Canon RF 200-800 vs RF 100-500. Lens Review for Wildlife Photography
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 06. 2024
- It's the Canon RF 200-800mm vs RF100-500mm video! In this video, the Canon RF 200-800mm goes head-to-head against its older brother, the Canon RF 100-500mm L Lens in this review for wildlife photography.
Join me for an unboxing, field test and hide test where I take pictures in front of you and compare how the photos come out between the two lenses, answering many questions including:
Do you really need to spend the extra on the Canon RF200-800mm lens or can you simply get by with the 1.4x extender on the RF 100-500mm lens?
How does the RF 200-800 lens perform in low light?
I hope this video will help you decide for yourself which of the two lenses is right for you.
For a FREE (no payment required) 14 day trial of the DXO Pure Raw4 DeNoise software I used in this video, click here: www.awin1.com/cread.php?s=287...
Amazon links for some of the wildlife photography gear I use:
Canon RF 100-500mm Lens: amzn.to/49efcQx
Canon RF 1.4x Extender/Teleconverter: amzn.to/3Rig3K8
Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary Lens: amzn.to/4cuz58R
Peak Design Strap and Anchor Clips: amzn.to/3TPVoOY Peak Design BackPack and Bag Capture Clip V3 Camera Holder: amzn.to/3PzdBy6 My camo clothing as worn in this video:
Jack Pyke 3D Leaf Camo Baseball Cap: amzn.to/3VvRtZ3
Jack Pyke 3D Leaf Camo Round Hat: amzn.to/497h5Pg
Buff Duckblind Camo Neck Snood: amzn.to/3VzwyUX
Jack Pyke Camo Jacket: amzn.to/4cqwmgT
Jack Pyke Camo Trousers Pants: amzn.to/3PydcMa
Solognac Camo Gloves (not on Amazon but available from Decathlon).
This video has been split into chapters. You can click here to jump to any chapter:
00:00 Introduction
02:45 Specification Sheet
03:07 Unboxing
07:38 Build, Buttons and Operation
11:22 Aperture / Fstop numbers at different zoom distances
12:49 Size Comparison: RF 200-800 vs RF 100-500
14:22 Weather Sealing
14:44 Extender / Teleconverter Compatibility
16:19 Low Light Test
19:53 Autofocus speed
23:03 Crop (R7) vs Full (R6) Sensor Performance
31:43 Image Stabilization
33:16 Canon R6 Full Frame Example Shots
35:00 Noise from the lens!
37:18 Likes and Dislikes
43:29 200-800 vs 100-500 Sample Shots
49:02 Extender / Teleconverter Samples
54:32 Final Thoughts
Hey Phil,
Really enjoyed that mate, as you know I’ve got the 1-5 and love it as my go to lens, light quick and pretty good in low light, and for hand held BIF’s dam good!
Used the 2-8 on an R5 over the winter, nice and good AF in good light, bit on the weighty side but all in all a great lens and not a bad price! Will probably get one when I’m running tours in Costa Rica next year, just don’t tell the wife 😝👍.
Nice work buddy, and about that packaging 😅😅😅. Cheers Rich 👍
Thanks, mate. Yeah, the packaging sure got a lot of comments! If you do get it, do so from the states if you can. I worked out I could probably get a return flight to New York on deal, walk into a shop and buy the lens, fly back home and still have change in my pocket vs buying it in the UK! If I'm doing any long distance hiking and need one lens I still prefer the 1-5 with a teleconverter in the bag due to size, weight and more nimble to handhold.
Good in Low Light @f 7.1
@@Mr09260 yeah! Remarkably it’s is, Who would have thought! 👍
Awesome review, thanks. I use my R7 with the RF 100-500 for birding, occasionally adding the 1.4x TC for extra reach. I was tempted by the 200-800, but you've persuade me to save my money. Lovely photos, thanks for sharing.
You're welcome 👍
Great review. Thank you for all your work in compiling this.
My pleasure!
im your 500th sub 🥳🥳
Thank you very much. I can't believe this video has been so popular and I've got to 500 subs. Thank you very much for becoming my 500th! 👌👍
Nice review. You covered a lot of info. I hope you can make some more videos comparing that equipment you have. Take care.
Thank you! 👍. There's a gear review playlist on my channel homepage, but I usually do more vlog based stuff. I have a few others planned in the next few months.
brilliant review mate well done
Thanks, Wayne 👍
The statement about f stops and amount of background in focus is wrong. The F9 on full frame is still F9 on crop sensor. The idea of f-stop equivalent is for filling entire frame on both sensors - that means using longer focal length on full frame and that means increasing magnification and that means reducing depth of field. In order to bring that depth of field to the size it has on crop sensor the lens has to be stopped down 1.6 times just as the focal length was increased 1.6 times. It is easiest to remember that depth of field depends only on magnification and aperture. If the lens is set at the same focal length and f-stop on full frame and crop sensor then it will produce exactly the same image - it can not be any other way because the lenses in the lens and aperture blades are in exactly the same position. All the sensor can do is to crop larger or smaller part of that image.
Yes your correct, however what Mr Law alludes to is how the aperture renders according to sensor size.
@@StevenHadfield-oo4ql It renders the same image no matter the sensor size. Could you give more detailed description of what you mean because there is probably some misunderstanding here.
Hi both. I may not have articulated it the best but what I mean is with the F stop set the same on both cameras, the full frame sensor renders the image with better subject separation (slightly more blurry background) than the crop sensor. I agree that the same f stop number on both cameras will stop down the blads inside the lens to the same aperture, its how the sensors render the image that are different.
Thank you. Yes, that is exactly my understanding too . You've explained it far better than I did 👍
@@wildphil Both sensors will get the same image if the focal length and aperture are the same. The smaller sensor's image will be a crop of the larger sensor's image and that's all. Nothing will be more blurred, no change in depth of field or anything else. Sensor doesn't create an image, it only registers what the lens provides. Maybe you mean that a lower resolution crop from a larger image will be more blurry than a higher resolution image from smaller sensor?
Just a quick comment about your comment on packaging. Having worked at a freight company unloading and loading packages, believe me you do want that extra box for extra protection. Boxes do get thrown around and dropped quite often. Cheers. Now for the rest of the vid as I own the R6 and R7 as well with the Sigma 150-600.
Thank you. I'll take your advice on that one! I was wondering about bubble wrap in the smaller box but that said from an eco perspective, it's probably worse than more cardboard and what they have now.
That packaging is so that the lens is protected if the box takes a knock. I would rather see that than the alternative.
A lot of people on here totally agree with you, Michael.
Nice honest review 👍
Your kind words are very much appreciated, thank you 👍
I have an R5 and use both lens for wildlife photography. i agree with you the 100-500mm it is a better choice! Nice video!
Thanks for your comment. It's definitely easier to use and lighter to carry too! 👍
The 100-500 is so portable. I was actually thinking of getting a 600 f4 but realized the best lens in the world is worthless if you don’t have it with you. I was stunned at how sharp it is and I have the 300 2.8 and the RF 100-300 2.8 and the EF 100-400 mark II. If the 200-800 is competitive with the 100-500…that is impressive for the price point. Having watched your video and given my experience I would again get the 100-500 and the 1.4 TC. Also your R7 experience matches mine. Everything works better on my R6…but sometimes you just need the APS/C.
Thank you, completely agree. It's an old saying about the best camera is the one with you, but it's so true!
Nice review. What I would like to see is the comparison of Canon r7+100-500 to Canon r6+200-800 (apsc+better optics to full frame+reach).
Thank you. That's an interesting suggestion and I may do another video in the future on it.
Thanks for this review! Since the 200-800 is not available nowadays and since the 100-500 is also pretty useful for landscape photography, I am going for the latter. (availability being prime concern). Additional teleconferters do make it a costly affair though. 😢
Yeah, I'd heard the lens was out of stock from quite a few people. The 100-500 is still a great lens though and works very well with the teleconverter but yes, as you say, there are additional costs.
Yea... problem about these long lenses are their size and weight really matters. I wont mention price because if you can afford you can if not save up and you could. But weight and size of it is something we have no control of. And it really matter because it affects how you can bring it out to use it ornot... The experience out in the field.. and what bag or tripod you need to use.. (take into account of bringing the gear on a airplane as well) etc etc..
The same problem with those huge long prime.. 1 may be able to afford but to bring it out .. is really a concern. The 100-500 suddenly look so small beside the 200-800.
Yes, size and weight between those two lenses is definately something to consider, particularly if you do a lot of hiking to locations and you have to allow space for other stuff and supplies in your bag etc. I recently hiked 8 miles to and from a location and decided to opt for the 100-500 simply based on size and weight alone.
Nice job videoing the kestrel in a dive to catch that prey!
Thanks. Lucky I had the R6, and lady luck on my side that time!
As far as the noise in the lens being always on try shutting off Continuous Auto Focus in the focusing menu which keeps the lens continually focusing even when not pressing any buttons and by default keeps the image stabilizer going also continuously
Thanks, James. This is a great piece of advice. I will try this tomorrow and revert back with the results! 👍
Thanks for the great suggestion, it was well worth a try, but sadly didn't do the trick. Great thinking, though, I thought you might have solved it with that idea. Maybe I've just got a noisy one!
I appreciate that canon use 2 boxes which means to me they care about keeping this lens secure while in transit. The way boxes give the lens more protection for shipping through the awful Parcel Force, DPS, model, third party amazon couriers who do not give a rats arse about damaging customers parcels.
Fair point. Lots of others here agree with you.
Great review other than your comments on the packaging.
I have R6mkII, R7, RF 100-500mm, 1,4x extender and RF 800mm f/11. R7 in good light + 800mm is great also for fast flying eiders and ducks.
Of particular value to me was you tests of image quality of the 200-800mm compared with the L lens + extender.
I'll likely in a year upgrade my 800mm to 200-800mm in spite of the higher weight. Faster focusing, much lower close-up distance, advantage of other than 800mm focal range. For use primarily with my R7.
I have R7, R6mk2, 100-500 & 200-800 & 800F11. My 800F11 has been a great lens but I was constantly having opportunies where a bird landed within 15 feet of me and I couldn't get the pic. The 100-500 is an amazing lens but then I lost the reach of the 800F11. I tried the 1.4 tele on it and it basically was the same performance (once cropped in) as the 800F11. Then I got the 200-800 and for me its the most versatile. It takes great pics on both bodies and compared to the 100-500 its still very close in quality. So in summary if you can fill the frame with the 100-500 then its the best lens but when you need the range the 200-800 is best lens with little sacrafice. I will say F10 on the 200-800 worked better than F9 as far as helping soft focus issues with the R7.
Thanks for your comment. For me a key advantage of the zoom is I find it easier to locate subjects in the viewfinder because I can zoom out to see them, aquire focus, and zoom back in again.
Hi that a real complete review👏👏👏 even if I’m not a Canon shooter. You Canon users are lucky as you can adapt old big prime to RF mount and it seems to works quite well. The price of both lens match the price of an 500mmf4 which with the r7 and r6 is solid option for low light cause of the aperture. What do you think?
Thanks, Dan. I don't have experience of an F4 prime myself but from I've seen many great results from others that do, and with the R7 too. I reckon what you have suggested is likely to be a solid option and a good choice for low light and I suspect you're right, the R7 would likely perform much better too 👍
Outdoor photography gear have a neoprene lens cover for the 200-800 lens. As a bonus they're made in the UK and are much higher quality than the lenscoat brand as well as being cheaper!
Awesome, thank you very much, Justin. You're the 2nd person to recommend these people so I'll definitely take a look. Since filming I did purchase a lenscoat cover and whilst I was very happy with the 100-500, the fit on this one seems a bit more loose. Great to hear there's a UK made option too ! 👍👍
Dear Phil: The box inside a box packaging is very important to protect the lens. Those plastic trays suspend the lens and absorb shock. Also. there is nothing but the lens in thin plastic in the inner box. I’m surprised you would criticize Canon who ships many lenses around the world.
Hmm... I was thinking about a halfway larger inner box with more protective bubble wrap, like the older days. But that said, maybe it's less eco-friendly than the extra cardboard we have now. I get what they are trying to do in terms of protection.
Hi...
I shoot the r7... I don't know which lens to pick.
This 200-800 or the 100- 500..
I will be replacing my current and old tamrom 70-300 with the rf 70-200mm 2.8..soon but after that lens ill need
extreme zoom.. I don't know what I should get.. the r7 isnt as good in low light as its not a lower pix full frame .. which would you use.. please, please advise..
I really value your advice..
I really prefer the RolanPro covers for lenses. I have one on my 100-500mm and 200-800mm. The LensCoat neoprene covers fray at the edges in a year. This doesn't happen with RolanPro.
The noise you're hearing, is the lens constantly trying to auto-focus? I have Continuous AF turned off in my camera settings. I use the R5. I sold my R7 but even when I had it, Continuous AF was turned off. I only recently got my 200-800mm. I've only had one day out with it. I didn't notice that sound you're hearing but will pay closer attention next time.
Great review and comparison between the lenses. Thank you!!!
Hi Cath. Thanks very much for the tip on RolandPro. I've since bought a Lenscoat one but I'm not entirely happy with the for for the 200-800 so I'll also look up Roland Pro. I did try turing off continous AF but it didn't make difference. Cracking suggestion, though, it was well worth a try.
You are the first CZcams reviewer to mention the noise from the RF 200-800. Jan Wegener and Scott West (Wild Alaska) both use this lens frequently for birding and neither noted any noise. Is it perhaps you are just very sensitive to it? It would be helpful to demonstrate the noise by holding the camera and lens up to your mic.
