i dont care of anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top