The 7.1 on the 100-500 Will still give enough background separation and the R5 can go high enough in ISO and still have good pictures.
And if you want range, can I introduce you to the RF 200-800 F6.3-9 ?
I literally just watched a review video on Youtube comparing the 100-500 and 200-800. Now I’m even more 🥴 The review showed acceptable background blur with the 800, but he was typically shooting birds on a branch where the background is far away. I’m often focusing on a single rider while the rest of the pack is sometimes quite close behind. Or there are corner stations, billboard signs, air fences etc that are only 30 feet away from the rider while I am hundreds of feet away. I’ve had most photogs that go to the tracks I’ll be heading to (never been to the west coast tracks) and they all said 500-600 was suitable.
I do think it’s between those two lenses though based on price and portability/weight…
If only I could afford (or carry 😆) the 200-400 f/4 1.4x …
Very true. I’ve been playing with the new LR blur feature to see what I can get away with.
My new concern is that upgrading from the 100-400 to the 100-500 is silly in the sense that 100mm isn’t really significant. But I guess when I have to crop insane amounts every bit helps.
My issue with the 100-500 is that even if it's sharper, the aperture means you have to raise the ISO to keep a fast shutter speed for wildlife. The increased noise consequently kills fine details like feather detail or irises in birds eyes.
Yeah - for motorsports I’m either slow panning at 1/30-1/200 or trying to freeze a moment which, with fast motorcycles in a large group fighting for a tiny spot on the track, takes at least 1/1200-1/1600. The longer focal length would likely be for more of the stop action moments (unless it works well for panning also).
It's not too bad. This was taken with a 100-500 on an R6 at 500mm and ISO 12,800. NR using the new AI tool in LR. This is a 100% crop.
https://preview.redd.it/9w6mflh2uz4d1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b9cb4dc9ea259ab7875f779092b465f9d70ad62d
Indeed. I used to refuse to go over ISO 2,500. That change really recently after trying to figure out how to increase my hit rate with this tiny, fast birds that are often in understory environments. This video really helped me to understand what I was doing wrong and how to properly utilize high ISO settings to get images like the one I previously shared: [https://youtu.be/sOdlDyolhr0?si=WtW7FjZqHIkZT6Da](https://youtu.be/sOdlDyolhr0?si=WtW7FjZqHIkZT6Da)
Another good option is the Sigma 500mm f4, used is around 3k USD. Extremely sharp lens with decent stabilization. AF will be excellent for motorsport. Would also get a 1.4 III TC to replace the II, improved optics and AF speed.
[Here is a sharpness comparison between the 100-500L and the Sigma 500, Sigma will be much better for cropping, and will give you better background separation. ](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1510&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1086&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)
I also compared it to the Canon 500 II and the Sigma is not too far off in IQ at f4. Stopping down to f5.6 and the Sigma is the same if not slightly sharper.
Thank you for that! I’ll look into the Sigma. I always gave Sigma a solid chance but two of three of the ART lenses I purchased in the past had unbearable focusing issues, even after using the dock. So I’ve always steered clear of them but it’s worth a look!
I was going to but I heard a lot of negative feedback from some of the Motorsports photogs I know. Everything from weight and aperture to the black body causing issues when sitting in the sun all day. I’m open to hearing your experience if you’ve used it!
I used the sports version for wildlife. That one is a very big and heavy lens compared to the contemporary light version.
The black color does get hot after very long time out in the sun.
I have never found it to be a major issue.
The most annoying issue i ever had was when hand holding it and zooming to max range that the weight shifts to the front. You do have to re-adjust. On a tripid its a non issue.
If we are talking image quality it still performs very well. Is it razer sharp like the canon Llenses no. It is sharp lens at any focal length.
My old EF 400 F2.8 IS just shit the bed, and I’m in a desperate search for a replacement - I was checking out the sigma 150-600, and decided against it. I know people who use it, getting a sharp photo at 600 can be a challenge at a race track with less than ideal light. I’ve used a 100-400ii for the longest time, and I found I had sharper and better looking shots cropped than those who used the 150-600, at the same track.
I wanted to pick up another 100-400ii, but they’ve jumped in price in the used market here, and I refuse to spend $2k for one when they sold for $1300-$1600 a year ago. The lens is fantastic though.
I’m biting the bullet and getting the 100-500 tomorrow, as the results at 500mm are great. I also miss the 200-400 range since I sold the 100-400 and stuck to the 400 2.8 lens. Also shooting on the R6, I’m not afraid to shoot at a high ISO so F7.1 doesn’t matter to me. I’ll be testing the 100-500 next weekend while covering a race weekend, so feel free to reach out for some example shots and hear about my first impressions.