The biggest problem with putting a teleconverter on the 100-500 is losing focal length at the short end. You have to extend the lens to 300mm just to mount the converter, so you end up with a 420-700mm zoom. If the subject moves towards you, you can find yourself too close to it. The 200-800 is both 100mm longer at the long end and shorter at the short end, while being a 1/3 stop faster at the long end. The 200-800 is thus much more versatile.
Thanks for your detailed comments there, John. I did wonder about doing a video on the noise, but I'm not sure I'll get the time soon. What I can say is, since filiming, the 100-500 makes the same noise, but 200-800 is noticeably louder. Why? I don't know. Is just my particular copy of the lens? Again, I don't know, unfortunately. It's not a deal breaker and I only hear it outside when I am miles away from any roads or traffic and there is true silence but as I hadn't noticed it before I felt I should mention it.
Agree with your point on the focal length and aperture on the 200-800 vs 100-500 and 1.4 extender. If you need to walk many miles to a location the weight and extra size in the bag is noticeable, however, and for stalking/walking or handheld use the 100-500 (for me) is less off-putting wildlife as its a smaller footprint to swing around.
@@wildphil thanks, and fair points for you. I have the 100-500 and have never noticed any noise during still or video shooting. OTOH I'm 70 and maybe I've lost a little high-end hearing. 😉😂
@@JohnDrummondPhoto I woulnd't let it put you off buying the lens if you are considering it, John. I'd estimate in 80% of use cases outside I won't hear it - it's only when I'm in those super quiet locations miles from anywhere and there is no ambinet noise from traffic or wildlife - by that I mean those creepy locations where there is literally no sound at all!
My 200-800 shipped today! Should have it on Thursday! Now I can do my own testing. also, I had been using my r7 with the 100-500 but now I can use the r5 instead, giving me more pixels per duck at the same focal length, so the r7+100-500 no long has an advantage. Now, I know a professional bird photographer in FL who claims the r7+200-800 works great in good light but you need to use a high shutter speed. Unlike you in the UK, we have many sunny days here in SE USA. We shall see!😊
Congratulations on your new purchase! It's a good lens and I'm sure it'll make a great addition to your collection, especially if you're using it in the sunshine state! 👍
I agree with you on the focusing of the r7 vs a full frame camera like the r6. i have noticed this several times myself. For some reason that crop sensor just doesn’t “see” as well as its full frame cousins.
Nice job videoing the kestrel in a dive to catch that prey!
Let's hope the mk2 is better if and when it gets released!
And I’d be the first one to admit that. But if you always need more reach than you can get with a FF camera, you really don’t have much choice. My R5 probably focused a little better than my R7’s, but I was constantly doing 100% crops, and sometimes that still wasn’t enough.
My R7’s definitely miss a lot of shots, but rarely will I shoot in bursts and not get 1 or 2 that are tack sharp. And I only need 1.
Btw, I’m “not” shooting stuff a long ways away. I typically shoot small birds from 22-30 ft.
Why would you expect a bag with this lens? It’s less than $2k USD. Putting a bag in the box that no one would just would just drive the price up, or cut into their ability to make a profit. We need Canon to be profitable to get them to make products like this! The hood is something that almost everyone would use, which is not true for the budget lenses that Canon sells. Again, Canon has done this the right way and have brought value to their customers.
Hi Anthony. In the UK, it's a lot more at 2300 GBP. In fact my 100-500 cost me only 200 more - both new from authorised dealers. I've noticed the USD pricing is more favourable than we get over here.
@@wildphil Now that is unfair! the difference should be similar. Yeah, Canon should be putting more in the box in the UK.
The plastic trays inside the big box keep the small box both suspended in air and secure within the big box. It's probably as safe to transport, and perhaps safer, than bubble wrap.
Fair point, John. It took me a little by surprise as I'm too used to bubble wrap.
So what I Gather from your experience.. on the video.
The 100-500 would be best paired with the R7 and the 200-800 with a full-frame...?
Please let me know your opinion.. I own the r7.. and don't want to over spend with a lens I won't like. Thx
with a 40 mp FF camera i would probably never use a crop sensor
R6 mark 2 is the way to go with the 200-800 lenses
I've no doubt it'll work brilliantly.
Will R3 or R5 minimise issues with this lens noise.
I don't have those camera bodies to to test this, but as the R6 and R7 were the same I would hypothesise not. But I don't think the noise is a deal breaker unless you are taking photos in a super stealthy environment.
@@wildphilthank you for your quick reply I am waiting to buy R5II next year if it is not coming soon I am planning to buy R5. Currently I am using eos R. I am wondering full frame camera with low light camera capabilities could resolve this. I like 100-500 but with teleconverter price might be double in that scenario.
Both lenses are gold, there are no bad choices. You may not struggle with low light conditions depending on the amount of sunny days you have. In the UK, we get a lot of grey rainy days
Hi Phil,
A genuinely great comparison video & very relevant to myself having recently made the switch to an RF mount body (R6ii) & still currently using adapted EF glass. I was seriously considering the 200-800 & the 100-500L (sure I would love a 600 F4L - but erm… 💰💰💰) & I was always leaning towards the 100-500L with maybe a 1.4x if absolutely necessary. Watching this has really nailed that for me, & later down the line there could be an option to add the 200-800 or indeed Canon may have released something else by that time. Ideally I’d like to see them challenge Nikon’s ‘budget’ 180-600 lens but with a 100-500 & now the 200-800 already in the line up of telephoto zoom lenses - it’s unlikely I guess.
Interesting you mentioned the weight of the Sigma 150-600C being front heavy, I currently use the Sigma 60-600 Sports & that is super heavy to handhold. I guess after 6 years I have just mastered it; or learnt to live with it. No I don’t have a 100% keeper rate, but who does? I’m looking forward to getting the RF native glass & doing away with the adaptor, & a 100-500 will be my first RF glass purchase.
Thanks Phil.
Keep on keeping on buddy!
Best,
Nick
Thanks, Nick. Another option for you might be a used 500 f4 prime? I don't know what they cost and I've never used one myself but I've seen many great results from others that do. I think you might know a couple of people that use that combo?
@@wildphil I have used a 500F4L Mk1, & to be honest apart from the obvious 100m shortfall in terms of focal length; I didn’t see any better from it against my 400F4 DO. The Mk2 500F4L is supposedly much sharper, but they’re still fetching £4k & upwards for a good one. If I’m spending that kind of dollar, I’m gonna be buying RF glass. Thanks for the suggestion though mate.
Best,
Nick
Ah, OK, you've got 1st hand experience already. I've yet to experience an F4 prime, maybe one day!
@@wildphil The F4 DO IS USM isn’t technically a ‘prime’ as in not labelled as an L lens - but it should be in my opinion!
It’s 16 years old & blows my Signa 60-600 away easily! The ‘DO’ bit means Diffractive Optics
Oh! I think I know the one you mean, does it have a green ring instead of a red one?
Even though I have the R6 and R7 (R6 for landscape and R7 for wildlife) after seeing this I am leaning towards the 100-500. Still out of my price range ATM as 100-500 is $4100AUD(sale) v 200-800 $3100(sale). The Sigma 150-600 will do for now.
Thanks, Tony. I have the Sigma too. I've done a video in the same format as this comparing the Sigma 150-600mm to the 100-500 if it helps, youll find it in my gear reveiws area on the channel homepage. Just to say the Sigma is still an awesome value proposition in opinion, I think it's probably one of the the best bang for buck lenses out there.
background music too loud 🔊🔊🔊🔊
Thank you, that's good feedback for me to consider for next time.
I'd rather have the RF200-800mm and have an R7 and R5/R6 cause it is usable on both depending on external factors than having a 100-500mm and only usable on R7 as for full frame it is too wide. TC's are a big no for me but everyone to his own.
Yep, hit the nail on the head there. It's all very much down to personal preferences. Both are great lenses.
I am not SONY guy, but their 200-600 lens is unbeatable. For Canon users is still the best Sigma 60-600 so far.
This doesn’t make any sense…
Also the Sony isn’t a G Master lens (equivalent to L series) and isn’t the sharpest throughout the zoom range.
Hi both. I've never used Sony gear so am not qualified to comment on specifics, but I do recall a number of CZcamsrs that rate it highly so it may be a good option for Sony users.
I’d give you two 100-500’s for one 200-800….. straight across. The 100-500 is all but worthless to me. Not long enough about 95% of the time. And it sucks (being barely contractable) with TC’s.
If you shoot big stuff, or larger BIF, Hawks, Eagles and such, the 100-500 might be okay, but for being no faster than it is, I still believe it’s way overpriced.
I have rented both the 100-500 (and it did nothing for me) and the 200-800, and I absolutely loved it. I’d absolutely be using it now, if Canon would ever get their chit together and make enough of them to catch up ☹️
They will probably finally be available right at the same time they announce the R7 Mk II, and then I will be really torn. I love / hate. MyR7’s, but they really need some upgrades badly. Still better than my R5 was (for my purposes) but it could be SO much better…. FF sucks for my purposes.
Thanks for your comment, Chris. An interesting and different perspective which may well suit many better 👍