On Saturday, March 16 look for my Test Chart comparison (Yes, I finally did one) between the 800 f/11, 200-800, 100-500, and 100-500 with 1.4x Teleconverter Extender using the unforgiving Canon EOS R7.
Super helpful. I use my R7 with the RF100-500 for birding and I rarely need more reach. And when I do, the 1.4x TC doesn't compromise image quality as much as I feared it might. Your comparison persuaded me that I should avoid the RF 200-800 as long as I am using this body. Thanks.
Thanks for the detailed review. This was one of the biggest issues with the Canon 90D … in fact the 90D and R7 have the same Mp count on their sensors. I shoot the R5 and R6 Mark II mainly for Aviation subjects. (Airshow related content). The RF100-500L, is IMO, their best yet. There is def something to be said about L-series glass. Resolving power means everything. Michael The Maven’s YT channel had numerous vids on this very topic as 90D owners were frustrated that they could not get good sharpness when using the original EF100-400L IS USM. However the EF100-400L II IS USM (v2) had far better resolving power. That lens was also quite a bit more $$ at the time so some folks who didn’t understand pixel density were not too happy.
the original 100-400/5.6 lens wasn't sharp even in full frame cameras, APS cameras were even worse matches. I am quite happy with my 80D and the 100-400/5.6L II IS, but I needed more reach
The hard part about the R7 is a couple of AF flaws that could also hinder you from finding out if truthfully it’s the lens or the camera. The R7’s AF system cannot keep up with the demands of 15FPS assuming you are shooting at the high burst speed. Which is kind of the reason why you see so many on the used market. For us in aviation the dream reach and resolution setup is the R7 with 800mm as we will be able to cover everything as long as atmospherics don’t interrupt anything
Great analysis, Phil! That's pretty much where I've come down, just based on your videos, Pangolin's, and Christopher Frost. My 100-500 does great work regardless of camera, so I'll stick with it. If I want more reach, the Canon extenders cost a lot less than an additional lens, plus, the combination weighs a lot less and is shorter than the 200-800.
I have the same camera and lenses and I agree completely. I think the r7 with 100-500 is the better birding combo. The 200-800 is allowing me to use my r6ii more frequently (I really like the ergonomics of that camera). Great video, thanks.
💯 This is what I’ve said since this lens came out. If you have a full frame you want the 200-800. Apsc 100-500. I am never in want of reach with the 100-500 and my R7. If I am, im too far away and wouldn’t get a good shot anyway.
You see, air shows are a real problem - in solo flights even my 80D and 400mm/5.6L lens didn't have enough reach. So, I bought the R7 in order to use the 400mm/5.6L + 1.4x II extender, in order to approach a 600mm/8 lens (and having 32.5 Mpixels would offer more cropping room). Seriously, I often have to crop as low as 1500 pixels width on my 80D...
@@alcosoundSelling the 400mm f5.6 lens was a horrible decision on my part. It was a very good lens and am considering buying a used one now. It's nice to hear it's working well with a 1.4x on the R7.
Thank you so much. I've a 200-800mm on order for my R7 and have been nervous about buying it due to the points you mention. Therefore I'm cancelling my order and am buying the 100-500mm
I don’t have an R7. I shoot R5 100-500. I shoot wildlife, mostly birds. I usually have to sell something to upgrade. I will never sell this lens, unless I stop shooting Canon. This is an amazing versatile lens. Min focus distance allows you to take macro-ish photos and the 100 allows decent landscapes. Better weather sealing, non scratch lens coating. Light weight. I’ve been shooting on and off for 30 years. It’s the best lens I’ve ever owned! I’m saving money for a potential R7ii.
Your review is much appreciated. My Tamron 150-600 stopped working with my R7 after functioning perfectly well for over a year, but works fine on my old 6D. My ef 100-400 L Canon lens still works on my R7. I like that extra reach and your video helps in the decision making process.
Would love to see that comparison you mentioned at the end of the video, 200-800 vs 800 f/11 @800mm on the R7. Also as a bonus, you could compare it to the R5 crop 17mp mode to see how that compares.
Thanks Phil, confirms what I have found after renting the lens this week very hit and miss with this , in perfect lighting conditions it is possible to get an acceptably sharp image - but winter in the UK is not the place to get the right light...this week with mostly dull days has seen me revert back to my EF100-400 MK II which hasn't had the same issues. I also previously tested the 100-500 for a period and of the two, the 100-500 is the one I would choose. But , I don't yet have a compelling reason to switch to it from the 100-400 EF lens...
Yess, you have all the reasons, I have an R7 and an R5, on R5 it works perfectly but,, but on R7 the pictures is horrible, very soft and a lot of noise... I received it last week and will speak with B&H to put it back ASAP..,, thank you so much for your video and clarified me the big issues with this lens on R7
Thanks Phil for this review, I have managed to get hold of this lens in the UK and have had it for a few weeks but I bought it for the R5 and so far I've been extremely happy with the results and I'm getting very sharp images with it even wide open at 800mm ~ watching this is what I was sort of expecting with that huge range attached to the R7. I've been so pleased with it on the R5 that I have not yet even tried it on the R7, obviously I will give it a go but waiting for a bright day to give it the best test but I'm already expecting lots of soft images with the occasional sharp image, brilliant that you have stuck your neck out and made this detailed review on what to expect using this combo together ~ Really enjoy watching all your detailed videos
Really thoughtful review Phil, thank you. I use an R7 (sold my R5) for wildlife along with the 100-500 and it’s a great combination especially where travel is concerned. I think, for the money, the R7 is the best deal going for wildlife. The 100-500 speaks for itself.
Fantastic information for everyone . Well done. Those of us who purchased the Canon 90D discovered this early on, as many of our older L- series lens just wouldn't work. Your well thought out explanation tells the real story.
Hi Phil, Great video. I've been testing the 200-800mm RF lens on the R7 for a short time now, and I must say that I would generally agree with you. I get a the impression that the pixel density of the sensor on the R7 is just too demanding for what the lens can resolve. Thanks for sharing, it's nice too hear that I'm not the only one thinking this.
I have an r7 with rf 100 -500 ,but I need a second lens for more reach If rf200-800 is not recommended then does rf800 f11 work??? I'm interested in rf800 f11😊 Please do a comparison video on rf800 f11 and rf200-800 For r7😄
Have you tried the Canon extenders with the 100-500? The 1.4x doesn't sacrifice image quality and the 2x doesn't sacrifice much. (These aren't your father's extenders. These work really well!) They cost less than an additional lens and the combination weighs a lot less than the 200-800.
The 800 f/11 is not perfect on the R7 but it seems to do better than the 200-800 at 800mm and f/9. I'll be testing this at some point to try to find a more definitive answer.
@@PhilThach that's exactly what I wanted to hear thanks phill 🥳 I'm waiting for the canon r7 mark ii 😊 Because i think this lens on r7mkii will be a lot better . 😃
Actually I was glad to hear your thoughts on the RF 200-800mm lens. I have an R6 mk II and a R7.I like the R 7 with my RF 100-500 mm lens. But recently I ordered the RF 200-800 specifically to use on the R6 mk II. Happy to get some positive reinforcement on that choice.
Thanks Phil, very well explained. I did see Christopher's test and as you say it looked soft (too soft). I agree about not using test charts, others do this, so we're well catered for, your channel's strength is real world tests and also comparing the various brands, which is very useful for those of us looking at our next system.
Good day to you. I was just wondering if the softness you have noticed on the R7 has to do with the diffraction? Some reviews of this lens have reported that on crop sensor R7 the diffraction becomes an issue at f11 or so. I use the 200-800 on my R6 (hoping to upgrade that to R5mkII when it comes out) and my wife uses the RF100-500 on her R7. These combos seem to work well for us.
Finally a sensible video on 200-800mm. I have had a question if this lens were that good and sharp as other RUclips birders claimed. I look forward to your video on the comparison with 800mm f11 and have a speculation that 800mm f11 may be sharper. I have wondered if there is a difference in sensor quality. You used the term "pixel density" but what about the quality of the sensor itself? Do they use the same quality sensor in all Canon cameras or do they use higher quality sensors for R5 and lower quality ones on cheaper cameras? I speculate there is a difference in sensor quality as many semiconductors do. I have not seen a video discussing image sensor quality.
Thank you! That is an interesting question about sensor quality. I'm not sure how to quantify that. I know the readout speed on the R7 is slower than the R5 R6 etc which hurts it's autofocus.
Thanks for spitting it out! It’s a full frame lens and one cannot expect great sharpness on R7. Would be interesting to see how it performs on a lower density crop body, just for the sake of it, I know R7 is a better wildlife camera.
Another excellent video Phil! Straight to the point. I recently upgraded to R6 Mk2. I do lots of birding and mammals. What will you recommend 200-800 or 100-500 with 1.4 extender?
Hi Phil, you have valid point here regarding the extreme pixel density of the R7! Duade seems happy with the 200-800 on his R7, but I didn't yet have the time to see his full 200-800 review. Yesterday I enjoyed my new 200-800 on the R5 and had some great results during our first encounter with a Bohemian Waxwing. This cousin of your Cedar Waxwing is pretty rare in Belgium. As you indicate, the 200-800 is mostly needed by users of the R3/R6ii and similar resolution bodies, who'd otherwise crave for more reach. Also on my R5, I have the impression it beats the 420-700 easily, but for certain conditions I'll certainly keep my 100-500 .. when it returns from Canon: the tripod foot no longer tightens enough: I cannot use the foot to rotate the lens when swapping lenses. They didn't hear from this issue before, so Canon wanted to check the lens before likely providing me a new tripod foot in guarantee.
Honestly as someone who is into astronomy and have a bunch of telescopes I have a lot of experience with cheap vs expensive glass. You will always get better views and images with a high quality shorter focal length adding in a magnification than you will with a cheap long focal length. The 1.4x and the 2x work very very well with a narrow field of view on the 100-500 (you'll get distortion in the edges). If you do need to go over 500 I would only opt for a prime lens. At least then there is less elements.
Thank you for this review ....it made feel better having had my 200-800 order cancelled (i shoot wildlife mainly with my R7 for distance sake). I continue to be happy with my 100-500 and get me them shots🙂
Exactly why I still keep and shoot DSLR, I can get a 500 nikon 5.6 for under 2K these days. My D3 and D500 have great autofocus that is more then capable. We dont always need the latest and greatest tracking.
I have two R7 bodies. When I go birding I use one body with the 100-400 L Mk2 lens attached, and the other body with the 800mm f/11 attached. That way I have the super-sharpness of the L lens, and I have the 800mm reach if needed (and if light conditions permit it). I was thinking of buying this lens as a all in one kind of birding lens for the R7, but thanks to your great review I wont be doing that. Thank you for saving me the money!
Thanks so much for the detailed video my head hurts from all of the math. I can confirm this lens works really well with the R5 and R8 and I agree I don't like the results on the R7. While I have used it with the R7 I get better results with the R5 in crop mode if I need the extra reach. You are right this lens just doesn't resolve well with high pixel density.
Very interesting and informative video. I would love to pair the 100-500mm with a mark two version of the R7. However, does this mean my current G9 20-megapixel sensor is the full-frame equivalent of a 40-meg sensor:)?
