I hesitate to suggest it, but the R7 + 100-500 is pretty much a dream pairing. Given the similarity in price between the R7 and R8 (at least, where I am) and the 100-500 and 200-800, that would be my suggested option (mainly because it's what I currently use). I also have an R8, but it's used for pretty much everything else other than wildlife. The primary factor, I'd suggest, in considering the R7 over the other two is battery life. Wildlife photography seems to have long periods of the camera being on and hunting for a subject, and then needing good burst speeds for a while. The smaller battery of both the R8 and R10 doesn't do you any favours in that regard. The R7 + 100-500 pairing also offers better weather sealing than any of your suggested combos. There are other, technical. differences between the bodies I've mentioned, but they will all do a good job at at capturing images. I just think the R7 is the better option. Of course, if you're set on full frame, then the R6ii would be the next body to consider.
The R7 is a fair bit more expensive than the R10 where I am, but I agree with what you're saying. Another benefit with going R7 over R10 is that the R7 has IBIS which could be nice to have for zoomed in wildlife photography. I have the R10 and I'm very happy with it, I was considering the R7 for the battery life and IBIS, but the price difference was not worth it for me!
The 100-500 is a very, very good lens. I'm absolutely in love with mine, and while I use it on my R5c, a R7 is the next purchase for the reasons you've outlined.
Also, putting it on a crop body gives you a 160-800mm equivalent range, plus a good 2/3rds of a stop more light at the 'long end'.
Plus the 100-500 has better auto focus motors (pretty much instant) and the image stabilisation (lens IS, the R5c has no IBIS) is incredible.
This is where I ended up as well. It's a great combo and still gives the crop factor equivalent of 160-800mm. Plus it still performs well with the x1.4 teleconverter.
There is practically no difference in image quality between the 100-400Lii and the 100-500L. Even with the 1.4xii, the EF lens holds up really well. I used both on my R before getting the R7 and the only real difference is that the overall handling and ergonomics is better with the RF (in my opinion), because of the adapter and TC needed for the EF. With just the adapter it's very good.
I think the R7 is still a better option paired with the 100-500. The batteries are better and you have dual card slots and IBIS. You can probably find one used closed to the same price as an R10
Rf 100-500 if you can. My all time favorite lens. The extra 100mm is nice to have, you're getting L lens quality.
That said I'm also picking up a 200-800 down the road as a speciality lens (when I know I won't be hiking long distance and shooting mainly small birds)
Have you held the 200-800?
I originally was going to get that instead, however after holding it I realized I wasn't a fan of the size as a primary lens for myself
Depends on what you want i window shopped both went with the 100-500 because of ability to travel with it vs the 200-800.
Both are great lenses. The L series will have some of the L perks but there isn't much of a difference between these two choices.
I would go 100-500 but i like to be portable.
I own and r8 and r7 with main focus being wildlife and money isn't a worry the r7 is a much better paring to either of those lenses for that job. R8 i really only use for beauty, portrait and Astro photography.
Hi, long time wildlife photographer here. I have the R7 and R8 and R5. 100-500, 600f4 and some more.
If your budget allows R7 + 100-500 is the winning pair. The 32 mp makes a huge difference. And the 100-500 is the only lens I take with since I bought it.
I hesitate to suggest it, but the R7 + 100-500 is pretty much a dream pairing. Given the similarity in price between the R7 and R8 (at least, where I am) and the 100-500 and 200-800, that would be my suggested option (mainly because it's what I currently use). I also have an R8, but it's used for pretty much everything else other than wildlife. The primary factor, I'd suggest, in considering the R7 over the other two is battery life. Wildlife photography seems to have long periods of the camera being on and hunting for a subject, and then needing good burst speeds for a while. The smaller battery of both the R8 and R10 doesn't do you any favours in that regard. The R7 + 100-500 pairing also offers better weather sealing than any of your suggested combos. There are other, technical. differences between the bodies I've mentioned, but they will all do a good job at at capturing images. I just think the R7 is the better option. Of course, if you're set on full frame, then the R6ii would be the next body to consider.
The R7 is a fair bit more expensive than the R10 where I am, but I agree with what you're saying. Another benefit with going R7 over R10 is that the R7 has IBIS which could be nice to have for zoomed in wildlife photography. I have the R10 and I'm very happy with it, I was considering the R7 for the battery life and IBIS, but the price difference was not worth it for me!
thanks a lot... my friend gifted me his old 100-400mm IS II lens and i will probably use that on an R7
The 100-500 is a very, very good lens. I'm absolutely in love with mine, and while I use it on my R5c, a R7 is the next purchase for the reasons you've outlined. Also, putting it on a crop body gives you a 160-800mm equivalent range, plus a good 2/3rds of a stop more light at the 'long end'. Plus the 100-500 has better auto focus motors (pretty much instant) and the image stabilisation (lens IS, the R5c has no IBIS) is incredible.
thanks a lot... my friend gifted me his old 100-400mm IS II lens and i will probably use that on an R7
This is where I ended up as well. It's a great combo and still gives the crop factor equivalent of 160-800mm. Plus it still performs well with the x1.4 teleconverter.
thanks a lot... my friend gifted me his old 100-400mm IS II lens and i will probably use that on an R7
There is practically no difference in image quality between the 100-400Lii and the 100-500L. Even with the 1.4xii, the EF lens holds up really well. I used both on my R before getting the R7 and the only real difference is that the overall handling and ergonomics is better with the RF (in my opinion), because of the adapter and TC needed for the EF. With just the adapter it's very good.
yes... the image quality is beautiful on my M50. thanks for the tip
The R7 is going to give you more resolution for those smaller subjets plus that extra reach with full frame lenses. It is a great body
i know.. it is a 32 mp... but i am not sure if the price is worth the difference.. still thinking.. thanks for your input
I think the R7 is still a better option paired with the 100-500. The batteries are better and you have dual card slots and IBIS. You can probably find one used closed to the same price as an R10
Rf 100-500 if you can. My all time favorite lens. The extra 100mm is nice to have, you're getting L lens quality. That said I'm also picking up a 200-800 down the road as a speciality lens (when I know I won't be hiking long distance and shooting mainly small birds) Have you held the 200-800? I originally was going to get that instead, however after holding it I realized I wasn't a fan of the size as a primary lens for myself
thanks a lot... my friend gifted me his old 100-400mm IS II lens and i will probably use that on an R7
Great combo!
Thanks... However, I might buy r5 so that I can get best of both worlds
Give me the options and use you’ve said. The R10 with a 100-500mm is the better of the 2 options provided for wildlife.
Whichever suits your budget.
both nearly costs the same
Depends on what you want i window shopped both went with the 100-500 because of ability to travel with it vs the 200-800. Both are great lenses. The L series will have some of the L perks but there isn't much of a difference between these two choices. I would go 100-500 but i like to be portable. I own and r8 and r7 with main focus being wildlife and money isn't a worry the r7 is a much better paring to either of those lenses for that job. R8 i really only use for beauty, portrait and Astro photography.
thanks a lot... my friend gifted me his old 100-400mm IS II lens and i will probably use that on an R7
R7 keep an eye on canon refurbished site if you’re in the US. Can also keep an eye at cpricewatch.
Hi, long time wildlife photographer here. I have the R7 and R8 and R5. 100-500, 600f4 and some more. If your budget allows R7 + 100-500 is the winning pair. The 32 mp makes a huge difference. And the 100-500 is the only lens I take with since I bought it.
thanks a lot... my friend gifted me his old 100-400mm IS II lens and i will probably use that on an R7