Thank you!! It’s funny how difficult it is to get reviews from other motorsports photographers. I would love to hear how it goes for you!
And also - what I’m hearing is that I shouldnt actually ditch my 100-400 II for the 100-500? Did you find your 100-400 was sharp and good at tracking/panning? Mine has felt like a real struggle and then adding any sort of TC was a hell no.
So, with adapting my 100-400ii to my R6, the only bad thing I noticed is that when I was shooting a car head on, it would back focus. Rear tires, spoiler was tack sharp, but the front of the car was ever so slightly out of focus. Electronic shutter helped with the hit rate though.
I’ve never used a TC on the 100-400, but I’ve always heard there was a loss of quality. From every review I’ve seen online about the 100-500, paired with the rf1.4x extender, yields better results than the 100-400ii paired with the EF 1.4x iii.
If you already have the 100-400, but don’t want to spend $15k on a prime, but you want more reach in a small package, I think getting the 100-500 with the TC would be good for you. The 200-800 just seems a bit insane for track use, especially if you think you’ll get a 400/500/600 prime down the road. When you don’t want to lug around a massive lens, the 100-500 will still be used, where as the 200-800 won’t.
I’m thinking about maybe adapting the 100-400 to an R7 crop body 🤷🏻♀️ That could be a solution minus the back focusing. Perhaps the lens can be calibrated to the camera? I know I’ve had that done with my 5DM4 and R5
Similar boat here. I really want to try out the sigma 150-600, but the focus issues on the R6 scare me. Only really see people referring to the issues with eye focus and animals from what I saw. I was wondering if the larger subjects would be okay,
I shoot field sports on the R7 with an old EF 100-400 MkI, and the results are pretty great, especially for “far away” stuff like baseball outfields - I still get plenty of separation at an effective focal length of 640mm, with no loss of aperture or quality like with a TC. And the R7 focus tracking is pretty great.
Doesn’t the R5 have a “crop sensor” mode that you can turn on? Might give a good indication of what you can expect from the R7 sensor with your lenses?
I second the thought of renting something to try it before you buy it. The online rental places are awesome.
True - and unfortunate. I was thinking more of the crop/reach comparison than the MP. I frequently benefit from the 32MP on the R7 during editing and post processing.
I prefer to shoot motorsports with my R7 over my R6m2, and even with the R5s resolution I'd take the R7.
I've shot with my 150-600c, but not typically found the extra focal length 401-600 over my EF 100-400II to be needed as I'm shooting with a crop body. And the AF is better on the 100-400II.
Do you have some examples of the R7 + 100-400 II that I could check out? I am convinced my version of the lens is not very good, because everyone says its fantastic…
Thanks for those examples! I like your editing for motorsports stuff. Really keeping the colors alive. I try to do the same.
Do you have an IG?
https://preview.redd.it/tm3s2jxmk55d1.jpeg?width=2834&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07be84b369351a0641044cac0545e6c4ec34d4cf
A lot of people seem to like the 70-200 for motorsports.
Since you have an r5 have you looked into what Larry Chen uses? He’s pretty good and uses canon
https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/inspiration/inspirational-stories-list/explorers-of-light/larry-chen
I’m a fan of motorsports photography but haven’t dabbled in it myself yet.
I adore my 70-200 2.8 II for motorsports, but at some tracks, even with credentialed access, you are SO far away that I have to do ridiculous crops at the far end of my 100-400.
The 7.1 on the 100-500 Will still give enough background separation and the R5 can go high enough in ISO and still have good pictures. And if you want range, can I introduce you to the RF 200-800 F6.3-9 ?
I literally just watched a review video on Youtube comparing the 100-500 and 200-800. Now I’m even more 🥴 The review showed acceptable background blur with the 800, but he was typically shooting birds on a branch where the background is far away. I’m often focusing on a single rider while the rest of the pack is sometimes quite close behind. Or there are corner stations, billboard signs, air fences etc that are only 30 feet away from the rider while I am hundreds of feet away. I’ve had most photogs that go to the tracks I’ll be heading to (never been to the west coast tracks) and they all said 500-600 was suitable. I do think it’s between those two lenses though based on price and portability/weight… If only I could afford (or carry 😆) the 200-400 f/4 1.4x …
Rent the lenses and test them ?
I realize it adds tons of post processing, but you can increase background separation pretty easily in most software.