Thanks for the video. I have not done as in depth of a comparison as you have done here. I have the 200-800, 100-500, 800mm f11 as well as the R5 and R7. I have primarily shot the 200-800 on the R5 but I have a few thoughts: - Are we remembering that we are talking about an $1800 lens that is capable of 800mm (or more on the R7). I feel this is the same discussion that went around about the 800 F11. Read that it's going to suck in low light, it isn't sharp, etc, etc. Otherwise, to get this sort of focal length you are looking at a $12k+ 500/600mm f4 lens or perhaps on the cheapest end, an adapted EF version 1 that I still see is $2500+ depending on condition. I think we all might be getting a little spoiled expecting perfection on an affordable lens. - Its tough to compare to the 100-500 for many reasons, but using prices today, you are still looking at the 100-500 being about 40% more than the 200-800 (and the 100-500 is $300 off as I write this). I mean the 100-500 is an L lens and so it isn't a far reach to think that it will be sharper. - I know that I have been shooting pictures with both the 800 F11 and the 200-500 that I would have never been able to achieve previously. Are they perfect, no, Am I impressed for what I am getting for the price, certainly. If it was me, I think if someone is considering the 100-500 and is good with the extra cost, then maybe is the right pick for them. However, if your budget is $1800 and you want reach, I don't think you can go wrong with the 200-800. Just like it your budget was $700, I don't think you could go wrong wtth the 800 F11.
I completely agree with you ,maybe the R7 II will have less MP but a much faster readout,and a litle better high iso capabilityes.You have a nice channel,keep up the good work.
Thanks Phil, great review and probably going to keep my 800mm f11 as I already have a lot of high quality lens. I believe Christopher said the 800mm f11 is a little sharper than the 200-800mm at 800mm when comparing the two videos. I would also think the ef 100-400mm and rf 100-500mm would still be sharper with the 1.4 tc and produce better images quality with out blowing the highlights and chromatic aberrations because of the extra coatings on both lenses. Maybe!? lol
Very interesting! I had the chance to travel with the 200-800 lens with the R7 and R8, and overall I preferred much more using it with the R8 (better auto-focus, low noise performance, 800mm with full frame is good sweet spot). Now I understand that image quality is one more factor in favor for the R8.
Super video, Phil. I had the R7 for a year with the RF100-500 and with 1.4ex also. I didn’t like the R7 at all, the AF is not consistent, it does not cope with highlights in my opinion and it’s not near as good as the 7D Mark II. I have looked back at a lot of images I took with the 7D Mk II and they look much better than the R7. I don’t understand the theory behind pixel density and I don’t doubt what you say in relation to it but I just cannot see that it is better than a full frame in any way. I will never be convinced otherwise. I always ask myself, why are full frame cameras in more demand than crop sensor cameras ? To me it’s an easy answer. Take care.
Fingers crossed for me. I will have a return window if/when my copy ever comes in. However, very few reviews discuss compromise, and photography is 100% compromise. ISO vs noise, shutter speed vs aperture, cost vs reach vs quality. For me, the cost of the 200-800 is right at (or just past!) the amount I should be spending on a lens like this. There is no way I will be able to afford the 100-500, the best lens is the one you have, not the one you want. I am going from the EF Sigma 150-600... and while I don't know for sure, there is absolutely no way that the 200-800 is going to be a step backward in any way. There is no chance that the resolution is lower than the Sigma, there is no way that the focus performance is lower than the Sigma. So, while you don't recommend it, and you qualify the statement... everyone has different needs and qualifications.
Thanks - good observations. I am considering 200-800 (to replace my 100-400 for shooting from the car) for my r5; and r7 for reach on my 800/f11 (sometimes you have a extreme long shot). Good conclusions but it depends where you sit - my go to is ff r5 because of a/f and 1 stop improvement (2x shutter speed and twice the glass per pixel) in low light. You are always better to fill the frame with a ff camera. For someone with a tighter budget (r7) choosing between 100-500 and 200-800 might cause you to use 100-500/1.4x for iq. But then the practical kicks in - the 200-800 is closer to 100-500 at 500, and it's cheaper, and you don't have to mess with 1.4x. The 800/f11 is good but will often be too long. It depends what you are shooting and time of day and distance (cropping vs filling the frame).
Hey Phil, I respect your bravery, for going out on a limb :) lol I have LOTS of opinions on this myself though. First, I know the 100-500 is a VERY sharp lens, but it would almost never be enough reach for me, "even on the crop body R7", other than blind shooting, or at water features, feeding stations, etc. Also, that lens is such a pain to use with TC's. And, for its short reach, and relatively slow aperture, I think its overpriced. If cropping were the whole answer, I'd have kept my R5. However, I do much better with my R7's. As for the sharpness of the 200-800, I think the whole thing in a nutshell, is that for real world use, with 99% of the images made with it (99.9% for myself) if you start with a 25 or more mp image {read; not much cropping} then size down to 3 to 5 mp, which is plenty for a nice, large image on a 4K monitor, they look very sharp :) So much so, that they certainly don't need any additional sharpening. Not to say they couldn't be touched up a bit, if you wanted to print 20 x 30's. Anyway, I rented this lens for a week, took about 6000 shots with it, and absolutely LOVED it on my R7's... However, I'm not buying it at this time because of 1) price, 2) lack of availability, 3) big overlap with what I can do with my RF 100-400 + 1.4 TC and, my 'beloved' 800 F11. IMPO, the biggest thing this lens offers is versatility, as it can do all the things I can do with the "two lenses" I just mentioned, but all in one lens. However, this is at a cost of $2K and an extra 2 lbs. Hoping to get the lens next year when it's in stock, as a refurb for $400 off :) ....unless the R7 Mk II comes out before then, and that would be a really tough call ! :) BTW, you and your viewers are welcome to see about a dozen examples I posted from it, on my photo page... link on my channel. Camera, lens, and EXIF info is shown below each image. My most recent few though, were with the RF 100-400 + 1.4 TC. That sure is a sharp, cheap, light little combo too :) The 800 F11 is still my baby, for weight, price, and reach :)
For someone like me I feel it really was my best choice and so far I’m happy with it. I have the R7, and the old EF100-400ii and sometimes throw the 1.4xiii TC on it. AF in anything less than perfect light is horrible with that combo. I debated selling these both for the 100-500 but selling these for a fraction of the cost of purchase price for only 100 extra mm didn’t make sense. I tried the rf800mm and it is a tough lens on the r7. I sold that and ended up ordering the 200-800. So far I love it and if I experience any softness, I already have topaz sharpen that will take care of that. I started wildlife photography with the 80d and tamron 150-600mm g1 and that lens was incredibly soft, but have really been missing that long reach since moving to the 100-400
I have a conundrum. I'm very much a keen amateur and am using a Sigma 150-600 & 1.4tc with my R7. Majority of my photography is birds of prey at distance so I need good range. Having viewed all the compatibility issues on autofocus & pulsing on this combination, I really felt that the Canon RF 200-800 would be my silver bullet so was dismayed that Phil advised against buying it. Your comments are at odds with Phil. Given your experience with the 200-800 lens, does that mean you'd recommend it to others/myself based on what I use it for?
@@wheresmyglasses5104i think going from a sigma and TC you will notice a huge upgrade in AF speed and image quality. You can always rent it before you buy it
Hey Phil. Some pictures will certainly help to show up the inefficiencies of the R7 and to see if they are acceptable to us amateurs. Perhaps in the video on the RF800 f11 comparison
Appreciate your insight; with which I agree totally. I have been shooting the R6 MkII almost exclusively with the RF 100-500, and have found the lack of mega pixels, not to be a big problem; Gigapixel Ai is almost non destructive and easily brings the pixel density up quite well; the results are amazing; also Lightroom enhance and then topaz photo AI work very well together in that order, and then one can use Gigapixel Ai, if need be... Although I have the R7; the R6 MkII is my camera of choice because of the foregoing... 40 FPS is vital in Eagles landing or Ospreys diving; You do a great job; please be encouraged and keep up the good work!
You made my mind up Phil, its time to buy the 100-500 F7.1 and the 1.4 teleconverter. Hopefully an R7 ii will come out with an even better autofocus system.
Thanks Phil, this is all super useful for us R7 owners! I'm gonna wait until I find a good price for a used R5, 6ii or 8 until I upgrade to this lens. This confirms what I had suspected. That and the f9, means that while it's a very capable combo, it's just not that great of match with the R7 it seems. Also once again highlights just how much a slow 32mp sensor with the R7 was just a design flaw, plain and simple. Wasted pixels at the cost of that awful readout speed. I don't know what they were thinking honestly! For me, the R7 still pulls through with the 500 f4 mki and the sigma 150-600C for the time being. I'll be patient and get a FF 2nd body eventually before upgrading my big sigma. I'm glad I didn't pre-order and left my options open. The fact that something like an R6ii+200-800 would be surprisingly close to my R7+500 f4, just gets me salivating sometimes! Same reach, only 1 stop darker in theory taking crop factor into account (probably even less in practice taking sensor tech into account), in that small form factor, with the latest and greatest AF/OIS! Sounds like it's a great lens that just wasn't designed with APSC in mind. Great move by Canon because honestly they finally swayed me towards even considering FF, now that the lens exists.
The first time I ever heard about the pixel density thing was when Tony mentioned it. More recently, when Fuji upped their cropped cameras to 40MP, they gave out a list of lens capable of fully using it. So there is something about lens and MP. One would have thought however that Canon would not make a lens not capable of resolving any cropped camera they might be making up to this point. The only other thing I can think of is whether on the AF system is actually getting critical focus. I wonder how many folks have used Full Manual focus to test that. Using all the manual focus aids. When Christopher Frost does his test charts, I doubt he takes the time to manual focus each test.
I agree completely. I have the R7 (had it since it launched) and the R6 Mark II. While I don't yet have the 200-800, I do have the RF 100-500L and the RF 800 f11, as well as the RF 1.4x extender. The 100-500 is excellent on my R7, even with the extender. However, the RF 800 f11 is a trainwreck on the R7. That being said, the RF 800 f11 is fantastic on my R6 Mark II. Surprisingly sharp. Of course the 100-500 is great on the R6 too. Still not sure if I'll ever get the 200-800, but with the lenses I have now, I doubt I'll even consider it now. Keep up the great work and videos!
Interesting. I find the 800 F11 to be better on my R6II than on my R7, when I can fill the frame. But I still get plenty of very sharp shots with the R7 and 800 F11. And if I have to crop significantly with the R6II, the R7 is better. "Trainwreck" is definitely not the word I would use. I've also seen literally thousands of great shots from the R7 and 800 F11 combo.
Your mathematics has explained my issue as l stopped using it on my R7 & just use it on my R6ii now l just assumed it a better sensor & autofocus but you have explained it.
Another great review. I don't have 200-800 lens. I decided not to buy it due to its weight and the fact that it takes 4 turns to zoom completely. I do a lot of birding and my shoulders are not in great shape. 800mm F/11 works great with my R8 but is terrible on R7. On R8 with 800 F/11 the images are sharp and focus is fast. One out of 10 times I miss the zoom function but the weight factor is too important for me. My R7 is usually paired with Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. Despite the AF issue, I still get enough sharp keepers with Sigma but weight is still a factor with Sigma.
Thanks Phil. I've seen and heard similar although not voiced as clearly as you have. I have the R7 with 100-500 and like you said, the images are crazy sharp (when I do my part). Thus far, I haven't seen anything in the 200-800 to make me sell the 100-500 to buy the 200-800. If I were shooting a FF R5 or R6ii, then maybe but the R7 and 100-500 is a great combo.
Very interesting and useful video. I have the Sony A7RIV and the Tamron 150-500 and though it is plenty sharp I often find that I would want more reach. I just looked at the lens comparison tool on The-Digital-Picture and notice that the Sony 200-600 on the Sony A7RIII is at 600mm and f6.3 (to my eyes and 4K monitor) slightly (just noticeable) sharper than the Canon R7 with 100-500 and Canon 1.4X TC at 700mm f11.0 (in center where I would put the birds most of the time). With the same cameras and lenses but a Sony 1.4X TC at 840mm f9.0 the Canon combo (at 700mm) is slightly sharper. With the Tony Northrup Formula (TNF) the Canon setup is 83.2 MP while the Sony A7RIII is 42 MP. Looking like the Canon R7 with 100-500 and 1.4X TC is an excellent choice. I am looking at this upgrade since really want to get back to Canon. However, price dif. for me is Canon R7 with Canon 100-500mm with Canon 1.4X TC is $1400+$2600+$500=$3114 while the Sony 200-600 is $2000-$800 used=$1200. Given the Pixel Density (PD) of the Canon R7 though maybe the $2000 is worth it. I have the Sony7 A7RIV which is 63MP and would probably get a Sony a6700 to get the AF advantage and the 58.4 MP PD would be close enough to my Sony A7RIV.
One thing I haven't heard anyone talking about...how does the crop factor effect the f/stop of the 200-800 on the R7? My understanding is that, just like the focal length is multiplied by the 1.6 crop, the aperture must also be multiplied to get the proper f/stop rating. That would make the 800mm f/stop 14.4, not 9. Is that correct?
It's still f/9 but is has more depth of field on an APSC camera at F/9 than it does on a full-frame camera assuming you step back enough that the frame is filled the same amount as it is on full-frame.
Very interesting phil. Your videos are always so informative and really help me alot. I was the one asking ya about comparing thr rf800 f11 to the 200mm to 800mm super excited to hear that might be coming soon. I'm thinking if they come out with an r7 mk.2 I might grab one to use with my ef 100mm to 400mm L2 which I use on my r6mk2 and love. After today's video , you think the ef 100mm to 400mm would do good on something like the r7 mk.2? Have a great day.
Great video. I’m currently shooting a R7 with a ef 100-400 L. Results are very good. I was thinking of getting the R6mk2. Do u think the ef 100-400 with the 1.4 extender 3 is as sharp at the 200-800 on the R6mk3
Thanks Phil another good video. I have the R7 and 100-500 lens and think it’s a great combination. Ignoring the extra reach of the cheaper lens and here in the UK we are talking almost £1000 cheaper at full price, I fail to comprehend how a £2000 lens can compete with a £3000 one but maybe that’s just me. Have you compared shots taken on both lens between just 200mm and 500mm, the range that both lens can focus at? Build quality and subsequent cost to me would say I will get better shots using a better lens. I remember another RUclipsr Simon d’Entremont, who like you produces excellent tutorials, saying something along the lines of (and don’t quote me on the numbers) if you have $3000 dollars to spend, spend $1000 on the camera and $2000 on the lens. What do you think?
Interesting thoughts. I have the R7 and the R8 and was considering the 200-800. Perhaps this lens would work better on my R8 as per your discussion, or should I consider the RF 800mm F11? I already have the RF600mm F11 and am not convinced it's working great on my R7. I also have the EF300 F2.8 + EF 2x convertor, but am not thrilled carrying that beast around that much.
The reason why I replaced my 100-500 with the 200-800 is that 99% of all my photos were taken at 500mm and heavily cropped. Now distance is not a problem anymore but you’re totally right. My photos are softer.
Hoping the r7mk2 will resolve the minor issues the mk1 has. I have the 100-500 and i dont see another better wildlife lens without jumping to $12k for an f4. Im going to be buying the r5mk2 this summer and waiting for the r7mk2 for my B cam. Both the r5mk2 and r7mk2 with the 100-500 and 200-800 will be the ultimate wildlife kit. Without jumping to selling a car and kidney territory lol.
In the UK the 200-800 if it ever reaches our shores will cost 2295 while the 100-500 retails at 2939 or +27% so I'd expect it to be better. I'm currently using the 100-400 with a 1.4x on my R7, the 100-500 I'm sure would have better focusing and be sharper but after cropping just how much better would it be than the nearly 900 I get with my current setup, worth 2939? I know I'd stick the 1.4x on and at that point the focusing has a limited range and the size and weight aren't so much different from the 200-800., it's slower with less reach. I know I'd like the weight and easier handling of the 100-500 though, it's real swings and roundabouts. It seems you can buy both lenses via grey imports from Hong Kong and then the 100-500 is cheaper than the 200-800, I'm 70 and only ever had one camera go wrong in over 50 years. Very interesting review and some of us appreciate the time and effort it takes to put one of these together. Could I just add I'd really appreciate links in the description rather than in the video, I missed it and even when I see them I have great difficulty clicking them.
Great comparison Phil, thanks. Just for the fun of it here is my attempt on the math of the different sensors. pixels÷sq mm = pixels per sq mm of sensor R7 32,294,400 ÷ 329 = 898,291 pixels per sq mm (84.9 Megapixels Full Frame Equivalent - 100%) R5 44,761,088 ÷ 864 = 51,807 pixels per sq mm (44.7 Megapixels Full Frame Equivalent - 53%) R6ii 24,000,000 ÷ 864 = 27,778 pixels per sq mm (24 Megapixels Full Frame Equivalent - 28%) Am I right?
While I appreciate your perspective, I’ve been very happy with the 200-800 on the R7. I think it should be expected that an L lens would perform better (in Canada, it’s about $1300 more for the 100-500 compared to the 200-800). While I haven’t used the 100-500, I’ve used various other L primes and zooms, and if I was to simply rate the best of those a 9-9.5 out of 10 for sharpness on the R7, the 200-800 would be a solid 8-8.5. As mentioned, I’ve found it sharper in the 500-600 range, but I don’t hesitate to go to 800. And that reach is real nice. I personally found 100-400 even on crop not enough reach, and if ever using a FF I’d be happier with an 800 reach for sure. One other note about IQ that isn’t talked about much is the CA…I’ve shot various photos in Feb/March backlit with lots of reflecting white snow and bright overcast skies where CA would typically show, and the 200-800 has performed about as well as the L lenses I’ve used (and way better than the Tamrons I’ve used). Anyway, it’s easy to take photos with a 200-800 vs 100-500 and quickly see that the L performs better, but if you aren’t comparing side by side, I think most R7 users (especially getting into birding or on a “budget”) would be very impressed with this combo. At the very least, if you’re on the fence, go rent one and give it a try before cancelling your orders - it’s really the only way to know. I’m definitely keeping mine.
@@PhilThachmy biggest gripe with the RF100-500 is that you have to extend the lens to 300mm before you can fit an extender. Basically you are losing the range between 140mm and 420mm to gain 200mm at long end. The 100-400 also feels a little less plasticky.
There is a physic theory that each level of aperture has an up limit resolution density because of diffraction of light, the smaller aperture has a lower upper limit of resolution density. It is really normal you see 800mm f9 has less sharp than 500 f7.1 at R7, and if you want compare with other 6.3 lens on super high resolution density sensor you will get the same results. Also you might even get worse sharp image with 800f11 on R7. This is why I prefer lower resolution full frame body like R6 than R7, it has lower requirements of lens and picture always looks cleaner less noise. I think if it is really need to do a comparison on R7, try to compare 500 f9 vs 800 f9, and 500 f11 vs 800 f11, not wide open to wide open.
Thank you for this comment. I guess (and it’s not fact, just my opinion)), half of people with an APSC body don’t understand diffraction and where it will “kick in”. 200-800 is a FF lens for a reason. Yes it will mount on EOS R crop bodies but one needs to understand that physics exists. That said, my view I hope people just enjoy their toys (sorry tools) and use them along with printing the output. Oh and not every lens from the factory is identical some will be sharper than others
You make some fair points. There's probably some copy variation, but according to Christopher Frost's tests, the 800 f/11 appears to be slightly sharper and have slightly better contrast "wide open" than the 200-800 at 800mm wide open, which is admittedly a bit disappointing, since the 200-800 otherwise resolves literally every issue I have with the 800 prime. I've got a copy of the 200-800 waiting for me once I get home, and I only plan to use it on the R5 or R6 (I have an R10; I think the R7 is just too pixel-dense for most lenses), so I'm not terribly concerned about pixel density, but still - the tests I'm seeing are disappointing.
Thank you Phil. I do not own the R7 or that lens, but I struggle to see tack sharp images consistently using that lens. Except Jonnie Pink. His look great especially on the R3. I’ll not buy the R3. I’m sticking with the R5 with the 1.4. I have programmed my R5 to switch in and out of crop mode instantly. It helps with everything regarding focusing and metering. What people have against this strategy to get 60% more reach instantly with no additional gear is beyond me. Still gives me a croppable 20-22 mgp image.
@@Sam-vd8uk i’m thinking about making a video on this. Go to the Orange menu and the program buttons selection. Go to the DOF or depth of field button. It’s on the front of the body that you can easily depress with your right ring finger. You’re probably not even using it now for anything. program it for aspect ratio I think. Then you should be able to scroll with the dial wheel. The main dial wheel with your index finger on the top of the body to the 1.6 crop mode. That’s how you do it. You push the DOF button to get into crop mode and you press it to get out of crop mode. if you’ve just taken a lot of shots in the full frame mode, it will take some time for the camera to buffer before it allows you to switch modes.
Hallo aus Deutschland. Ihre Analyse deckt sich mit meiner Einschätzung. Die Summe aller Fehler macht die Auflösung der R7 kaputt und somit diese obsolet. Der Pixelpitch, Dunst, Hitzeflimmern, hohe ISO und die Anfälligkeit für Beugungsunschärfe ist zuviel des Guten. Das RF 100-500 ist für die R7 perfekt, in Größe und Auflösung alternativlos. Grüße André
Got sick of the r7 focus gumo, swapped it for a d500 then got the 500mm 5.6 for the d500 gives me 750 reach much more in focus shots for me with my d500 then the R7. Plus DSLR cameras and lenses are about half what you need to pay for mirrorless these days.. we don't always need tracking and eye autofocus we shot years ago without it.
Thank you! I still have my D500 but I prefer the R7 even with it's problems. That reminds me, I need to get my D500 out sometime soon and make a bird photography video with it.
Hi I’m from uk based following on instagram too brig fan and videos very informative too I’m no pro but very passionate severely sight impaired blind photographer I use Nikon z7 for most subjects and pm1 for wildlife annoying swapping systems so looking at r7 for wildlife great get thoughts
Gonna make some people mad with this review Phil. 😅 I wanted to upgrade my lens before Ospreys arrived next month, & went with the 100-500 because of zero availability of the 200-800 and because for Wildlife I only use my R7 and 800mm equivalent with the ability to crop is usually enough. I own and R6 & R6II as well for my wedding photography. And while overall I find the R6II to be a better camera, the low megapixels along with the 500mm doesn't make it a great combo in most wildlife situations and I just like to keep my wedding gear separated more or less. I also own the RF 50 1.2 and that is my favorite lens for weddings and possible favorite lens of all time, so I knew I wouldn't be disappointed with L glass from Canon... despite them still being a tad overpriced in most cases.
Thank you! Here’s something to try, use your 50 mm 1.2 lens hood on your 100 to 500. That’s what I do. It fits perfectly works perfectly and stores much smaller in your bag on the way to the wildlife.
I'm waiting on Ospreys too. I have an R7 with Sigma 150-500 contemporary & 1.4tc. I'm a keen amateur but feel I need more range. Despite the review of the 200-800, would you have gone ahead and bought it if it was available to buy now?
@@wheresmyglasses5104 hmm… tough call. If I’d never bought the 100-500, probably. But the 100-500 minus the price has lots of things going for it especially on the R7. I never use the tripod collar, so the ability to take that off completely is a plus. I don’t really like tripod collars on my telephotos and only really use them if I’m doing full moon rising behind landscape photos. I had a Sigma as well, then an RF 100-400 and I hated carrying the Sigma around all day. It barely fit in my bag as well. The 100-500 is the perfect weight and size and I have no complaints with my images so far. Any issues have been my error.
I just shot this lens for Canon in Kenya on the R7 for a week, I have no idea what you're talking about. I made hundreds of tack sharp images, in all types of light, front and backlight, iso ranges all focal lengths. One thing it doesn't handle well is any form of heat haze, but thats different. Not sure what you're doing but it's not the lens or the camera pairing.
Thanks for watching! Canon must’ve sent you an exceptional copy of this lens. However, I did look at your flicker, you have some beautiful images on there, but there’s not a single photograph using the R7 with the 200-800.
@@PhilThach I rarely update flickr to be fair, and just returned...I'll process a few I can share. Not sure I got any better copy than anyone else honestly, I do think the coatings may result in some flare and ghosting, but overall sharpness? I just don't see it in any images I made.
I found your discussion very helpful, but I'm not sure that pixel density adequately summarizes the differences in resolution between sensors. For example, the Nikon P900 has a crop factor of 6, as its 6 mm x 4 mm sensor manages to pack 15 MP into a space the size of the nail on my pinky finger! This is a full frame pixel density of 15 x 6 x 6 = 540 MP!! While I am impressed by the image quality that can be extracted from this tiny sensor in good light, I don't think we can realistically expect it to perform like a 500 MP full frame sensor. By the same token, the R7 crop sensor may have the same pixel density as an 83 MP full frame sensor, but the pixels are a lot smaller, which physics tells us is going to have an effect on their ability to collect photons, particularly in low light. Surely pixel pitch (size) is also going to impact on noise and image quality,
That's an interesting comparison with the P900. I wonder if ANY lens can resolve properly at that pixel density. I think Pixel density and pixel size are basically the same thing unless someone makes a sensor with a bunch of wasted space between the pixels.
@@PhilThach I agree; it's hard to imagine any realistic lens that can resolve that sort of detail. Nevertheless, the 1/2.3" sensor or similar is standard on most phones, often combined with mediocre optics. For example, the iPhone 15 has a slightly larger sensor at 8 x 6 mm with 48 MP, which is a full frame equivalent of 860 MP. As a result, I can no longer pay much attention to megapixels on my phone.
I still think it's down to the user, professional photographers that I've watched reviewing the 200-800mm like Simon dentremont , wild Alaska and others have shown it to produce excellent photos, even when cropping in.
That's right bud , but that's the same for any lens camera set up so if one person doesn't have any issues with the r7 and 200-800 then why should anybody else?
Either they both got lucky with an exceptional copy of the lens or their images are not as sharp as they look on RUclips. I'm not saying you can't make a beautiful image with the 200-800, I'm just saying it's not an exceptionally sharp lens and high pixel density sensors, like the one in the R7, will reveal the shortcomings of the lens.
I was on a few message boards several years ago where people were disappointed with the 90D. As mentioned in your video, a 80mp + pixel density sensor will show the flaws in lots of lenses. There is another issue as well. The 90D and r7 have a dla of f5.2. That is the smallest aperture at which diffraction should be detectable on the R7 on a perfect lens. F7.1 or F8 is more likely the human noticeable point where diffraction appears. So the f9 at 800mm will have a diffraction issue. I suspect Frost even mentioned that at f9 diffraction was already an issue. All things are relative, my assumption is even at 800mm the effective sharpness of the lens is better than the kit lens. IS on this lens, and the R7 together are also a big advantage. If you want better bird pictures, you really need to discover what the issues you are having are. Camera shake, reach, shutter speed, focusing, diffraction. Diffraction is one of the last issues. The R10 or R8, or even the R50, may be good choice with the lens. The best paring with the F 11 glass, is most likely the original R6. You may only notice diffraction after having used big white F4 glass. There is also the challenge of getting an entire bird in focus. The big whites have a shallow depth of field.
Indeed, I really enjoyed the 800 F11 lens back when I had an R6. The weaknesses of the two products worked together, too hide the weakness of the other
I should also add that the right masking, and sharpening in Lightroom, can help with the diffraction some. Also jpg have some sharpening applied. Still, my out of the camera sharpest eagle picture was on a 6D markii 26mp at 500mm. I would never recommend that camera, the original R had far more in-focus pictures per second.
I have used my 800 f/11 on the R7 with limited success. I believe it has similar limitations to the 200-800. The question is which one is worse and that is something I need to investigate. I like the 800 F11 on my R6 Mark II.
@@PhilThach Thanks. The reason I bought the R7 was the possibility to use my EF lenses via the EF-EOS R adapter and the 1.4x II extender I already own, in order to get more reach in air shows (a 400/5.6L + 1.4x II extender or the 100-400/5.6L II + 1.4x II extender combination), because even my 80D APS body wasn't able to give me enough pixels in solo air displays. In the meantime, I played with shooting the neighborhood birds with the 400/5.6L + 1.4x II extender, and it seems a quite potent combination regarding reach (but I am not sure about getting adequate sharpness - I may have to try without the extender as well). I don't plan on buying a full frame RF body currently, since even my ancient 6D is adequate for low light shots (but not enough reach in air shows)
Don´t blame it on the lens. As of now I only have the R7 camera and I can agree that I do not get many keepers. Most of the photos on the R7 are not good, so I have to do a really hard sorting and throw away 90% of my photos. So I can agree that the combination of my R7 with the RF 200-800 is far from ideal. I also have a RF100-500 and based on this video I am going to use this lens more. I will keep both lenses and get rid of my R7. I have seen a lot of great images shot with the RF200-800, so I am not blaming this lens. On other cameras than the R7 the success rate is a lot higher. Very interesting what Canon may offer us in R7mII and R5mII, but I am keeping this RF200-800 lens.
Thank you! I'm strongly considering selling my 200-800. I may keep it for use at 707mm f/10 based on the findings I'll release in next Saturday's video.
I've had many discussions on that topic. I think the DLA argument is pretty BS to be honest. 5.6 assumes that the sensor is theoretically perfect in terms of resolving power. In practice, the true resolving power of sensors scales far from perfectly as MPs go up. In fact, some real world tests have shown that the 32mps of the R7 don't resolve that much more than other 26mp sensors. (Btw, yes, that is completely a valid downside of that 32mp sensor. It's far from a true 33% increase in resolution vs a good old 24mp, at the cost of that awful readout speed and larger files. Fuji fanboys are quick to point it out, but they do have a point!) For this reason, the "true DLA" is unquestionably higher than f5.6 in practice. It is so easily debunkable too! Anyone who has actually tested their lenses with this camera can immediately see, sharpness fall-off from diffraction with it happens much closer to f8-11. Any Christopher Frost video will also confirm this. Here, it's as simple as: "the lens ain't that sharp, and the demanding R7 sensor resolves it completely and then some". It's just wasted pixels, hence why that lens pairs better with lower MPs. Take an 800 f5.6 prime with the R7, stop it down to f8 or f9, believe me, you won't see any diffraction, and the image will be ridiculously sharp, much more than this lens. I can confirm first hand with my R7 and 500 F4, that's about the same results I got. I'm just saying, the whole DLA thing is a non-argument imo! It's not what's happening here.
@@simonthibodeau7082 "sharpness fall-off from diffraction with it happens much closer to f8-11" And the lenses are F9 and F11, so you agree with my original statement in that the lenses we have are too narrow for the R7. The real insult to R7 owners is the f11 lenses which for budget birding would pair best with APS-C, but in that scenario f11 is too narrow for ANY of the crop bodies. I would even be willing to compromise and buy a supertelephoto prime at f8, but what Canon is putting on the market is clearly only intended for use with the R6.
@@budthecyborg4575 Well, that's not exactly what I said. I'll say it, f9 on APSC is a bit of a concern imo, but moreso because of how dark it is (f14 equivalent), than due to diffraction softness. Low light performance just won't be ideal here, that's my main gripe. Softness is a minor issue too with such high resolving power. But that's due to DLA, it's just that the lens ain't that sharp. If it was sharp, well, it wouldn't be an issue at all. We both agree, while capable, this lens isn't a perfect match for an R7, just like Phil said. I'm just saying, DLA has little to do with it in my opinion, it's the least worrying thing about it. The good old rule of thumb of diffraction mostly kicking in at f16 on FF, f11 on APSC, hasn't really changed here. People calculate f5.6 based on the raw numbers and get scared about it, but in practice, not much has changed with the R7. Like I said, with the sensor on mine, I can only really say I see any degradation from diffraction beyond f11, no matter how hard I squint and pixel peep.
It's nice to hear that it's working good on the R8. I have both the R7 and R8 and was considering the 200-800. But I was looking for something that would work on both cameras. As some have suggest, perhaps the RF100-500 plus a 1.4x convertor might be the solution, although that's getting up there in cost.
@@jeffgaboury3157 Yes, expensive. I see the 100-500 on Walmart's website for $2,227 compared to the $1,899 for 200-800. The problem with 100-500 is that I'd probably want to get the 1.4x extender for another $500.
On Saturday, March 16 look for my Test Chart comparison (Yes, I finally did one) between the 800 f/11, 200-800, 100-500, and 100-500 with 1.4x Teleconverter Extender using the unforgiving Canon EOS R7.
Super helpful. I use my R7 with the RF100-500 for birding and I rarely need more reach. And when I do, the 1.4x TC doesn't compromise image quality as much as I feared it might. Your comparison persuaded me that I should avoid the RF 200-800 as long as I am using this body. Thanks.
Thank you!
Thanks for the detailed review. This was one of the biggest issues with the Canon 90D … in fact the 90D and R7 have the same Mp count on their sensors. I shoot the R5 and R6 Mark II mainly for Aviation subjects. (Airshow related content). The RF100-500L, is IMO, their best yet. There is def something to be said about L-series glass. Resolving power means everything. Michael The Maven’s YT channel had numerous vids on this very topic as 90D owners were frustrated that they could not get good sharpness when using the original EF100-400L IS USM. However the EF100-400L II IS USM (v2) had far better resolving power. That lens was also quite a bit more $$ at the time so some folks who didn’t understand pixel density were not too happy.
Thank you! Excellent points.
the original 100-400/5.6 lens wasn't sharp even in full frame cameras, APS cameras were even worse matches. I am quite happy with my 80D and the 100-400/5.6L II IS, but I needed more reach
The hard part about the R7 is a couple of AF flaws that could also hinder you from finding out if truthfully it’s the lens or the camera. The R7’s AF system cannot keep up with the demands of 15FPS assuming you are shooting at the high burst speed. Which is kind of the reason why you see so many on the used market. For us in aviation the dream reach and resolution setup is the R7 with 800mm as we will be able to cover everything as long as atmospherics don’t interrupt anything
Great analysis, Phil! That's pretty much where I've come down, just based on your videos, Pangolin's, and Christopher Frost. My 100-500 does great work regardless of camera, so I'll stick with it. If I want more reach, the Canon extenders cost a lot less than an additional lens, plus, the combination weighs a lot less and is shorter than the 200-800.
Thank you, Bill!
I have the same camera and lenses and I agree completely. I think the r7 with 100-500 is the better birding combo. The 200-800 is allowing me to use my r6ii more frequently (I really like the ergonomics of that camera). Great video, thanks.
Thank you!
I always said , the 100-500mm + 1.4x is an ultimate combo for the R7 if you need an extended reach..., thanks for the great video Phil !
I think I'll be using my 1.4x with the 100-500 more in the future.
💯 This is what I’ve said since this lens came out. If you have a full frame you want the 200-800. Apsc 100-500. I am never in want of reach with the 100-500 and my R7. If I am, im too far away and wouldn’t get a good shot anyway.
Thank you!
You see, air shows are a real problem - in solo flights even my 80D and 400mm/5.6L lens didn't have enough reach. So, I bought the R7 in order to use the 400mm/5.6L + 1.4x II extender, in order to approach a 600mm/8 lens (and having 32.5 Mpixels would offer more cropping room).
Seriously, I often have to crop as low as 1500 pixels width on my 80D...
@@alcosoundSelling the 400mm f5.6 lens was a horrible decision on my part. It was a very good lens and am considering buying a used one now. It's nice to hear it's working well with a 1.4x on the R7.
@@sfink16 of course, it works even better/sharper alone, but I needed the reach. Hence my interest in the 200-800 lens for air shows
@@alcosound♥
Thank you so much. I've a 200-800mm on order for my R7 and have been nervous about buying it due to the points you mention. Therefore I'm cancelling my order and am buying the 100-500mm
Thank you! I think you’ll have better luck with the 100-500.
Your videos always make so much sens and with zero bluff ! ❤keep it up . Wish you success
Thank you!
Great insight Phill i was on the fence as to which to buy for my R7 but defi 100-500mm now
Same
Thank you!
I don’t have an R7. I shoot R5 100-500. I shoot wildlife, mostly birds. I usually have to sell something to upgrade. I will never sell this lens, unless I stop shooting Canon. This is an amazing versatile lens. Min focus distance allows you to take macro-ish photos and the 100 allows decent landscapes. Better weather sealing, non scratch lens coating. Light weight. I’ve been shooting on and off for 30 years. It’s the best lens I’ve ever owned! I’m saving money for a potential R7ii.
Your review is much appreciated. My Tamron 150-600 stopped working with my R7 after functioning perfectly well for over a year, but works fine on my old 6D. My ef 100-400 L Canon lens still works on my R7. I like that extra reach and your video helps in the decision making process.
Thank you!
Would love to see that comparison you mentioned at the end of the video, 200-800 vs 800 f/11 @800mm on the R7. Also as a bonus, you could compare it to the R5 crop 17mp mode to see how that compares.
I'm not sure when I'll be doing it, but it is coming for sure.
Thanks Phil, confirms what I have found after renting the lens this week very hit and miss with this , in perfect lighting conditions it is possible to get an acceptably sharp image - but winter in the UK is not the place to get the right light...this week with mostly dull days has seen me revert back to my EF100-400 MK II which hasn't had the same issues. I also previously tested the 100-500 for a period and of the two, the 100-500 is the one I would choose. But , I don't yet have a compelling reason to switch to it from the 100-400 EF lens...
Thank you!
Yess, you have all the reasons, I have an R7 and an R5, on R5 it works perfectly but,, but on R7 the pictures is horrible, very soft and a lot of noise... I received it last week and will speak with B&H to put it back ASAP..,, thank you so much for your video and clarified me the big issues with this lens on R7
Thanks Phil for this review, I have managed to get hold of this lens in the UK and have had it for a few weeks but I bought it for the R5 and so far I've been extremely happy with the results and I'm getting very sharp images with it even wide open at 800mm ~ watching this is what I was sort of expecting with that huge range attached to the R7. I've been so pleased with it on the R5 that I have not yet even tried it on the R7, obviously I will give it a go but waiting for a bright day to give it the best test but I'm already expecting lots of soft images with the occasional sharp image, brilliant that you have stuck your neck out and made this detailed review on what to expect using this combo together ~ Really enjoy watching all your detailed videos
Thank you!
Really thoughtful review Phil, thank you. I use an R7 (sold my R5) for wildlife along with the 100-500 and it’s a great combination especially where travel is concerned. I think, for the money, the R7 is the best deal going for wildlife. The 100-500 speaks for itself.
Thank you!
Thank you!
Fantastic information for everyone . Well done. Those of us who purchased the Canon 90D discovered this early on, as many of our older L- series lens just wouldn't work. Your well thought out explanation tells the real story.
Thank you, Dan!
Hi Phil,
Great video.
I've been testing the 200-800mm RF lens on the R7 for a short time now, and I must say that I would generally agree with you. I get a the impression that the pixel density of the sensor on the R7 is just too demanding for what the lens can resolve.
Thanks for sharing, it's nice too hear that I'm not the only one thinking this.
Thank you!
I have an r7 with rf 100 -500 ,but I need a second lens for more reach
If rf200-800 is not recommended then does rf800 f11 work???
I'm interested in rf800 f11😊
Please do a comparison video on rf800 f11 and rf200-800
For r7😄
Have you tried the Canon extenders with the 100-500? The 1.4x doesn't sacrifice image quality and the 2x doesn't sacrifice much. (These aren't your father's extenders. These work really well!) They cost less than an additional lens and the combination weighs a lot less than the 200-800.
@@billmartin1010 i don't want a extender, i just like the rf800 f11 because it's light and compact
And I need this lens mainly for video purposes..
The 800 f/11 is not perfect on the R7 but it seems to do better than the 200-800 at 800mm and f/9. I'll be testing this at some point to try to find a more definitive answer.
@@PhilThach that's exactly what I wanted to hear thanks phill 🥳
I'm waiting for the canon r7 mark ii 😊
Because i think this lens on r7mkii will be a lot better . 😃
@@manmohangour368 Duade Paton did a dedicated wildlife test of this combo.
Actually I was glad to hear your thoughts on the RF 200-800mm lens. I have an R6 mk II and a R7.I like the R 7 with my RF 100-500 mm lens. But recently I ordered the RF 200-800 specifically to use on the R6 mk II. Happy to get some positive reinforcement on that choice.
Thanks Phil, very well explained. I did see Christopher's test and as you say it looked soft (too soft). I agree about not using test charts, others do this, so we're well catered for, your channel's strength is real world tests and also comparing the various brands, which is very useful for those of us looking at our next system.
Thank you!
Good day to you. I was just wondering if the softness you have noticed on the R7 has to do with the diffraction? Some reviews of this lens have reported that on crop sensor R7 the diffraction becomes an issue at f11 or so. I use the 200-800 on my R6 (hoping to upgrade that to R5mkII when it comes out) and my wife uses the RF100-500 on her R7. These combos seem to work well for us.
I think it’s a pixel density thing. I am shooting wide-open so I’m at F9.
Need some back to back comparisons with 200-800 and 800f11 on the r7.
Saturday March 16, 7:30 am USA Eastern time.
Finally a sensible video on 200-800mm. I have had a question if this lens were that good and sharp as other RUclips birders claimed. I look forward to your video on the comparison with 800mm f11 and have a speculation that 800mm f11 may be sharper.
I have wondered if there is a difference in sensor quality. You used the term "pixel density" but what about the quality of the sensor itself? Do they use the same quality sensor in all Canon cameras or do they use higher quality sensors for R5 and lower quality ones on cheaper cameras? I speculate there is a difference in sensor quality as many semiconductors do. I have not seen a video discussing image sensor quality.
Thank you! That is an interesting question about sensor quality. I'm not sure how to quantify that. I know the readout speed on the R7 is slower than the R5 R6 etc which hurts it's autofocus.
Thanks for spitting it out! It’s a full frame lens and one cannot expect great sharpness on R7. Would be interesting to see how it performs on a lower density crop body, just for the sake of it, I know R7 is a better wildlife camera.
I would love to see anyone test it on the R10. I have yet to see anyone do so.
Thanks for your review currently use r7 with RF 800 f11 so look forward to that review. Would DXO lens correction help?
Thank you!
Another excellent video Phil! Straight to the point. I recently upgraded to R6 Mk2. I do lots of birding and mammals. What will you recommend 200-800 or 100-500 with 1.4 extender?
Thank you! I'd recommend the 100-500 and the 800 f/11. Tune in Saturday the 16th at 7:30am USA eastern to see why.
@@PhilThach thank you! I look forward to your new video on 3/16.
Hi Phil, you have valid point here regarding the extreme pixel density of the R7! Duade seems happy with the 200-800 on his R7, but I didn't yet have the time to see his full 200-800 review.
Yesterday I enjoyed my new 200-800 on the R5 and had some great results during our first encounter with a Bohemian Waxwing. This cousin of your Cedar Waxwing is pretty rare in Belgium.
As you indicate, the 200-800 is mostly needed by users of the R3/R6ii and similar resolution bodies, who'd otherwise crave for more reach.
Also on my R5, I have the impression it beats the 420-700 easily, but for certain conditions I'll certainly keep my 100-500 .. when it returns from Canon: the tripod foot no longer tightens enough: I cannot use the foot to rotate the lens when swapping lenses. They didn't hear from this issue before, so Canon wanted to check the lens before likely providing me a new tripod foot in guarantee.
Heather's 100-500 tripod foot slips like that. So far mine is working well.
@@PhilThach Ahaa, good to know I'm not the only one. I'll give you an update once I know the final reaction of Canon.
Honestly as someone who is into astronomy and have a bunch of telescopes I have a lot of experience with cheap vs expensive glass. You will always get better views and images with a high quality shorter focal length adding in a magnification than you will with a cheap long focal length. The 1.4x and the 2x work very very well with a narrow field of view on the 100-500 (you'll get distortion in the edges). If you do need to go over 500 I would only opt for a prime lens. At least then there is less elements.
Thank you for this review ....it made feel better having had my 200-800 order cancelled (i shoot wildlife mainly with my R7 for distance sake). I continue to be happy with my 100-500 and get me them shots🙂
Thank you!
Thanks for the video. Your video covers the question many on a budget has. Not everyone can buy 10.000 usd equipment.
Exactly why I still keep and shoot DSLR, I can get a 500 nikon 5.6 for under 2K these days. My D3 and D500 have great autofocus that is more then capable. We dont always need the latest and greatest tracking.
Thank you!
I have two R7 bodies. When I go birding I use one body with the 100-400 L Mk2 lens attached, and the other body with the 800mm f/11 attached. That way I have the super-sharpness of the L lens, and I have the 800mm reach if needed (and if light conditions permit it). I was thinking of buying this lens as a all in one kind of birding lens for the R7, but thanks to your great review I wont be doing that. Thank you for saving me the money!
Thank you! I like your strategy.
Thanks so much for the detailed video my head hurts from all of the math. I can confirm this lens works really well with the R5 and R8 and I agree I don't like the results on the R7. While I have used it with the R7 I get better results with the R5 in crop mode if I need the extra reach. You are right this lens just doesn't resolve well with high pixel density.
Thank you!
Very interesting and informative video. I would love to pair the 100-500mm with a mark two version of the R7. However, does this mean my current G9 20-megapixel sensor is the full-frame equivalent of a 40-meg sensor:)?
Thank you! 20.3 * 2squared = 81.2
Thanks for the video. I have not done as in depth of a comparison as you have done here. I have the 200-800, 100-500, 800mm f11 as well as the R5 and R7. I have primarily shot the 200-800 on the R5 but I have a few thoughts:
- Are we remembering that we are talking about an $1800 lens that is capable of 800mm (or more on the R7). I feel this is the same discussion that went around about the 800 F11. Read that it's going to suck in low light, it isn't sharp, etc, etc. Otherwise, to get this sort of focal length you are looking at a $12k+ 500/600mm f4 lens or perhaps on the cheapest end, an adapted EF version 1 that I still see is $2500+ depending on condition. I think we all might be getting a little spoiled expecting perfection on an affordable lens.
- Its tough to compare to the 100-500 for many reasons, but using prices today, you are still looking at the 100-500 being about 40% more than the 200-800 (and the 100-500 is $300 off as I write this). I mean the 100-500 is an L lens and so it isn't a far reach to think that it will be sharper.
- I know that I have been shooting pictures with both the 800 F11 and the 200-500 that I would have never been able to achieve previously. Are they perfect, no, Am I impressed for what I am getting for the price, certainly. If it was me, I think if someone is considering the 100-500 and is good with the extra cost, then maybe is the right pick for them. However, if your budget is $1800 and you want reach, I don't think you can go wrong with the 200-800. Just like it your budget was $700, I don't think you could go wrong wtth the 800 F11.
Thank you! Look for the test chart comparison Saturday for more information.
I completely agree with you ,maybe the R7 II will have less MP but a much faster readout,and a litle better high iso capabilityes.You have a nice channel,keep up the good work.
Thank you!
Thanks Phil, great review and probably going to keep my 800mm f11 as I already have a lot of high quality lens. I believe Christopher said the 800mm f11 is a little sharper than the 200-800mm at 800mm when comparing the two videos. I would also think the ef 100-400mm and rf 100-500mm would still be sharper with the 1.4 tc and produce better images quality with out blowing the highlights and chromatic aberrations because of the extra coatings on both lenses. Maybe!? lol
Thank you!
Very interesting! I had the chance to travel with the 200-800 lens with the R7 and R8, and overall I preferred much more using it with the R8 (better auto-focus, low noise performance, 800mm with full frame is good sweet spot). Now I understand that image quality is one more factor in favor for the R8.
Thank you!
Super video, Phil.
I had the R7 for a year with the RF100-500 and with 1.4ex also.
I didn’t like the R7 at all, the AF is not consistent, it does not cope with highlights in my opinion and it’s not near as good as the 7D Mark II.
I have looked back at a lot of images I took with the 7D Mk II and they look much better than the R7.
I don’t understand the theory behind pixel density and I don’t doubt what you say in relation to it but I just cannot see that it is better than a full frame in any way. I will never be convinced otherwise.
I always ask myself, why are full frame cameras in more demand than crop sensor cameras ?
To me it’s an easy answer. Take care.
Thank you!
Thanks for sharing your findings and opinion Phil. I think I would stick with the 100-500mm mainly cause I could use for other things too. Cheers
Thank you, Adrian!
Fingers crossed for me. I will have a return window if/when my copy ever comes in. However, very few reviews discuss compromise, and photography is 100% compromise. ISO vs noise, shutter speed vs aperture, cost vs reach vs quality.
For me, the cost of the 200-800 is right at (or just past!) the amount I should be spending on a lens like this. There is no way I will be able to afford the 100-500, the best lens is the one you have, not the one you want.
I am going from the EF Sigma 150-600... and while I don't know for sure, there is absolutely no way that the 200-800 is going to be a step backward in any way. There is no chance that the resolution is lower than the Sigma, there is no way that the focus performance is lower than the Sigma. So, while you don't recommend it, and you qualify the statement... everyone has different needs and qualifications.
Good luck! I hope you are satisfied.
Thanks - good observations. I am considering 200-800 (to replace my 100-400 for shooting from the car) for my r5; and r7 for reach on my 800/f11 (sometimes you have a extreme long shot). Good conclusions but it depends where you sit - my go to is ff r5 because of a/f and 1 stop improvement (2x shutter speed and twice the glass per pixel) in low light. You are always better to fill the frame with a ff camera. For someone with a tighter budget (r7) choosing between 100-500 and 200-800 might cause you to use 100-500/1.4x for iq. But then the practical kicks in - the 200-800 is closer to 100-500 at 500, and it's cheaper, and you don't have to mess with 1.4x. The 800/f11 is good but will often be too long. It depends what you are shooting and time of day and distance (cropping vs filling the frame).
Hey Phil, I respect your bravery, for going out on a limb :) lol I have LOTS of opinions on this myself though. First, I know the 100-500 is a VERY sharp lens, but it would almost never be enough reach for me, "even on the crop body R7", other than blind shooting, or at water features, feeding stations, etc. Also, that lens is such a pain to use with TC's. And, for its short reach, and relatively slow aperture, I think its overpriced. If cropping were the whole answer, I'd have kept my R5. However, I do much better with my R7's.
As for the sharpness of the 200-800, I think the whole thing in a nutshell, is that for real world use, with 99% of the images made with it (99.9% for myself) if you start with a 25 or more mp image {read; not much cropping} then size down to 3 to 5 mp, which is plenty for a nice, large image on a 4K monitor, they look very sharp :) So much so, that they certainly don't need any additional sharpening. Not to say they couldn't be touched up a bit, if you wanted to print 20 x 30's.
Anyway, I rented this lens for a week, took about 6000 shots with it, and absolutely LOVED it on my R7's... However, I'm not buying it at this time because of 1) price, 2) lack of availability, 3) big overlap with what I can do with my RF 100-400 + 1.4 TC and, my 'beloved' 800 F11.
IMPO, the biggest thing this lens offers is versatility, as it can do all the things I can do with the "two lenses" I just mentioned, but all in one lens. However, this is at a cost of $2K and an extra 2 lbs.
Hoping to get the lens next year when it's in stock, as a refurb for $400 off :) ....unless the R7 Mk II comes out before then, and that would be a really tough call ! :)
BTW, you and your viewers are welcome to see about a dozen examples I posted from it, on my photo page... link on my channel. Camera, lens, and EXIF info is shown below each image. My most recent few though, were with the RF 100-400 + 1.4 TC. That sure is a sharp, cheap, light little combo too :)
The 800 F11 is still my baby, for weight, price, and reach :)
Thank you, great comment! :)
For someone like me I feel it really was my best choice and so far I’m happy with it.
I have the R7, and the old EF100-400ii and sometimes throw the 1.4xiii TC on it. AF in anything less than perfect light is horrible with that combo. I debated selling these both for the 100-500 but selling these for a fraction of the cost of purchase price for only 100 extra mm didn’t make sense.
I tried the rf800mm and it is a tough lens on the r7. I sold that and ended up ordering the 200-800. So far I love it and if I experience any softness, I already have topaz sharpen that will take care of that. I started wildlife photography with the 80d and tamron 150-600mm g1 and that lens was incredibly soft, but have really been missing that long reach since moving to the 100-400
Thank you!
I have a conundrum. I'm very much a keen amateur and am using a Sigma 150-600 & 1.4tc with my R7. Majority of my photography is birds of prey at distance so I need good range. Having viewed all the compatibility issues on autofocus & pulsing on this combination, I really felt that the Canon RF 200-800 would be my silver bullet so was dismayed that Phil advised against buying it. Your comments are at odds with Phil. Given your experience with the 200-800 lens, does that mean you'd recommend it to others/myself based on what I use it for?
@@wheresmyglasses5104i think going from a sigma and TC you will notice a huge upgrade in AF speed and image quality. You can always rent it before you buy it
Hey Phil. Some pictures will certainly help to show up the inefficiencies of the R7 and to see if they are acceptable to us amateurs. Perhaps in the video on the RF800 f11 comparison
Be sure to watch the Blackpoint Wildlife Drive video that is linked at the end of this video. There is a Spoonbill on the thumbnail.
Appreciate your insight; with which I agree totally. I have been shooting the R6 MkII almost exclusively with the RF 100-500, and have found the lack of mega pixels, not to be a big problem; Gigapixel Ai is almost non destructive and easily brings the pixel density up quite well; the results are amazing; also Lightroom enhance and then topaz photo AI work very well together in that order, and then one can use Gigapixel Ai, if need be... Although I have the R7; the R6 MkII is my camera of choice because of the foregoing... 40 FPS is vital in Eagles landing or Ospreys diving; You do a great job; please be encouraged and keep up the good work!
Thank you!
I meant Topaz Photo AI, not Topaz Denoise, sorry...
You made my mind up Phil, its time to buy the 100-500 F7.1 and the 1.4 teleconverter. Hopefully an R7 ii will come out with an even better autofocus system.
Take a look at my test chart comparison that comes out Saturday for more information on this subject.
Thanks Phil, this is all super useful for us R7 owners! I'm gonna wait until I find a good price for a used R5, 6ii or 8 until I upgrade to this lens. This confirms what I had suspected.
That and the f9, means that while it's a very capable combo, it's just not that great of match with the R7 it seems. Also once again highlights just how much a slow 32mp sensor with the R7 was just a design flaw, plain and simple. Wasted pixels at the cost of that awful readout speed. I don't know what they were thinking honestly!
For me, the R7 still pulls through with the 500 f4 mki and the sigma 150-600C for the time being. I'll be patient and get a FF 2nd body eventually before upgrading my big sigma. I'm glad I didn't pre-order and left my options open.
The fact that something like an R6ii+200-800 would be surprisingly close to my R7+500 f4, just gets me salivating sometimes! Same reach, only 1 stop darker in theory taking crop factor into account (probably even less in practice taking sensor tech into account), in that small form factor, with the latest and greatest AF/OIS!
Sounds like it's a great lens that just wasn't designed with APSC in mind. Great move by Canon because honestly they finally swayed me towards even considering FF, now that the lens exists.
The first time I ever heard about the pixel density thing was when Tony mentioned it. More recently, when Fuji upped their cropped cameras to 40MP, they gave out a list of lens capable of fully using it. So there is something about lens and MP. One would have thought however that Canon would not make a lens not capable of resolving any cropped camera they might be making up to this point.
The only other thing I can think of is whether on the AF system is actually getting critical focus. I wonder how many folks have used Full Manual focus to test that. Using all the manual focus aids. When Christopher Frost does his test charts, I doubt he takes the time to manual focus each test.
Thank you!
I agree completely. I have the R7 (had it since it launched) and the R6 Mark II. While I don't yet have the 200-800, I do have the RF 100-500L and the RF 800 f11, as well as the RF 1.4x extender. The 100-500 is excellent on my R7, even with the extender. However, the RF 800 f11 is a trainwreck on the R7. That being said, the RF 800 f11 is fantastic on my R6 Mark II. Surprisingly sharp. Of course the 100-500 is great on the R6 too. Still not sure if I'll ever get the 200-800, but with the lenses I have now, I doubt I'll even consider it now. Keep up the great work and videos!
Interesting. I find the 800 F11 to be better on my R6II than on my R7, when I can fill the frame. But I still get plenty of very sharp shots with the R7 and 800 F11. And if I have to crop significantly with the R6II, the R7 is better. "Trainwreck" is definitely not the word I would use. I've also seen literally thousands of great shots from the R7 and 800 F11 combo.
Thank you! I think you will find the test chart video I have coming out Saturday the 16th interesting.
Your mathematics has explained my issue as l stopped using it on my R7 & just use it on my R6ii now l just assumed it a better sensor & autofocus but you have explained it.
Thank you!
Another great review. I don't have 200-800 lens. I decided not to buy it due to its weight and the fact that it takes 4 turns to zoom completely. I do a lot of birding and my shoulders are not in great shape. 800mm F/11 works great with my R8 but is terrible on R7. On R8 with 800 F/11 the images are sharp and focus is fast. One out of 10 times I miss the zoom function but the weight factor is too important for me. My R7 is usually paired with Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. Despite the AF issue, I still get enough sharp keepers with Sigma but weight is still a factor with Sigma.
Thank you! I love the weight of the 800 F11.
Thanks Phil. I've seen and heard similar although not voiced as clearly as you have. I have the R7 with 100-500 and like you said, the images are crazy sharp (when I do my part). Thus far, I haven't seen anything in the 200-800 to make me sell the 100-500 to buy the 200-800. If I were shooting a FF R5 or R6ii, then maybe but the R7 and 100-500 is a great combo.
Thanks, Jeff!
Very interesting and useful video. I have the Sony A7RIV and the Tamron 150-500 and though it is plenty sharp I often find that I would want more reach. I just looked at the lens comparison tool on The-Digital-Picture and notice that the Sony 200-600 on the Sony A7RIII is at 600mm and f6.3 (to my eyes and 4K monitor) slightly (just noticeable) sharper than the Canon R7 with 100-500 and Canon 1.4X TC at 700mm f11.0 (in center where I would put the birds most of the time). With the same cameras and lenses but a Sony 1.4X TC at 840mm f9.0 the Canon combo (at 700mm) is slightly sharper. With the Tony Northrup Formula (TNF) the Canon setup is 83.2 MP while the Sony A7RIII is 42 MP. Looking like the Canon R7 with 100-500 and 1.4X TC is an excellent choice. I am looking at this upgrade since really want to get back to Canon. However, price dif. for me is Canon R7 with Canon 100-500mm with Canon 1.4X TC is $1400+$2600+$500=$3114 while the Sony 200-600 is $2000-$800 used=$1200. Given the Pixel Density (PD) of the Canon R7 though maybe the $2000 is worth it. I have the Sony7 A7RIV which is 63MP and would probably get a Sony a6700 to get the AF advantage and the 58.4 MP PD would be close enough to my Sony A7RIV.
Thank you!
I dont know what the Pixel density is on my Z8 but it works a dream on the 180-600
Thank you Phil. What do you think of the R100-500 with the TC vs the RF200-800?
I just completed a test chart test. I think I might like the 800 f/11 a little more. Look for that video on March 16.
What would you recommend for the R6 the 100-500 or 200-800? I mainly use it for plane spotting & the occasional airshow & maybe bird pics
I think for the aerial stuff I would recommend the 100 to 500 but for birds, I suppose I would recommend the 200-800 or the 800 f/11.
One thing I haven't heard anyone talking about...how does the crop factor effect the f/stop of the 200-800 on the R7? My understanding is that, just like the focal length is multiplied by the 1.6 crop, the aperture must also be multiplied to get the proper f/stop rating. That would make the 800mm f/stop 14.4, not 9. Is that correct?
It's still f/9 but is has more depth of field on an APSC camera at F/9 than it does on a full-frame camera assuming you step back enough that the frame is filled the same amount as it is on full-frame.
Very interesting phil. Your videos are always so informative and really help me alot. I was the one asking ya about comparing thr rf800 f11 to the 200mm to 800mm super excited to hear that might be coming soon. I'm thinking if they come out with an r7 mk.2 I might grab one to use with my ef 100mm to 400mm L2 which I use on my r6mk2 and love. After today's video , you think the ef 100mm to 400mm would do good on something like the r7 mk.2? Have a great day.
Thank you! I haven't use the EF 100-400 LII but I would imagine it would be great on the R7.
I use an ef 100-400 L on my R7 via a basic Canon adapter and it gives great results
Just to make my comment clearer, I use an ef 100-400 L Mk ii
Great video. I’m currently shooting a R7 with a ef 100-400 L. Results are very good. I was thinking of getting the R6mk2. Do u think the ef 100-400 with the 1.4 extender 3 is as sharp at the 200-800 on the R6mk3
Thank you! Yes.
Comparing apples to apples, would you recommend the 200-800 or the 100-400 with a 2x on the r7?
Thanks Phil another good video. I have the R7 and 100-500 lens and think it’s a great combination. Ignoring the extra reach of the cheaper lens and here in the UK we are talking almost £1000 cheaper at full price, I fail to comprehend how a £2000 lens can compete with a £3000 one but maybe that’s just me. Have you compared shots taken on both lens between just 200mm and 500mm, the range that both lens can focus at? Build quality and subsequent cost to me would say I will get better shots using a better lens. I remember another RUclipsr Simon d’Entremont, who like you produces excellent tutorials, saying something along the lines of (and don’t quote me on the numbers) if you have $3000 dollars to spend, spend $1000 on the camera and $2000 on the lens. What do you think?
Thank you! Camera bodies are for a few years, and lenses are for life.
Interesting thoughts. I have the R7 and the R8 and was considering the 200-800. Perhaps this lens would work better on my R8 as per your discussion, or should I consider the RF 800mm F11? I already have the RF600mm F11 and am not convinced it's working great on my R7. I also have the EF300 F2.8 + EF 2x convertor, but am not thrilled carrying that beast around that much.
Thank you!
The reason why I replaced my 100-500 with the 200-800 is that 99% of all my photos were taken at 500mm and heavily cropped. Now distance is not a problem anymore but you’re totally right. My photos are softer.
Thank you!
Hoping the r7mk2 will resolve the minor issues the mk1 has.
I have the 100-500 and i dont see another better wildlife lens without jumping to $12k for an f4.
Im going to be buying the r5mk2 this summer and waiting for the r7mk2 for my B cam. Both the r5mk2 and r7mk2 with the 100-500 and 200-800 will be the ultimate wildlife kit. Without jumping to selling a car and kidney territory lol.
I will be considering both of those cameras as well.
The rumored 200-500 f4 I'm sure will be no less than $10k
Thanks so much for sharing another wonderful video like always 😁
Thank you!
In the UK the 200-800 if it ever reaches our shores will cost 2295 while the 100-500 retails at 2939 or +27% so I'd expect it to be better. I'm currently using the 100-400 with a 1.4x on my R7, the 100-500 I'm sure would have better focusing and be sharper but after cropping just how much better would it be than the nearly 900 I get with my current setup, worth 2939? I know I'd stick the 1.4x on and at that point the focusing has a limited range and the size and weight aren't so much different from the 200-800., it's slower with less reach. I know I'd like the weight and easier handling of the 100-500 though, it's real swings and roundabouts. It seems you can buy both lenses via grey imports from Hong Kong and then the 100-500 is cheaper than the 200-800, I'm 70 and only ever had one camera go wrong in over 50 years. Very interesting review and some of us appreciate the time and effort it takes to put one of these together. Could I just add I'd really appreciate links in the description rather than in the video, I missed it and even when I see them I have great difficulty clicking them.
Thanks for watching!
Great comparison Phil, thanks. Just for the fun of it here is my attempt on the math of the different sensors.
pixels÷sq mm = pixels per sq mm of sensor
R7 32,294,400 ÷ 329 = 898,291 pixels per sq mm (84.9 Megapixels Full Frame Equivalent - 100%)
R5 44,761,088 ÷ 864 = 51,807 pixels per sq mm (44.7 Megapixels Full Frame Equivalent - 53%)
R6ii 24,000,000 ÷ 864 = 27,778 pixels per sq mm (24 Megapixels Full Frame Equivalent - 28%)
Am I right?
:)
This is awesome.
While I appreciate your perspective, I’ve been very happy with the 200-800 on the R7. I think it should be expected that an L lens would perform better (in Canada, it’s about $1300 more for the 100-500 compared to the 200-800). While I haven’t used the 100-500, I’ve used various other L primes and zooms, and if I was to simply rate the best of those a 9-9.5 out of 10 for sharpness on the R7, the 200-800 would be a solid 8-8.5. As mentioned, I’ve found it sharper in the 500-600 range, but I don’t hesitate to go to 800. And that reach is real nice. I personally found 100-400 even on crop not enough reach, and if ever using a FF I’d be happier with an 800 reach for sure. One other note about IQ that isn’t talked about much is the CA…I’ve shot various photos in Feb/March backlit with lots of reflecting white snow and bright overcast skies where CA would typically show, and the 200-800 has performed about as well as the L lenses I’ve used (and way better than the Tamrons I’ve used). Anyway, it’s easy to take photos with a 200-800 vs 100-500 and quickly see that the L performs better, but if you aren’t comparing side by side, I think most R7 users (especially getting into birding or on a “budget”) would be very impressed with this combo. At the very least, if you’re on the fence, go rent one and give it a try before cancelling your orders - it’s really the only way to know. I’m definitely keeping mine.
Thanks, good info. I appreciate your work.
Thank you!
Interesting take. What is your opinion on using the venerable 100-400L mk ii on the R7, with and without 1.4x extender?
Thank you! I've never used that lens but I hear it is very good.
@@PhilThachmy biggest gripe with the RF100-500 is that you have to extend the lens to 300mm before you can fit an extender. Basically you are losing the range between 140mm and 420mm to gain 200mm at long end. The 100-400 also feels a little less plasticky.
There is a physic theory that each level of aperture has an up limit resolution density because of diffraction of light, the smaller aperture has a lower upper limit of resolution density. It is really normal you see 800mm f9 has less sharp than 500 f7.1 at R7, and if you want compare with other 6.3 lens on super high resolution density sensor you will get the same results. Also you might even get worse sharp image with 800f11 on R7. This is why I prefer lower resolution full frame body like R6 than R7, it has lower requirements of lens and picture always looks cleaner less noise. I think if it is really need to do a comparison on R7, try to compare 500 f9 vs 800 f9, and 500 f11 vs 800 f11, not wide open to wide open.
Thank you!
Thank you for this comment. I guess (and it’s not fact, just my opinion)), half of people with an APSC body don’t understand diffraction and where it will “kick in”. 200-800 is a FF lens for a reason. Yes it will mount on EOS R crop bodies but one needs to understand that physics exists. That said, my view I hope people just enjoy their toys (sorry tools) and use them along with printing the output. Oh and not every lens from the factory is identical some will be sharper than others
Excellent review, thanks Phil.
Thank you!
very good info Phil. Thanks
Thank you!
You make some fair points. There's probably some copy variation, but according to Christopher Frost's tests, the 800 f/11 appears to be slightly sharper and have slightly better contrast "wide open" than the 200-800 at 800mm wide open, which is admittedly a bit disappointing, since the 200-800 otherwise resolves literally every issue I have with the 800 prime. I've got a copy of the 200-800 waiting for me once I get home, and I only plan to use it on the R5 or R6 (I have an R10; I think the R7 is just too pixel-dense for most lenses), so I'm not terribly concerned about pixel density, but still - the tests I'm seeing are disappointing.
Thank you!
Thank you Phil. I do not own the R7 or that lens, but I struggle to see tack sharp images consistently using that lens. Except Jonnie Pink. His look great especially on the R3. I’ll not buy the R3.
I’m sticking with the R5 with the 1.4. I have programmed my R5 to switch in and out of crop mode instantly. It helps with everything regarding focusing and metering. What people have against this strategy to get 60% more reach instantly with no additional gear is beyond me. Still gives me a croppable 20-22 mgp image.
Thank you!
How do you program the R5 to go in and out of crop mode so quickly?
@@Sam-vd8uk i’m thinking about making a video on this. Go to the Orange menu and the program buttons selection. Go to the DOF or depth of field button. It’s on the front of the body that you can easily depress with your right ring finger. You’re probably not even using it now for anything. program it for aspect ratio I think. Then you should be able to scroll with the dial wheel. The main dial wheel with your index finger on the top of the body to the 1.6 crop mode. That’s how you do it. You push the DOF button to get into crop mode and you press it to get out of crop mode. if you’ve just taken a lot of shots in the full frame mode, it will take some time for the camera to buffer before it allows you to switch modes.
Excellent video as usual 😊👍
I shoot the R7 and really appreciate your insights
Thank you!
Hallo aus Deutschland.
Ihre Analyse deckt sich mit meiner Einschätzung.
Die Summe aller Fehler macht die Auflösung der R7 kaputt und somit diese obsolet.
Der Pixelpitch, Dunst, Hitzeflimmern, hohe ISO und die Anfälligkeit für Beugungsunschärfe ist zuviel des Guten.
Das RF 100-500 ist für die R7 perfekt, in Größe und Auflösung alternativlos.
Grüße André
Danke schön!
So true. I sent mine back. Not one really sharp shot. The 800 mm f 11 is sharp if the light is good.
Thank you!
Despite your video, I'm still going to buy 200-800. Loved the review Duade Patone uses this lens with the R7.
It’s possible that mine may be for sale pretty soon. I haven’t decided for sure yet.
Got sick of the r7 focus gumo, swapped it for a d500 then got the 500mm 5.6 for the d500 gives me 750 reach much more in focus shots for me with my d500 then the R7. Plus DSLR cameras and lenses are about half what you need to pay for mirrorless these days.. we don't always need tracking and eye autofocus we shot years ago without it.
Thank you! I still have my D500 but I prefer the R7 even with it's problems. That reminds me, I need to get my D500 out sometime soon and make a bird photography video with it.
@@PhilThach Yes it has been a while since you did a D500 video.
Phil, is 200-800 sharper than RF100-400? Thanx for answering.
I don't think so.
Great video! Thanks!
Thank you!
Great video, thanks :)
Thank you!
Hi I’m from uk based following on instagram too brig fan and videos very informative too I’m no pro but very passionate severely sight impaired blind photographer I use Nikon z7 for most subjects and pm1 for wildlife annoying swapping systems so looking at r7 for wildlife great get thoughts
Thank you!
Gonna make some people mad with this review Phil. 😅 I wanted to upgrade my lens before Ospreys arrived next month, & went with the 100-500 because of zero availability of the 200-800 and because for Wildlife I only use my R7 and 800mm equivalent with the ability to crop is usually enough. I own and R6 & R6II as well for my wedding photography. And while overall I find the R6II to be a better camera, the low megapixels along with the 500mm doesn't make it a great combo in most wildlife situations and I just like to keep my wedding gear separated more or less. I also own the RF 50 1.2 and that is my favorite lens for weddings and possible favorite lens of all time, so I knew I wouldn't be disappointed with L glass from Canon... despite them still being a tad overpriced in most cases.
Thank you! Here’s something to try, use your 50 mm 1.2 lens hood on your 100 to 500. That’s what I do. It fits perfectly works perfectly and stores much smaller in your bag on the way to the wildlife.
I'm waiting on Ospreys too. I have an R7 with Sigma 150-500 contemporary & 1.4tc. I'm a keen amateur but feel I need more range. Despite the review of the 200-800, would you have gone ahead and bought it if it was available to buy now?
@@wheresmyglasses5104 hmm… tough call. If I’d never bought the 100-500, probably. But the 100-500 minus the price has lots of things going for it especially on the R7. I never use the tripod collar, so the ability to take that off completely is a plus. I don’t really like tripod collars on my telephotos and only really use them if I’m doing full moon rising behind landscape photos.
I had a Sigma as well, then an RF 100-400 and I hated carrying the Sigma around all day. It barely fit in my bag as well. The 100-500 is the perfect weight and size and I have no complaints with my images so far. Any issues have been my error.
Good analysis!
Thank you!
I just shot this lens for Canon in Kenya on the R7 for a week, I have no idea what you're talking about. I made hundreds of tack sharp images, in all types of light, front and backlight, iso ranges all focal lengths. One thing it doesn't handle well is any form of heat haze, but thats different. Not sure what you're doing but it's not the lens or the camera pairing.
Thanks for watching! Canon must’ve sent you an exceptional copy of this lens. However, I did look at your flicker, you have some beautiful images on there, but there’s not a single photograph using the R7 with the 200-800.
@@PhilThach I rarely update flickr to be fair, and just returned...I'll process a few I can share. Not sure I got any better copy than anyone else honestly, I do think the coatings may result in some flare and ghosting, but overall sharpness? I just don't see it in any images I made.
I found your discussion very helpful, but I'm not sure that pixel density adequately summarizes the differences in resolution between sensors. For example, the Nikon P900 has a crop factor of 6, as its 6 mm x 4 mm sensor manages to pack 15 MP into a space the size of the nail on my pinky finger! This is a full frame pixel density of 15 x 6 x 6 = 540 MP!! While I am impressed by the image quality that can be extracted from this tiny sensor in good light, I don't think we can realistically expect it to perform like a 500 MP full frame sensor. By the same token, the R7 crop sensor may have the same pixel density as an 83 MP full frame sensor, but the pixels are a lot smaller, which physics tells us is going to have an effect on their ability to collect photons, particularly in low light. Surely pixel pitch (size) is also going to impact on noise and image quality,
That's an interesting comparison with the P900. I wonder if ANY lens can resolve properly at that pixel density. I think Pixel density and pixel size are basically the same thing unless someone makes a sensor with a bunch of wasted space between the pixels.
@@PhilThach I agree; it's hard to imagine any realistic lens that can resolve that sort of detail. Nevertheless, the 1/2.3" sensor or similar is standard on most phones, often combined with mediocre optics. For example, the iPhone 15 has a slightly larger sensor at 8 x 6 mm with 48 MP, which is a full frame equivalent of 860 MP. As a result, I can no longer pay much attention to megapixels on my phone.
Interesting and honest review
Thank you!
I don't know what confused me the most, all the Canon talk or all the math! 😁
Seemed to me to be an objective review, kudos!
Thanks, Leon! I always look forward to your humorous comments. :)
If the pixel density is the issue it would be better on the canon R10?
I think it would be somewhat better. Of course, the R10 still has a very high pixel density, like a 62mp full-frame camera.
@@PhilThach Much closer to the the R5
I still think it's down to the user, professional photographers that I've watched reviewing the 200-800mm like Simon dentremont , wild Alaska and others have shown it to produce excellent photos, even when cropping in.
All users professional or otherwise aren't regularly shooting in the same exact conditions. Therefore the user requirements can vary greatly.
That's right bud , but that's the same for any lens camera set up so if one person doesn't have any issues with the r7 and 200-800 then why should anybody else?
Either they both got lucky with an exceptional copy of the lens or their images are not as sharp as they look on RUclips. I'm not saying you can't make a beautiful image with the 200-800, I'm just saying it's not an exceptionally sharp lens and high pixel density sensors, like the one in the R7, will reveal the shortcomings of the lens.
I was on a few message boards several years ago where people were disappointed with the 90D. As mentioned in your video, a 80mp + pixel density sensor will show the flaws in lots of lenses. There is another issue as well. The 90D and r7 have a dla of f5.2. That is the smallest aperture at which diffraction should be detectable on the R7 on a perfect lens. F7.1 or F8 is more likely the human noticeable point where diffraction appears. So the f9 at 800mm will have a diffraction issue. I suspect Frost even mentioned that at f9 diffraction was already an issue. All things are relative, my assumption is even at 800mm the effective sharpness of the lens is better than the kit lens. IS on this lens, and the R7 together are also a big advantage. If you want better bird pictures, you really need to discover what the issues you are having are. Camera shake, reach, shutter speed, focusing, diffraction. Diffraction is one of the last issues. The R10 or R8, or even the R50, may be good choice with the lens. The best paring with the F 11 glass, is most likely the original R6. You may only notice diffraction after having used big white F4 glass. There is also the challenge of getting an entire bird in focus. The big whites have a shallow depth of field.
Indeed, I really enjoyed the 800 F11 lens back when I had an R6. The weaknesses of the two products worked together, too hide the weakness of the other
I should also add that the right masking, and sharpening in Lightroom, can help with the diffraction some. Also jpg have some sharpening applied. Still, my out of the camera sharpest eagle picture was on a 6D markii 26mp at 500mm. I would never recommend that camera, the original R had far more in-focus pictures per second.
So, I wonder, how well would the 800mm/11 lens work on the R7? Diffraction may be even worse on this lens...
I have used my 800 f/11 on the R7 with limited success. I believe it has similar limitations to the 200-800. The question is which one is worse and that is something I need to investigate. I like the 800 F11 on my R6 Mark II.
@@PhilThach Thanks.
The reason I bought the R7 was the possibility to use my EF lenses via the EF-EOS R adapter and the 1.4x II extender I already own, in order to get more reach in air shows (a 400/5.6L + 1.4x II extender or the 100-400/5.6L II + 1.4x II extender combination), because even my 80D APS body wasn't able to give me enough pixels in solo air displays. In the meantime, I played with shooting the neighborhood birds with the 400/5.6L + 1.4x II extender, and it seems a quite potent combination regarding reach (but I am not sure about getting adequate sharpness - I may have to try without the extender as well).
I don't plan on buying a full frame RF body currently, since even my ancient 6D is adequate for low light shots (but not enough reach in air shows)
Further up this thread, someone referred to R7 & 800mm/11 lens as a 'train wreck'.
Don´t blame it on the lens. As of now I only have the R7 camera and I can agree that I do not get many keepers. Most of the photos on the R7 are not good, so I have to do a really hard sorting and throw away 90% of my photos. So I can agree that the combination of my R7 with the RF 200-800 is far from ideal. I also have a RF100-500 and based on this video I am going to use this lens more. I will keep both lenses and get rid of my R7. I have seen a lot of great images shot with the RF200-800, so I am not blaming this lens. On other cameras than the R7 the success rate is a lot higher. Very interesting what Canon may offer us in R7mII and R5mII, but I am keeping this RF200-800 lens.
Thank you! I'm strongly considering selling my 200-800. I may keep it for use at 707mm f/10 based on the findings I'll release in next Saturday's video.
Thanks for coming with the truth!
Thank you!
Thanks
Thank you!
The R7 needs F5.6 at the narrowest, diffraction really kills high resolution sensors.
I've had many discussions on that topic. I think the DLA argument is pretty BS to be honest. 5.6 assumes that the sensor is theoretically perfect in terms of resolving power.
In practice, the true resolving power of sensors scales far from perfectly as MPs go up. In fact, some real world tests have shown that the 32mps of the R7 don't resolve that much more than other 26mp sensors.
(Btw, yes, that is completely a valid downside of that 32mp sensor. It's far from a true 33% increase in resolution vs a good old 24mp, at the cost of that awful readout speed and larger files. Fuji fanboys are quick to point it out, but they do have a point!)
For this reason, the "true DLA" is unquestionably higher than f5.6 in practice. It is so easily debunkable too! Anyone who has actually tested their lenses with this camera can immediately see, sharpness fall-off from diffraction with it happens much closer to f8-11. Any Christopher Frost video will also confirm this.
Here, it's as simple as: "the lens ain't that sharp, and the demanding R7 sensor resolves it completely and then some". It's just wasted pixels, hence why that lens pairs better with lower MPs.
Take an 800 f5.6 prime with the R7, stop it down to f8 or f9, believe me, you won't see any diffraction, and the image will be ridiculously sharp, much more than this lens. I can confirm first hand with my R7 and 500 F4, that's about the same results I got.
I'm just saying, the whole DLA thing is a non-argument imo! It's not what's happening here.
@@simonthibodeau7082 "sharpness fall-off from diffraction with it happens much closer to f8-11"
And the lenses are F9 and F11, so you agree with my original statement in that the lenses we have are too narrow for the R7.
The real insult to R7 owners is the f11 lenses which for budget birding would pair best with APS-C, but in that scenario f11 is too narrow for ANY of the crop bodies.
I would even be willing to compromise and buy a supertelephoto prime at f8, but what Canon is putting on the market is clearly only intended for use with the R6.
@@budthecyborg4575 Well, that's not exactly what I said.
I'll say it, f9 on APSC is a bit of a concern imo, but moreso because of how dark it is (f14 equivalent), than due to diffraction softness. Low light performance just won't be ideal here, that's my main gripe.
Softness is a minor issue too with such high resolving power. But that's due to DLA, it's just that the lens ain't that sharp. If it was sharp, well, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
We both agree, while capable, this lens isn't a perfect match for an R7, just like Phil said.
I'm just saying, DLA has little to do with it in my opinion, it's the least worrying thing about it. The good old rule of thumb of diffraction mostly kicking in at f16 on FF, f11 on APSC, hasn't really changed here. People calculate f5.6 based on the raw numbers and get scared about it, but in practice, not much has changed with the R7. Like I said, with the sensor on mine, I can only really say I see any degradation from diffraction beyond f11, no matter how hard I squint and pixel peep.
Very interesting. Mine is working well for me, but I shoot an R8.
It's nice to hear that it's working good on the R8. I have both the R7 and R8 and was considering the 200-800. But I was looking for something that would work on both cameras. As some have suggest, perhaps the RF100-500 plus a 1.4x convertor might be the solution, although that's getting up there in cost.
Thank you!
@@sfink16Yeah, the 100-500 is out of my league, price wise.
@@jeffgaboury3157 Yes, expensive. I see the 100-500 on Walmart's website for $2,227 compared to the $1,899 for 200-800. The problem with 100-500 is that I'd probably want to get the 1.4x extender for another $500.