DUMP The 100-500 OR Can TELECONVERTERS Make The DIFFERENCE? Canon RF 200-800 vs RF 100-500 Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Canon RF 100-500 & Teleconverters or the Rf 200-200 lens? Which one is the best choice in the field and will give you the best results?
MASTERCLASS - Editing Your Bird Images To Perfection
👉 aviscapes.com/masterclass-edi...
____________________________________________
Check out our PROSETS here and save up to 30%!
👉 thebirdphotographyshow.com/pr...
____________________________________________
NEW Brush Pack w/ Custom Layers
👉thebirdphotographyshow.com/bru...
_____________________________________________
MASTERCLASS & PERCHED BUNDLE - 25% off!
👉 aviscapes.com/perched-masterc...
_____________________________________________
How to Attract Amazing Birds Ebook & Video Perched
👉 aviscapes.com/video-and-ebook/
_____________________________________________
SET UP GUIDES | Z8, R3, R5, R6 II, R7 & MORE
👉 thebirdphotographyshow.com
_____________________________________________
Instagram
👉 / jan_wegener_
_____________________________________________
Bird Photography Helpers:
DXO Nik Collection
tidd.ly/49KzcMl
DXO Pure RAW 3 Free trial:
tidd.ly/3HsjB6M
tidd.ly/3uOpwhl
Topaz DeNoise AI & Photo AI 2
www.topazlabs.com/shop/ref/1347/
Flex Shooter Pro Head
👉 www.ballhead.eu/flexline-full...
This is the Equipment I recommend:
Canon EOS R5 amzn.to/2FV1Fpq
Canon EOS R6 amzn.to/3qOtEbQ
Nikon Z9 amzn.to/3GeMscb
Sony Alpha 1 amzn.to/2WsXKYZ
Canon RF 100-500 L IS amzn.to/3liEIx0
RF Extender 1.4x amzn.to/3bMD5nO
RF Extender 2x amzn.to/3cuMdwD
Sony FE 200-600 amzn.to/3faCMVj
Sony 1.4x TC amzn.to/2WsXMA5
RF 800 F11 amzn.to/3ldq6Pr
RF600 F11 amzn.to/3bIBrDJ
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV amzn.to/2ToffWf
Canon 600 L IS III (I have v. II) amzn.to/3dZM7wn
Canon EF 5.6/400 L amzn.to/2AJwbQk
Canon 1.4x TC III amzn.to/2T7vAhz
Canon 2x TC III amzn.to/3fPnYdr
Canon 600 EX - RT amzn.to/3czhDRf
Wimberley Head II amzn.to/3dOuqzI
Gitzo 5543LS (new version of my tripod) amzn.to/3dRfxg3
Gitzo GT2545T Travel Tripod amzn.to/3BSmhXJ
Wimberley Flash Bracket amzn.to/2LweMg5
Wimberley M-6 Extension Post amzn.to/2LxCvfQ
Better Beamer (check for compatibility) amzn.to/2AxbbfF
Flash Battery (Godox & Flashpoint is the same) amzn.to/3fNDWVD
Power Cord amzn.to/3cBJGzt
Y connector amzn.to/2X22zoT
Novoflex STA-SET amzn.to/2y5s1Bt
LensCoat LensHide amzn.to/3bAkoAo
LensCoat Lens Hoodie amzn.to/3fStHiI
Canon 2.8/70-200 II amzn.to/3cArBSB
Canon 4/24-70 amzn.to/2AwjeJE
Canon 4/16-35 L IS amzn.to/3fPqPDb
JBL Clip3 Speaker amzn.to/36225D5
Sandisk Extreme Pro CFexpress Card type B 512GB amzn.to/38FPKHg
Sandisk Extreme Pro amzn.to/2WXKt7n
Panasonic Eneloop Pro amzn.to/2X2SQ1q
Minox 8x43 amzn.to/2Z7YxxQ
Canon LP-E6N amzn.to/3byTSYg
Manfrotto Mini Ballhead amzn.to/3dR2pYm
FStop Gear Sukha Backpack amzn.to/2Q3e4fZ
Atomos Ninja V amzn.to/3GYFV5v
LINKS USED IN THE DESCRIPTION MAY OR MAY NOT BE AFFILIATE LINKS
By using the affiliate links I earn a small commission on your purchase, it does not cost you anything extra to use them. It helps me to create more content for you. Thank you for the support!
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 The Conundrum
0:22 Big & Small
1:47 Oh No Rain!
3:21 LOW Light & Backgrounds
4:53 Image Stabilisation & MFD
7:36 Big Difference!
8:21 500 Too Short?
10:14 Image Quality
11:53 Teleconverters
13:17 Autofocus
14:22 Strength & Weaknesses
16:10 Insane Reach!
17:49 EF 100-400 II
18:05 Different Camera Bodies
19:28 Dump The 100-500!?
If size and weight were no object I'd go for the 200-800 in a heartbeat, but as they are more imprtant than an extra 100m at the long end, but 100mm less at the short end, I'll stick with the 100-500 and 1.4x. Thanks for a really well presented and balanced review Jan. I've waited a while for such a review and wasn't disappointed. Have a great 2024.
Thank you, you too!
I think the weight and size of RF 100-500 is just in the sweet spot. Anything heavier than that can be hard to handhold (for me).
The weight isn't that big of an issue. You'll get used to it
Agreed
The reviewer I trust and appreciate. Thank you Jan. If I were starting out I would most definitely opt for the 200-800mm. This not being the case, coupled to my appreciation for smaller size and light weight equipment, dictates that I continue with the 100-500 & 1.4 when required, my well appreciated « heavy » 600 f/4 when in the appropriate circumstances. Thank you for a most objective and well documented review.
Please tell us more about your 600 f/4 dream lens, is it worth abandoning the idea of this 200-800mm to lay down another 10k for the 600mm f4 or even the 400mm 2.8 for a sharper image?
Not that long ago I was delighted with my 70-300L, then the Sigma 150-600 was fantastic for reach but had such a poor keeper rate, and later the 100-500 Canon was a dream come true, but now 200-800 is looking to be my next addition...thanks for the great review.
As far as image quality and colours, the ef70-300l is imo the most underrated lens
@@Scott_Bishellthat was my first L lens and I loved it.
What video did you just watch?? LOL If you have the 100-500mm, i would just buy a TC, the 100-500mm range is already better, and equal when adding a TC up to 700mm.
Maybe if you wait a bit longer there will be a 100-1000mm 2.8 soon 😅
@@MrWiseinheartat 100k (grams and dollars)
thanks for putting so much effort and detail into these videos. they are extremely high quality and thorough.
Some of the best and in depth analysis on CZcams. Thanks Jan.
Really good. I’ve been waiting on this video for some and you did not disappoint. Nice of you to throw in the EF 100-400 for good measure.
The review I've been waiting for. Thank you so much, Jan. You've given lots of detail with great explanations. Lots to think about.
Thanks Jan! I will keep my 100-500 and add a 1.4 for 3 reasons , Portability , Versatility, and Close focus. In addition to Birds I do a lot of landscape photography and the 100-500 is way more useful to me.
Yes if you use the wide end a lot the 100-500 is an easy choice
The 1.4 extender is often a right pain, loosing 100-300 owing to the design is extremely annoying, hire one first before buying
I agree Rodney. Same for me.
Excellent review. This review answered all of the questions I had. Thank you.
You can’t have too many lenses-I’ll keep them both and enjoy the flexibility. But it’s going to be harder and harder to convince myself to drag my EF600/f4 along. Great video, and very timely. Thanks, Jan.
Same here!
Another well-informed comparison and video, thank you! For me considering budget and lightweight the RF800mm f11 and RF100-400mm both cost less than either of those big telephotos and are so enjoyable to carry and shoot with in the field! I never have any problems with a lack of image quality and with the R7 and R8 I'm getting all the reach I need.
Great review. I have both lenses and both the R5 and the R7. Your review mirrors my experience. I normally go out with the RF100-500 on the R5 and the RF200-800 on the R7 and have a 1.4x with me just in case. I like having the flexibility of having 100mm to 1280mm when I am out.
Since days and bird activity differs from day to day, some days I take most pictures with one setup over the other. In either case I know I am going to get good pictures.
What a very good summary! you can see and feel your experience in this bird field photography! 🙂
Also I like your part about the 100 and 200 minimum focus of both. .....This is so much underestimated in use.
I would far more love to have this 100-500 lens above the 200-800 lens because of the more interesting photo's I will make are more a mix of cultural and nature photography.
Most of the more interesting pictures are made than on the shorter end of such a lens.
That's also why I call both lenses more amateur lenses because I consider there the 70-200 4.0 a more professional one, or off course the 2.8.
Completing it than with having one longer lens you can afford to take with you in size and weight.
I fully agree about your claim that F9-11 on long ends is not so much a problem anymore.
But only on the LONG ends! It absolutely matters at the short ends.
I like the 70-200 4.0 therefor far more for me with a long lens in reserve. F11 600mm rf ? 🙂
Greetings from the Netherlands again, Onno Nugteren Photographer and Filmmaker.
Great review Jan. And as always with some spectacular photos. I have to say that the 200-800 is very tempting. Great reach, very good sharpnes and to a very good price.
Wishing you a great week, with a lot of fun, and wonderful photos.
Cheers, Bjoern
Excellently put together video my friend! Thanks 👏
Thank you very much!
RF 200-800mm lens is a very tempting. I've given some serious consideration and decided to stay with my RF 100-500mm lens and 1.4x converter. Looking forward to 200-500mm F4 when it comes out.
Are there any rumours pointing to such a lens?
SImply excellent and exhaustive review with personal inputs... as usual. Big thanks
Glad you liked it
For me the ideal setup is having the 70-200 and the 200-800 with the extenders when needed. Thanks for the informative video.
Thanks, Jan this has convinced me to stay with my 100-500 + 1.4 Extender (just) it was very tempting to buy yet another lens but really I can’t warrant the cost 🤷🏼♂️
Thanks Jan, you've just answered the question that has been bugging me since I pre-ordered the 200-800. Just need the lens now!
Thank you very much for this detailed information. You’ve helped me a lot !
What a fantastic review. I moved from a Sigma 150-600 because of it's drawbacks to the 100-500 and love the Canon zoom. I love its size and almost macro close focusing. I love the 100-500 for landscape and sports. I know we always want more reach and I'm tempted by the 200-800 but wildlife is not my main subject so for now I'll try to get closer to my subjects in the UK and keep using my 100-500.
One of the best reviews I have seen. Well done. Great comparisons and well thought summaries of these lens’s. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@jan_wegener I see the focus issues you have had with the r7 from day one. Mine doesn’t have those hunting issues at all. Either I got a good copy or yours has issues. I use it with the ef300 f/2.8 is ii. With the 1.4x teleconverter. Going to get your masterclass program shortly.
Very helpful video. Thank you very much!
Your videos are so fantastic. Thank you!
Thank you very much for this review Jan. I saw Port Fairy in your video too! A little cold at times but an awesome place to live.
It’s a lovely little town
Hi Jan, thanks for an interesting comparison report between these lenses. Without going into too many reasons why, im curious to know how the 200-800 would match up to a combination of 100-500 and 800 f11 in the field when the longer focal length is needed? I feel the 200-800 is rather bulky compared to the 100-500 and wouldn't consider one in addition to the smaller L lens.
Thanks for the fantastic review Jan. You have aided and abetted this newish hobby of mine with your vast video catalogue featuring all facets of photography. Duade also had a hand in this as did a few others. I shoot with an R7 and RF100-500 almost exclusively. I ended up purchasing the 100-500 after deciding I would not purchase the 200-800 as I normally hike or bike with the camera and lens for many hours at a time. After watching this video and comparing the images I'm going to go the 1.4x TC route. I figure the only time I need that extra reach is for the ducks and geese in the marshes and a used kayak or canoe off of Kijiji is the cheaper option. Thanks again for all your videos and taking the time to share your expertise.
This is the video I was waiting for! The comparison shots were fantastic! I have the 100-500 and a 2x teleconverter. The 200-800 is tempting... I'm not sure if I can justify it , but 1600 with the 2x seems like it would be fun!
f/18??? Whoa!
Nice, lean and clean presented. Sehe es ganz genau so! Keep on going :)
Thank you for the great advice…Enjoy your videos they are very informative,most of all you have a way of explaining it well.. looking forward to seeing more of your videos in the coming year of 2024..
Thank you for the comparison video Jan...I am currently using a Tamron 150-600 G2 lens but certainly will look into having a 200-800 mm lens with R6 mk.2 in future...Thanks and belated Merry Christmas to you 🙌🏻🙏🏻😊🎄
Amazing comparison! Thank you! But I'm still not ready to choose between these two 😅 They both are so amazing....
I found this to be an excellent review, answering many of my questions about this lens. Wishing you in advance Happy New Year and keep up the super work. Regards from the Uk.
Thanks, you too!
very helpful ... thank you !
Thank you Jan I especially liked your point about the minimum distance. Focus between the 100 to 500 mm versus 200 to 800 mm. Thank you so much for doing this review and bringing up all the important points to consider. It’s kinda hard to believe that you actually have to step back from your subject to get the shot you want and always in the past because I have a 100 to 400 mm with a 1.4 converter I was always doing telefoot . But always enjoying the challenge of getting better and better photos with better and better technique..
This video is exactly what we were expecting. You nailed it again Jan!
Thank you!
Great comprehensive review Jan! The IQ between the 2 configurations is too close to make the call! But overall compactness and having the 100-500 + 1.4x already makes it a no-brainer. I would get the 200-800 just to put the 1.4x on for the insane ~1800mm FOV on the R7.
I am next in line for the RF 200-800 at my camera store. I will be keeping both lenses. i'm excited!
Great video thank you for the comparison and effort
Thanks for watching!
super detailed and informational, great video!
Glad you enjoyed it!
That 100-400 vs 100-500 transition at 1:10 was so cool! As someone who travels a lot, my 100-500L with the 2x is a wonderful combo and I use my 500 f/4L II when at home and size is not a problem. Nice to see more options from Canon and great content from you!
Thanks!
Superbe! Thank you and wishing you a photo-rich 2024! Not too difficult with so many great animals so “close” to where you are… Take Care, Max
Thank you! You too!
great review, wonderful work.
Thank you! Cheers!
Appreciate your candid review. You made the case for me to buy 200-800mm as I was on the fence.
Wow - great and very thorough review! Thanks. I'll stick to the 100-500mm + 1.4x TC because it's just small enough to put in a backpack and take hiking (or even on my bike). I'm also really horrible to my gear and frequently use it in damp and or dusty conditions so the better weather sealing is important to me. However if I was buying a telephoto lens now it would be an almost impossible decision. A few friends either already have it or are seriously considering it so it will be really interesting to see it in real life.
Thanks for this comparison Jan
I've just bought an R6 mark ii to replace my 1DX ii and I see now why people bang on about changing to mirrorless: the AF and tracking are freakishly good.
I'm currently still using my EF 100-400mm ii zoom alongside my 300mm f/2.8 & 400mm f/2.8 and also using 1.4x and 2x extenders. All these lenses work much better with my new camera but I'm considering buying an RF 100-500 or RF 200-800mm and selling my 100-400
I'll probably buy the 200-800 as it's a lot cheaper than the 100-500 plus a 1.4x extender.
One comparison that would be interesting is comparing the R5 and RF 100-500 with the R6 ii and RF 200-800 as the extra reach/magnification of 800mm over 500mm is effectively a 1.6x crop and if you crop the R5's 45 mp by 1.6x (i.e. divide it by 1.6x1.6 = 2.56) you get 17.5 mp which is a lot less than the R6ii's 24 mp.
I'll miss my 100-400's great close up semi-macro performance and wide field of view at 100mm vs 200mm but I can always use my iphone for that.
Cheers
Noel
Auckland
New Zealand
Great video. Answered alot of my questions.
Great to hear!
Thanks Jan!!! :)
This was such a helpful comparison, thank you. I use the Rf 100-500mm as my main lens because a use I love the wider shots that include the environment that the animal is in. sometimes add the 1.4x if needed. I also have the 800mm prime, very light, and could use the converter on that lens as well, I use this a lot for small birds that I can’t get close to. I can’t see myself buying this lens, but for someone starting out in wildlife , it’s a great affordable choice. 😊
Great analysis! I never saw the value in upgrading from my EF 100-400mm II to the RF 100-500 mm. However, I just got the 200 - 800 mm and absolutely love the reach. My kit will include both the EF 100-400 and the 200-800 mm. I may add the 1.4 extender at some point.
Thanks for sharing
That’s such a good combo! The 100-400 is an awesome lens but doesn’t like TCs as much as RF, and the 200-800 will give you amazing reach at excellent quality. I’ve been amazed at how good the RF lenses are with TCs; you won’t regret a 1.4 if you go that route.
I finally got to shoot my 200-800 on my R8 on Christmas day. I was hoping for an eagle or an osprey in flight along the Niagara Parkway, but had to settle for some swimming mallards and merganzers. When it came to birds in flight I wasn't having any luck on the parkway, so I went to a beach and captured the one bird here in Niagara that will always fly for you...the common gull. They are a great subject, both for learning how to shoot birds in flight, as they aren't shy at all, but also for testing new lens/camera combos. You can always find them here in the Great Lakes region! If anything, they are too habituated to people, and they ran into fairly long minimum-focus distance. But overall the results were very impressive and a huge improvement over my 7DII with the EF 100-400 (original, not the Mark II). Can't wait to use it more!
Very interesting results, and I have a thought about the lack of coatings giving the highlight bleed.
I own the RF100-500 and love it. But after seeing your video examples, I’m actually considering the RF200-800 as maybe a primary lens for wildlife video.
I’m not a fan of the highlight bleed on stills, but for video in your examples it actually produces a nice highlight roll-off, and takes away some of the digital sharpness… which to my eye is very pleasing. It also produces a very subtle bloom effect around highlights, but not quite 1/8th most filter strength, but maybe 1/16th? Kinda gives a weird “fake dynamic range” boost to the image with that soft roll off, if that makes sense? Looks pleasing to my eyes anyways!
Thank you for the review and thoughts. It is very helpful. I am still an EF shooter with an EF 100-400 II and 500 f/4 II. I have yet to make the leap to the RF 100-500. I shot everything, but do a number of bird walks, and also from kayaks. Given my current kit, I pre-ordered the 200-800. I have yet to receive it, but I am thinking it will be a nice addition.
Thank you for an excellent review of both lenses. I own the 100-500 and think I'll hang onto that for the time being. I do find the fact that it won't retract fully with a teleconverter on very frustrating, but that is my only criticism of it right now. However, I might rent the 200-800 in the future to try it out. Thanks, again!
Having the 100-500 with the R5 is a great combo. I ordered the 200-800 also, though.
Thank you Jan for sharing ! My first tests of the RF200-800 with my R7 are rather encouraging! All the autofocus settings still need to be fine-tuned! The difference with my Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is significant!
Yes compared to the Sigmas with the AF pulsing issues in the R cameras it should be a big difference
Is the image quality better in your opinion? I have the 150-600 but am really struggling with the keeper rates and focus problems.
The image quality is better! The Rf 200-800 is completely silent on video unlike the Sigma 150-600 which is very noisy! the autofocus is much more responsive, however, it still sometimes happens that the autofocus has difficulty finding its target with the RF200-800, this does not revolutionize the R7 either! But overall the difference is really significant since it is rarer to have a series where 1 image out of 2 is blurred...I am going to sell my 150-600 to only use the RF200-800 knowing that the 320mm extra is very useful to me!@@honeybadger1656
Thanks Jan, very thorough review. I'll be keeping my 100-500 but can see an argument for adding to my lens with the 200-800. Cheers.
Have the 100 to 500 Cannon lens since it was introduced. I’m a birdwatcher first so the flexibility of this land in the field is fantastic.. you cited the problem of caring, a large lens with a tripod that works where there is bodies of waters, marshes, etc. .. would love to see more about your post processing and CZcams CZcams video to see if it’s worth purchasing,,, buffalo, John
THERE IT IS!
Another very helpful review Jan. Still waiting for my 200-800. I have been wondering whether to get a 1.4x teleconverter and I think that, as much of my photography takes place at distance, your review has more or less convinced me to go for it. It seems, contrary to expectation, there is little degradation of IQ with the added benefit of much greater reach. I am far less convinced of the utility of the 2x however and will give that a miss...for now!
Thanks Jan, excellent review as always. I have the 100-500 & 2x on a R5 so I’ll probably stick with that, but you’ve answered exactly the question that I was wondering about! Even though I use my current lens mostly at the long end for wildlife photography, what it really comes down to is just how good that lens is with the 2x while retaining the ability to capture something wide at 100mm. Of course, this will not stop me trying to justify the 200-800 😊…
Fantastic review, Jan! Thanks very much for this. So many great images from in the field. Based on the images you showed, and comparisons by other CZcamsrs, I'd say the 2-8 is ever so slightly sharper compared to the 1-5 +1.4x when the photographer is the same distance from the subject. However, I could see the slight amount of fringing in the photo you showed which was taken with the 2-8 (and in another review as well). So a tradeoff there in regards to IQ between the 2 lenses. Perhaps the slight fringing can also be removed in post? Sometimes I run into wild birds that are very approachable, or land near me unexpectedly, but most of the time I need the longer end of the zoom, so my 1.4x lives on my 1-5 lens (which means that the 1-5+1.4x is too much reach at times because of its lack of ability to retract the zoom all the way). For the RARE occasions I run into when 200mm is too much reach, I always have my RF 70-200 f4 and RF 24-70 f2.8 in my backpack at my disposal because I also enjoy photographing landscapes when I'm out hiking around. Thanks again. Kind regards.
Thanks for sharing!
I’ve been shooting with a Sigma 150-600 on my R6. It’s been a solid combo, but seeing the 200-800 become available made me wonder if this would be worth the upgrade. Your comparisons between the two lenses and example images you shared are incredibly helpful! Thank you so much!
Thank you very much for this video. It is so precise that it almost looks like a laboratory. You have addressed every aspect that a photographer should take into account. Thanks for the effort and time. Greetings from Chile.
Glad it was helpful!
Hi Jan. Great video again. Top. Great video again!! I can't make a decision to improve my bird photography (close by, far and BIF). I have a R7 and the RF 100-500 + 1.4. Going for a mirrorless camera (R5 or the coming up 1) or going for the RF 200-800. Do you have some advice? Is the 200-800 "overdone" having the 100-500 + 1.4 already?
Looking to rent the 200-800 with an R7 and hopefully upgrade from the sigma 150-600 with my 80D. This video was helpful, thank you!
Hi Jan, Hope you had a good Christmas and are looking forward to lots of adventures in 2024. Realy enjoyed this latest video which is very informative. Big question for me though is currently I use a 600 f11 for my main wildlife lens, originally with an RP which I still have, but more recently with an R7. I have had good results with both camera bodies but am aware of the limitations of the 600mm and have been considering the 100-400 and now the 200-800 as an alternative lens. I like the 600mm for its lightness and portability but a faster lens would be an improvement. Both of the white lenses are much heavier than my 600mm but the 100-500 Looks like the best choice as it is lighter and more compact for travel and everyday use. This lens would give me 160 - 800 with either body (if I use 1.6 crop on the RP) but I would probably use it mostly with R7. I would really value your opinion before I come to a decision. Best regards, Keith
I’d been trying to decide between getting the 100-500 or the 200-800 and after watching your video, I decided to get the 100-500. So far I love it! I already had the RF 1.4 extender, so I will be using that some of the time. But it came down to the versatility. I live in Colorado so I do a lot of mountain hiking and the 100-500 fits in my backpack while not adding too much weight. Plus I like to take photos of a variety of subjects. Maybe a moose, then a small bird like a chickadee, then a little pika, then a wildflower…..and this setup seemed more appropriate. Plus, it’d a long time waiting on back orders to get the 200-800 and in meantime I would miss a lot of pictures. So I’m happy with my decision and thank you for helping me make it. Someday maybe I’ll also get the 200-800 since it seems to be a fantastic lens, but for now I’m happy.
Great review Jan. Just wondering how you did that pink-robin perche so nicely. 😏
Grx, Henk
Thank you Jan for your great informative review. I've recently moved over to the R6MkII from the 5DMkiv. Over the last few weeks I've been looking to upgrade my EF100-300, and Sigma 150 - 600 S and after your review i think I'm settled for the 100 - 500, it just gives you that bit more in terms of flexibility and the weight/size of the lens is a big factor. When out walking most of the day i found my 5DMiv sigma lens more of a workout rather than an enjoyable day out shooting! Your review has certainly convinced me that the 100-500 is the way to go for my needs. Thank you!.
Thanks. This is a great review and an informative video. It will help me in my decision.
Thank you! Glad you found it helpful
Hello Jan, I was in Namibia last month. I found for birds that the 100-500 with 1.4x was excellent for birds but not suitable for mammals because of the minimum 420mm focal length. Since I knew what our targets would be every day I could plan what to set up. I few times I did have to change from one to the other to get usable photos. I was impressed with the sharpness of the 100-500 with the 1.4x extender. Early morning and late afternoon shots were very high ISO but Lightroom Enhance did a good job with them. I can't justify two lenses and would not want to give up the 100-500 range so will stay with it for now.
Your videos on the 200-800mm have been very helpful. I have the R5, but have continued to use my EF glass - 100-400mm MII, 300mm f/2.8 MII, 500 f/4 MII. I've decided to get some native RF glass, but wasn't 100% sure I'd be satisfied with the 100-500 as that much better than my 100-400 to justify the $3K since I have the 500 prime. I think that the 200-800 is the perfect compromise for me, it gets me over to some native RF glass, gives me reach with a hand-holdable lens that I've never had, and gives me the versatility of the zoom lens. As much as I'd love to upgrade my primes to the RF 400 & 600, it's very difficult for an amateur to justify even one of those lenses, much less both when I already have the 300 & 500, which function better on my R5 than they did on my 1DxMII.
A comprehensive review! Lots to think about on the next lens purchase.
Glad it was helpful!
Es ist unglaublich, was du an Vogelarten da aus kurzer Distanz vor die Linse bekommen kannst.
Danke für den Test. Ich überlege aktuell, mein 100-500 gegen das 200-800 zu tauschen. Bin noch unentschieden.
Want to know how the 2 lens compare for bird photography? - Jan completely covers the subject here! This video and his earlier video on just the 200-800 lens czcams.com/video/rAtzEvn9C_M/video.htmlsi=BQwvPquR2fDKH3kb answer all the questions I have about the new lens. Thank you for these 2 reviews.
Have been waiting for your review as I have a 200-800 on order. Was debating whether to go for the 100-500, but for my specific needs, the 200-800 looks the best option - thank you
One point I would like to add to Jan’s fantastic review, the 200-800mm lens with TCs is the best for LUNAR Photography. Personally I already have RF 100-500 but no regret whatsoever.🎉
Hi Jan, happy new year. I hope you are on hi ground as you have copped a bit of weather since you brought this video out. Watch out for ticks and leeches in the humid weather. Keep safe.
Thanks! Still in Melbourne atm, so just cold here 😂
@@jan_wegener better stay there! 😎
Great summary between the 100-500 and 200-800 Canon RF lenses. Could you do an overview between the Sigma 150-600 vs the Canon RF 200-800. I have a R7 body and recently bought the Sigma 150-600 mainly for birding and wildlife photography. But with the option of the 200-800 and I now torn as to what to do. I have had several instances of missed opportunity since the Sigma was just slow is focusing and latching onto the subject.
Great video and very thorough presentation
Glad you liked it!
Jan- thanks for the great video. Was wondering what you would personally do in my situation.
I don’t have the rf100-500. Pre-ordered the 200-800 months ago and still don’t have it.
I do however have the rf1.4x extender. I currently have a sigma 150-600c that I use for my wildlife photography and I’m almost always at 600mm.(obviously can’t use the rf extender on that lens).
Is the rf100-500 still the better lens (with or without the 1.4x) since it will undoubtedly be better than my sigma OR do I continue to wait for the 200-800? Running out of patience (and time as we’re going on vacation in May and I want a new lens by then). Thank you!
I’m certainly happy with the 200-800 compared to the Sigma 150 -600 sport. I h improved keeper rate and the lighter package is better on my dodgy wrists. I think down the track I would be looking to add a lens that is more open for rain forest shooting.
Super helpful comparison
Glad you think so!
Thank you Jan, excellent practical review as usual. I think I'll keep my 100-500 as main lens, the 200-800 is too long and heavy, better take my 500 f/4 when weight and room in the bag are not a problem. As you know, birds in France are not as tame as in Australian, and of course I need an extra range. But it's usually the combo R7 100-500 which is the most versatile and good enough, despite a lot of autofocus issues on a lot of pictures. Anyway, there is usually some very sharp pictures, may be one out of 15, and I'm happy with that. But when subjects are close enough, R6 and 100-500 are even better indeed. I've got more issues with my recently bought 1.4 RF converter. I have to work on it, previous test with a friend's extender were pretty good, even in the heat of July. May be an issue with mine. Anyway, birds are not the only wonders in Nature, and when it comes to lizards, for instance, the short minimum focus of the 100-500 is a great advantage, and reversely, it would be a great loss with the 200-800.
