70-200 mm or 100-500 mm?
Hey folks!
Hoping for some guidance because I’m honestly a little lost. I have an R6 Mark II, which I absolutely love. I use my 85mm for indoor sports and love it, I can usually get close enough that I’m doing very minimal cropping.
I’ve recently started trying outdoor sports, and this is where I’m stuck on which direction to go. I used my 24–105mm kit lens and actually got some good shots. Most people thought they were great, but of course I can see where they could be better. My biggest issue is that I definitely want more reach.
Part of me wants the 70–200mm f/2.8 and then an extender if I find I need more reach. The other part of me wants the 100–500mm, but I’d be sacrificing aperture to get that extra reach.
For reference, when I used the 24–105mm, I was shooting at the full 105mm, f/7, 1/1000 and ISO 640. It was cloudy, but not fully overcast.
I’m renting a lens tomorrow to try this weekend, but honestly, I don’t even know where to start. I have a feeling I’ll love the 70–200mm but wish I had more reach, or love the 100–500mm for the reach but wish I had the wider aperture and subject separation.
I’m also trying to cover all my bases. The 70–200mm would obviously be useful for outdoor sports, but I could also see myself using it indoors. And maybe that’s just trying to fill an unrealistic order.
Cost-wise, the two are fairly close, only a couple hundred dollars more for the 100–500mm, so unfortunately that isn’t making the decision any easier.
I’m also completely open to going with an EF lens to save some money, especially if there’s good EF glass that makes sense on the R6 Mark II with an adapter.
Help! What would you choose and why?
Thanks!