Suggest a Body + Lens Combo

Snydremark wrote in post #19529728
...The other, notable drawback is the minimum focus distance of the f/11 lenses; you basically need to be "half a block away" with those things....I think MFD on the 800 is around 5 or 6ft? I don't have it here to check as I type; but it's massive...

Good point!

According to Canon, the MFD of the RF 800mm f/11 lens is 6 meters or 19.69 feet.

And the MFD of the RF 600mm f/11 is 4.5 meters or 14.75 feet.

While I am not familiar with what they have in the works for the two f/11 lenses, I can second the recommendation of Hejnar Photo in general. I've used some of their other products and they have been excellent.

Oh my! 14 to 19 feet is quite the distance! With smaller birds or BIF, I'll be curious to see if this is bothersome (I'm usually pretty far too begin with).

Tortie wrote in post #19529784
Oh my! 14 to 19 feet is quite the distance! With smaller birds or BIF, I'll be curious to see if this is bothersome (I'm usually pretty far too begin with).

You might be able to use macro extension tubes between the lens and camera to make the lens focus closer. I've done that occasionally (I always have macro ext tubes with me, they're so handy for so many things).

For this bush-tit image I needed to make my 500mm focus a little closer and used a 36mm extension tube...

I am learning so much, I cannot thank you enough for sharing your knowledge. I've heard of extension tubes but have never had the opportunity to use one. I also didn't know they could be used for "normal" subjects (not just still macro photography). Once the body and lens arrive, I will be out and about trying and testing. I will look into these as well.

Tortie wrote in post #19529784
Oh my! 14 to 19 feet is quite the distance! With smaller birds or BIF, I'll be curious to see if this is bothersome (I'm usually pretty far too begin with).

The smallest I've attempted with the 800 are Black-necked Stilts, which were a little overly "cooperative" by being in closer than usual; for the most part it shouldn't be much of an issue...as you mention, it's mostly going to be that you still feel "too far away". The MFD comes into play much more with static/stationary birds and smaller mammals.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I'm sure I'll have the odd occasion of subjects being "overly cooperative" as you mentioned but most of the time, you'll always want more reach.

On the other side of the spectrum, what wide prime would you suggest for automobile photography? Something in the 24-30mm-ish range/35-50mm-ish FF equivalent. I currently use a 24 GM (I tend to prefer F1.4 and it's not looking like there are many RF options yet).

Canon makes a RF 24mm f/1.8 prime.

Thanks, I'll check out out!

I don't have any wide primes, but the 16-35 f/4 L sure makes a great lens for that, aside from the f/4, I suppose.

Snydremark wrote in post #19531367
I don't have any wide primes, but the 16-35 f/4 L sure makes a great lens for that, aside from the f/4, I suppose.

I sold my EF 16-35mm f/4 L and picked up a RF 16mm f/2.8 as an ultra wide angle solution for my EOS R. It's smaller and lighter. I haven't tried it yet on my crop body R10, though.

I haven't tried a 16-35 (or 24-70) yet. I saw the 16 f2.8 as well. I haven't shot with something so wide. It's intriguing. I came across Canon's new 28 pancake lens. I may give that a try. Not sure how soon they'll be available. I've decided lightweight is my goal with this setup. I'm still waiting on a call from the local camera shop for the R50 (the 600 f11 has already arrived). I'm itching to give it a try!