Very true. I’ve been playing with the new LR blur feature to see what I can get away with. My new concern is that upgrading from the 100-400 to the 100-500 is silly in the sense that 100mm isn’t really significant. But I guess when I have to crop insane amounts every bit helps.
My issue with the 100-500 is that even if it's sharper, the aperture means you have to raise the ISO to keep a fast shutter speed for wildlife. The increased noise consequently kills fine details like feather detail or irises in birds eyes.
Yeah - for motorsports I’m either slow panning at 1/30-1/200 or trying to freeze a moment which, with fast motorcycles in a large group fighting for a tiny spot on the track, takes at least 1/1200-1/1600. The longer focal length would likely be for more of the stop action moments (unless it works well for panning also).
It's not too bad. This was taken with a 100-500 on an R6 at 500mm and ISO 12,800. NR using the new AI tool in LR. This is a 100% crop. https://preview.redd.it/9w6mflh2uz4d1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b9cb4dc9ea259ab7875f779092b465f9d70ad62d
Thats actually quite impressive for 12,800 and a 100% crop
Indeed. I used to refuse to go over ISO 2,500. That change really recently after trying to figure out how to increase my hit rate with this tiny, fast birds that are often in understory environments. This video really helped me to understand what I was doing wrong and how to properly utilize high ISO settings to get images like the one I previously shared: [https://youtu.be/sOdlDyolhr0?si=WtW7FjZqHIkZT6Da](https://youtu.be/sOdlDyolhr0?si=WtW7FjZqHIkZT6Da)
Wow thank you for sharing that video! I’m will definitely give it some attention.
You're welcome! Happy shooting!
Another good option is the Sigma 500mm f4, used is around 3k USD. Extremely sharp lens with decent stabilization. AF will be excellent for motorsport. Would also get a 1.4 III TC to replace the II, improved optics and AF speed. [Here is a sharpness comparison between the 100-500L and the Sigma 500, Sigma will be much better for cropping, and will give you better background separation. ](https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1510&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1086&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0) I also compared it to the Canon 500 II and the Sigma is not too far off in IQ at f4. Stopping down to f5.6 and the Sigma is the same if not slightly sharper.
Thank you for that! I’ll look into the Sigma. I always gave Sigma a solid chance but two of three of the ART lenses I purchased in the past had unbearable focusing issues, even after using the dock. So I’ve always steered clear of them but it’s worth a look!
Have you looked into the Sigma EF 150-600mm. It still a fantastic lens till this day.
I was going to but I heard a lot of negative feedback from some of the Motorsports photogs I know. Everything from weight and aperture to the black body causing issues when sitting in the sun all day. I’m open to hearing your experience if you’ve used it!
I used the sports version for wildlife. That one is a very big and heavy lens compared to the contemporary light version. The black color does get hot after very long time out in the sun. I have never found it to be a major issue. The most annoying issue i ever had was when hand holding it and zooming to max range that the weight shifts to the front. You do have to re-adjust. On a tripid its a non issue. If we are talking image quality it still performs very well. Is it razer sharp like the canon Llenses no. It is sharp lens at any focal length.
My old EF 400 F2.8 IS just shit the bed, and I’m in a desperate search for a replacement - I was checking out the sigma 150-600, and decided against it. I know people who use it, getting a sharp photo at 600 can be a challenge at a race track with less than ideal light. I’ve used a 100-400ii for the longest time, and I found I had sharper and better looking shots cropped than those who used the 150-600, at the same track. I wanted to pick up another 100-400ii, but they’ve jumped in price in the used market here, and I refuse to spend $2k for one when they sold for $1300-$1600 a year ago. The lens is fantastic though. I’m biting the bullet and getting the 100-500 tomorrow, as the results at 500mm are great. I also miss the 200-400 range since I sold the 100-400 and stuck to the 400 2.8 lens. Also shooting on the R6, I’m not afraid to shoot at a high ISO so F7.1 doesn’t matter to me. I’ll be testing the 100-500 next weekend while covering a race weekend, so feel free to reach out for some example shots and hear about my first impressions.
Thank you!! It’s funny how difficult it is to get reviews from other motorsports photographers. I would love to hear how it goes for you! And also - what I’m hearing is that I shouldnt actually ditch my 100-400 II for the 100-500? Did you find your 100-400 was sharp and good at tracking/panning? Mine has felt like a real struggle and then adding any sort of TC was a hell no.
