Fantastic images! You’ve successfully demonstrated the capabilities of the 200-800 in field conditions! In most cases, the extra reach in the focal ranges 500 to 800 mm is invaluable in bird photography.
Thank you!!! I noticed a couple of things when shooting and then when processing. When shooting the 200-800, I really LOVE the zoom. When I shoot the 100-500 with the 1.4 extender, that zoom is gone but the images just seem the slightest bit sharper to my eyes. That was something I noticed when watching it for mistakes prior to publishing. Either way, they are both really, really fun to shoot!!! 🙏🤗💖
I’ve seen two reviews that thought the RF 200-800 was soft at 800mm. Your images were definitely sharp at 800mm. I believe the soft reviews didn’t account for atmospheric deterioration. The vast majority of reviews were positive like yours. Your opinion was very helpful, thanks.
Thank you!!! I have shot all of my zooms at the max about 90% of the time LOL. I do see slight difference between the two, but I think most would not notice. I used the same settings and masks on each when processing to make it as fair as possible. But the subject placement and light make a difference as well. A studio with controlled settings would be the only way to be 100%. