Anyone using an R8?

[DavidEccleston]

So.... I'm rethinking the RF 100-500mm, and considering the EF 100-400mm II and an EF 1.4x. Why? Because it would ALSO work on the 7D2.

As I mentioned above, I already find the 70-300L's reach limiting, and it's equal to a 480mm FOV on the 7D2. The so 100-500mm buy me the same reach with the R8's higher quality pixels. Maybe some extra cropping power, but no real extra reach. The RF 1.4x would get some extra reach, but currently only works on 3 lenses, the 100-500mm being the only one I'm interested in (the other f/11 super-teles all appear soft in Bryan's charts... maybe they're better real world).

The 100-400mm on the other hand would buy me more reach on the 7D2. The extender would nearly double my current reach (560mm vs 300mm)... but yes, bit softer. The lens would also work on the R8 w/ or w/out the extender w/ the EF adapter, which I'd most likely be getting anyway to keep my other lenses available.

A worthwhile option, or a pointless clinging to my old camera where I'd wish I'd just gone with the RF from the start?

[Kayaker72]

So.... I'm rethinking the RF 100-500mm, and considering the EF 100-400mm II and an EF 1.4x. Why? Because it would ALSO work on the 7D2.

As I mentioned above, I already find the 70-300L's reach limiting, and it's equal to a 480mm FOV on the 7D2.

When you want reach, there is no such thing as enough. But, if you have figured out the 100-400 plus TC will allow you to photograph something you couldn't with the 100-300L, cool. I still have the EF 100-400 II and use it fairly regularly with the 1.4TC. IQ sharpness is great. I think bokeh takes a slight hit. AF, I mean, the general consensus has always been that it falls off with the 1.4xTC, I still find it to be snappy and have used it for BIF, etc. It does hunt a bit more often. But, overall, a great combination. All of these comments are based on my used on the 5DIV and R5.

And while I opened up with the "no such thing as enough" reach comment, I can also say, I own the 100-300L and the 100-400 II. I picked up the 100-300L on a good deal when I shot with the Sigma 150-600S as a light weight alternative. After I picked up the 100-400 II, the 100-300L pretty much just sits. The difference in reach is noticeable and worth the extra weight.

A worthwhile option, or a pointless clinging to my old camera where I'd wish I'd just gone with the RF from the start?

I am not sure if you are debating having two camera bodies or not, but a photon-to-photos chart on DR. I checked, and it is almost the exact difference I see with my M6 II vs R5, which I find to be a noticeable difference. Low ISO, not so much, but mid-ISO and long exposures, absolutely. High ISO, not even really comparable. So, while you are considering reach, you may also consider the other benefits of the R8. Low light, modern AF, AF across the entire screen, etc.


As for advice, my thoughts pretty much mirror Joel's.

[DavidEccleston]

Another interesting recent development is the idea of the 0.71x mount adapter. Intended for super 35 cinema bodies to make better use of EF glass, it is similar to a reversal of the 1.6x crop (not exact), making lenses use the full FOV of a lens on a crop body, regaining the lost light, and acting a stop faster... so perhaps giving you something like FF framing, DOF, and noise levels on a crop body.

This sounded pretty cool. BUT. Canon's version of this adds in purple flaring. And Canon, not wanting to share the RF mount yet, is suing the maker of an alternative... people are expecting a firmware update to block the non-Canon adapter... sigh.

It's a neat idea that makes choice between FF and crop less distinct, with crop bodies getting the ability hold a dual role depending on the use of the converter or not... Of course it doesn't help you with actual RF glass, only converted EF glass, so it's likely to become a less useful trick over time, so not really a viable option.