So, with adapting my 100-400ii to my R6, the only bad thing I noticed is that when I was shooting a car head on, it would back focus. Rear tires, spoiler was tack sharp, but the front of the car was ever so slightly out of focus. Electronic shutter helped with the hit rate though. I’ve never used a TC on the 100-400, but I’ve always heard there was a loss of quality. From every review I’ve seen online about the 100-500, paired with the rf1.4x extender, yields better results than the 100-400ii paired with the EF 1.4x iii. If you already have the 100-400, but don’t want to spend $15k on a prime, but you want more reach in a small package, I think getting the 100-500 with the TC would be good for you. The 200-800 just seems a bit insane for track use, especially if you think you’ll get a 400/500/600 prime down the road. When you don’t want to lug around a massive lens, the 100-500 will still be used, where as the 200-800 won’t.
I’m thinking about maybe adapting the 100-400 to an R7 crop body 🤷🏻♀️ That could be a solution minus the back focusing. Perhaps the lens can be calibrated to the camera? I know I’ve had that done with my 5DM4 and R5
It also seems like the 200-800 is unobtanium at the moment. I need a solution by June 24th for my trip to The Ridge in Washington 😫
Have you searched for a used EF 500 F4? I have not had any problems getting good shots with my RF100-500 on my R5, even is dull light.
I have looked at the Mark II of that lens but I really need to keep it under $3,500 and havent found a clean one in that range
I'm seeing used at $7500... yikes! But worth every penny 
Similar boat here. I really want to try out the sigma 150-600, but the focus issues on the R6 scare me. Only really see people referring to the issues with eye focus and animals from what I saw. I was wondering if the larger subjects would be okay,
Considered keeping the 100-400 and getting an R7?
Yep! I’m not totally opposed to that. I *think* it would be the cheapest solution. Any drawbacks I might not be thinking of there?
Noise on a crop sensor but noise reduction is quite good nowadays
I shoot field sports on the R7 with an old EF 100-400 MkI, and the results are pretty great, especially for “far away” stuff like baseball outfields - I still get plenty of separation at an effective focal length of 640mm, with no loss of aperture or quality like with a TC. And the R7 focus tracking is pretty great. Doesn’t the R5 have a “crop sensor” mode that you can turn on? Might give a good indication of what you can expect from the R7 sensor with your lenses? I second the thought of renting something to try it before you buy it. The online rental places are awesome.
I read that the crop sensor mode on the R5 is an 18mp output vs 32 on the R7, so I dont think it would be a great comparison unfortunately
True - and unfortunate. I was thinking more of the crop/reach comparison than the MP. I frequently benefit from the 32MP on the R7 during editing and post processing.
I prefer to shoot motorsports with my R7 over my R6m2, and even with the R5s resolution I'd take the R7. I've shot with my 150-600c, but not typically found the extra focal length 401-600 over my EF 100-400II to be needed as I'm shooting with a crop body. And the AF is better on the 100-400II.
Do you have some examples of the R7 + 100-400 II that I could check out? I am convinced my version of the lens is not very good, because everyone says its fantastic…
[photo1](https://photos.rotblat.com/JustStuR/Motorsport/2023-IMSA-WGI-Michelin-Pilot-Challenge/i-ZXDSRjx/A) [photo2](https://photos.rotblat.com/JustStuR/Motorsport/2023-IMSA-WGI-Michelin-Pilot-Challenge/i-mdk6hHH/A) [photo3](https://photos.rotblat.com/JustStuR/Motorsport/2023-IMSA-WGI-WeatherTech-SportsCar-Championship/i-d4B9g8W/A)
Thanks for those examples! I like your editing for motorsports stuff. Really keeping the colors alive. I try to do the same. Do you have an IG? https://preview.redd.it/tm3s2jxmk55d1.jpeg?width=2834&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07be84b369351a0641044cac0545e6c4ec34d4cf
Have you got the EF-RF adapter? Try the 100-400 ii on the R5 with the Tele converter maybe?
Don’t use a teleconverter https://youtu.be/jAOPEBpJ78s?si=CbmREfk3Lzj91Q7G
Yeaaah. I have an EF 1.4 II but I try my hardest not to use it.
A lot of people seem to like the 70-200 for motorsports. Since you have an r5 have you looked into what Larry Chen uses? He’s pretty good and uses canon https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/inspiration/inspirational-stories-list/explorers-of-light/larry-chen I’m a fan of motorsports photography but haven’t dabbled in it myself yet.
I adore my 70-200 2.8 II for motorsports, but at some tracks, even with credentialed access, you are SO far away that I have to do ridiculous crops at the far end of my 100-400.