And happy new year, you're already in 2024, and not me !
Excellent, just the type of comparison review I was waiting for. And now it's decided, I need the 100-500 for my R7 and the 200-800 for the R8. Just need to convince the good lady to release some funds, wish me luck!
I could definitely see the option of a lighter weight kit.....R5 + 200-800 + smaller tripod (monopod?) and flex shooter pro head....The weight savings here would be pretty nice!
So verdict on 200-800 on R7 is still not clear 😢 not even on 100-500.. crazy but i request you Jan to make a dedicated video on only R7 with 200-800 it will great support from your end for all R7 users, as far i have seen both the videos from you on 200-800 i feel this one is made for good lighting condition and for full frame lens(as you mentioned in this video too).. i am really in dilemma which one to buy for my R7 and in future if i upgrade to R5 M2(on roadmap) or R6 M2….
I have been waiting for this review to basically be a decisive factor. I initially watched the review on my phone before I got home. I then got home and watched it on my Samsung s95b. Immediately I had a final decision. You might not notice it and it might pass you by unless you scale up with watching the review. THE RF 100-500 is noticeably sharper, and the images handle the edits much better than that of the 200-800. I paused the video on my 65 inch tv at 14:33 and I had to be honest. With the teleconverter at 700 the RF 100-500 is sharper and captures much more “RAW” for post production. The 200-800 is impressive for not being an L series and the reason for that while negligible is quite evident.
I have the 500mm prime, Mk1 300mm prime, 100-500 RF lenses and shoot with the R5. I had to economise on space/weight when travelling to the Falkland Islands a few years back when I was shooting with the 1DX. I completed some research and decided to take the 100-400mm along with the 300mm f2.8 and times 2 and 1.4 teleconverters. I have astonishingly sharp images with the 300mm and the teleconverters. Recently I have been using my R5 with the 300mm with converters. Blown away by the quality; and the hand held capability is a dream! Simply place this set up on a monopod for portability - and what a low cost and impressive outcome!
I've been waiting for your take on exactly this dilemma. Currently I use an R6 Mkii with a 100-500 and occasionally a 1.4TC. I'm taking a trip to Canada and Alaska later in the year and considering both my lens choices and adding a second body. It looks like I'll stick with the lens combo but maybe consider the 2xTC as an addition, as your images with it look impressive. The difficult decision is the 2nd body choice. Do I buy another R6 Mkii for it's AF performance or an R5 for extra pixels? The R5 Mk ii will probably be unavailable in time for me and probaly out of my price bracket. Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Thanks again for your content, I always look forward to it.
Thank you, Jan, for great comparison. I have a question. Which of two lenses would you (and other Canon shooters) chose for wildlife shooting with R7 (and 2x Extender available) if the PRICE is the same (RF 100-500 is Refurbished by Canon)?
Hello I'm getting into photography more and more and looking to improve my lens. Currently I have an r6 mark 2 with the rf 100-400 F5.6-8 lens as my current telo lens. I shoot majority nature/sports. Would you suggest getting the 200-800 or go with the 100-500? Thanks for the advice!
Thanks for all these interesting videos in 2023 from down under and all the best for 2024!
Same to you! Thanks!
Thank you for the comparison. I'm waiting for the 200-800 lens to ship/arrive. I was interested to hear of auto focus trouble with the R7. I almost sent the R7 back thinking it was me, but decided to stick it out as I like the extra reach of the crop sensor. But sometimes the missed shots drive me a little crazy and I use the R5 instead and just crop the photo. Excellent shots by the way.
Thanks for sharing!
What to choose ? I use Sigma 150 - 600 (with Canon R5) so the answer is obvious 😉 But the flexibility of RF 100 - 500 is really tempting. Thank you for the good material. Greetings from France !
So the answer for the low end of the 200-800mm is to carry a 70-200 f2.8 or f4 on a full frame camera of your choice which would also provide a shallower depth of field than the 100-500mm 😊
Another thorough comparison, thanks Jan. Have you played with Photoshop's Super Resolution to upscale images from lenses with less reach?
Not a lot