Canon R 24-240MM and Canon R600mm used for sports

Wonder if anyone has used the Canon R 24-240MM and Canon R 600mm for sports.

I am looking for using them for Running events and Surfing.

I have EF L lenses like the EF 70-200 4L IS2 and the Canon 100-400 L2 but I recently purchased a Canon R6 II and I was looking to purchase the new RA lenses to go with the R6 II.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Hi, I have used the RF24-240 mm on occasion for some rugby on my R6. In my opinion it performed fine, although it is not my preferred setup. Most of the time I have my 120-300 f2.8 on R5 and a 70-200 f2.8 on R6.

I used the RF24-240 only in broad daylight due to the dimmer aperture. Furthermore I used it to get a different perspective on closer by action and for rugby to get a nearby line-out shot from the sideline with ample space (I normally shoot from behind the try line). In good light the RF24-200 covers the 70-200 range and thus adds additional perspectives in comparison to the 70-200. AF speed is decent enough, but there is a little less opportunity for subject separation based on depth of field.

If you have the light and no need for minimum depth of field, I think the RF24-240 will do fine for running as well as surfing (although 240 seems a tad short for surfing).

I assume you mean the RF600 f11 lens. I do not have that lens, although I do have the RF 800 f11. The f11 is even more dim than the RF24-240 f6.3 so you really would need a lot of light to get fast shutter speeds for sports. Framing your subject may be difficult with the field of view of 600mm. For running I can imagine you can easily predict where runners will appear. so framing might be not too difficult.

On the R5 and R6 the RF 800 f11 has a limited AF area to use (box in the middle) that can make in more difficult to follow and frame the subject. The RF 600 f11 also has that limitation as far as I have read. I also read that the R6 II offers a larger area for AF with those lenses, but cannot confirm to that first hand.

I can imagine 600mm would be beneficial for surfing and that surfing is in broad daylight, so the lens may be useful. Based on my RF800 I expect the RF600 to be fast enough to acquire focus to get sufficient in focus shots.

I have not used either, so I'm just here to offer my perspective. Ignore me if you wish

I have no doubt that those 2 lens will perform perfectly and you'll get good shots ... but I also have no doubt that'll you'll sooner rather than later be disappointed by the aperture limitation. I shoot my daughters high school track meets and here in the northeast, it starts to get dark before the end of the meet ...even f/4 starts to suck. Cross country meets are run in the woods where it's dark and shadowy. Indoor track is like shooting in a huge cave with only a camp fire in corner for light. 5K races are usually run on Saturday mornings and I could see how a 24-240 would be very useful for that type of running event. At a track meet where athletes run an oval ... a large focal length range is largely unnecessary. You could shoot an entire track meet with an 85mm prime at f/2 and have a LOT more keepers than a slowish zoom simply because of the subject separation you'll be able to get.

All that being said, I have some interest in that 24-240 as well, but more as a vacation lens. But again, I have no doubt it'll perform very well for you.

With the 70-200 and 100-400 (like you already have), I would have zero interest in adding the two lenses you're asking about for sports. To clarify, I have the 70-200/2.8 and I have 1.4x'd it and if I wanted more (and had the 100-400) I would already have better options than either of those RF lenses would add. You can TC the 100-400 up to 560 for the very few times that such a FL would be useful, but as mentioned the aperture you end up with, similar to what the RF600 would give, are just not sports apertures. If you want to shoot sports, you should build out your collection in the wide apertures, not in the long FLs. You don't list ANY fast lenses, although you say 70-200/4 in your post and 70-200/2.8 in your sig. If your sig is accurate, then to me you have one sports lens.

Actually I have both the 2.8 and the 4. I se the 2.8 for some night time shooting and mostly used the 4 during the day due t its light weight.

I just tried the RF600 f/11 on my new R6 MK II and the focus area is about 80-85% of the viewfinder, almost the full thing.

I like the RF 600 better than the 800 for BIF, easier to get the birds in the EVF