Would you rather...

We're planning a trip to Alaska in June. For wildlife, on the R6 would you rather have the:

RF100-400 f/5.6-8
RF 600 f/11 or
RF 800 f/11

(I have close range covered, but am looking at buying something smaller and lighter than my Tamron 150-600, takes up a lot of space and weighs a ton).


Bonus points for photos taken with the three lenses listed above. TYIA

Is there a reason the RF100-500 isn't in the list?

Of that list, hands down, I'd take the 100-400 and maybe a 1.4x. There's a lot of stuff that isn't 300 yards away.

Yeah...$$$$

LHeyden wrote in post #19498695
Yeah...$$$$

You can always rent one.

LHeyden wrote in post #19498664
We're planning a trip to Alaska in June. For wildlife, on the R6 would you rather have the:

RF100-400 f/5.6-8
RF 600 f/11 or
RF 800 f/11

Bonus points for photos taken with the three lenses listed above. TYIA

.
If only able to take 1 of the 3 you ask about, I would take the 100-400mm and just forget about taking pics of anything too far away for that.

Not everything cool looking needs to have a photo taken of it. . When something cool looking happens to be in good photo range, and in good light, with a pleasing background, then that's the time to take pics. . When things aren't all "just right" for quality photos, then it's nice to just enjoy seeing it without trying to take subpar images.

That being said, if I owned all 3 of those lenses then I would absolutely take the 100-400mm and the 800mm. . Packing light is overrated.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19498737
.
If only able to take 1 of the 3 you ask about, I would take the 100-400mm and just forget about taking pics of anything too far away for that.

Not everything cool looking needs to have a photo taken of it. . When something cool looking happens to be in good photo range, and in good light, with a pleasing background, then that's the time to take pics. . When things aren't all "just right" for quality photos, then it's nice to just enjoy seeing it without trying to take subpar images.

That being said, if I owned all 3 of those lenses then I would absolutely take the 100-400mm and the 800mm. . Packing light is overrated.

.

Thanks! I'm also taking my 5D3 a 70-200,

I'm also taking my 5D3, 70-200, & 24-105. I just wanted something to replace my Tamron 150-600 which is a beast, takes up a lot of space and weighs a ton.

LHeyden wrote in post #19498750
.
I'm also taking my 5D3, 70-200, & 24-105. I just wanted something to replace my Tamron 150-600 which is a beast, takes up a lot of space and weighs a ton.
.

.
I have the Sigma 60-600mm f6.3, which is very similar to your Tamron 150-600mm. . So very familiar with the size and weight. . Still a whole lot less than the big Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 that I also have. . And much smaller and lighter than the 600mm f4 and the 400mm f2.8.

The 150-600mm zooms actually aren't bad, compared to the true supertelephotos that many avid wildlife photographers use. . And they're short enough to fit very easily into carry-on bags for airline travel. . But of course everyone's preferences are different so I understand you not wanting to take it on your trip.


.

LHeyden wrote in post #19498664
We're planning a trip to Alaska in June. For wildlife, on the R6 would you rather have the:

What is your mode of transportation (car, cruise)? It may make a difference as to what is practical.

Air and rental car

LHeyden wrote in post #19499020
Air and rental car

With air, you have to be aware of possible size and weight limitations, especially for carry on luggage. An overweight or oversize backpack for instance can suddenly find itself in checked luggage. Alaska Airlines site on carryon bag sizes is at https://www.alaskaair.​com …/baggage/carry-on-luggage.

Spare batteries as well can be an issue, see https://www.alaskaair.​com …teries-electronic-devices. Scroll down to the bottom for the discussion on spare batteries.

I have that handled. We're flying Delta and all of my gear (except for the stuff that's not vital) fits in a backpack that will fit under the seat and is 10 pounds less than the limit. This lens whichever I get, or the Tammy will be the only integral gear that is checked. Hence my asking the question I did.

Having the 70-200 might change my answer. I don't think I'd bring that and a 100-400 if I were trying to keep the lens count down. But I realize keeping it down isn't really your goal; you're trying to decide on a new RF purchase, right?

Just another point of view. I have always found that no matter how long the lens, your always wishing for a bit more. I love my Siggy 150-600 but as you say, the lens is big and heave. For hiking, I picked up a Canon SX70 mostly for the long shots. Very light camera and goes out to 1365mm. Surprisingly decent results for such a small camera.
About 150 meters away.