www.youtube.com
That is true. I use it very sparingly, and some insects should be in that category, especially when you shoot it only while on vacation.Let's goooooooooooooo!
I've used the EF180L extensively this summer on both the R7 and R8, both for stills and video. For smaller dragonflies and regular sized damselflies I'd like a bit more magnification, the 1.4:1 of the RF100L is great on full frame, but the working distance isn't well suited to warmed up dragonflies. The 2:1 180mm variant would be an awesome replacement.
I immensely enjoy the 1:3 of the RF100-500L, the 1.2m working distance is a good compromise. Due to focus breathing it's a 300-ish mm lens at MFD, so that 300mm F4 variant looks very interesting! I'd likely keep the EF180L, I routinely run out of space when trying to photograph insects and amphibians in or near water. Maybe I should 'invest' in a pair of waders
And as @Besisika said: 8k for macro would be awesome, the handful of experiments I did with my R5 with 8k had impressive detail and turned into great 4k output. My Intel CPU iMac did not like that, however.
R7 + EF180L on a tripod:
Dragonfly on a stick
. As others have noted, the 300mm f4 macro will be great for insects like butterflies and dragonflies with a reasonable working distance. I use the EF 180 mm macro with a 1.4 extender on the R5 so this lens would be even better. A 300 mm f4 macrolens will be less universal than a 180/190 mm that takes extenders (size and weight, working distance).
Good question. The old EF 300mm f/4 has a magnification of 0.24 at a closest distance of 1.5 m. Unfortunately, the data given here do not include any information about a closest distance, but I'd guess it would be well below 1 m. That said, I don't think that it would be so close that the hood would start to be a real problem like the quite long hood of the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM. I use that lens nearly always w/o hood, because that one really threatens to scare away any insects.
I spend much of my time shooting birds and insects, and for me the RF 100-400mm or RF 100-500mm would be far more useful and versatile for everything. But YMMV.a 300mm f4 with extenders could be used for some birds for people interested at everything while hunting insects !!
The versatility of the 100-500L has been a major reason that I keep using it (without teleconverters, and cropping when needed). I'm not one that mainly uses the max focus length, but instead mostly vary the focus length across the entire range (due to the varying size of the subject I want). The 5x zoom is so valuable to me that I fear that if I got yet another fixed lens (however spectacular it is) like a 300 f4 that I might end up not using it much and it'd stay on my shelf while I still have the 100-500 for almost all of my telephoto shots.
My requirements are minimal and I am a rank hobbyist. 1m/yd is as close as I can usually get to an insect without scaring it way, and all I want is sharp image of the full butterfly/dragonfly/insect, and the difference between 0.4 and 1x magnification makes little difference to me. I can see that some enthusiasts would like the extra magnification and do get immense fun at resolving very fine details. @entoman who is a professional butterfly photographer (no longer on the site) went over to the RF 100-400mm as his main lens.
I've enjoyed the luxury of having 2 RF bodies, having the 100-500 on one and a 1:1 macro on the other is great when aproaching skittish subjects. Mount the 100-500 on the R8, get your shots, switch to the R7+macro to get even tighter close-ups.
Yes, ur right. more than one body is very comfortable. You don't exchange the lense outdoor. I use the R5 and R; somtimes the 80D and 5Ds and 5DM4. Dependet on the pictures i wannt to do the focus.
I have previously (and currently) had just a single (R5) body. Now that the R5 II has come out, and looks like it is worth having, I'll go ahead and trade in the R5 (for whatever pittance I get) to get 2 R5 II bodies. I've always wanted to have 2 bodies so I could mount 2 main lenses simultaneously so I could go out and not have to swap lenses. That'd allow me to enjoy shooting like you've suggested with a 100-500 and a 300 f4 (if I get it) for example, or more often a 100-500 (or 70-200) on one and a 24-70 (or 15-35) on the other depending on what I wanted to take photos of. I like the idea of only knowing one menu and button interface with 2 identical bodies, and I want them both to be full frame to match the full frame lenses. I can crop them afterwards if I want further reach and that's OK with me.
I haven't taken it in yet how different the R5 and the R5ii ergonomics is. Are they similar enough to keep the R5 as the second body?
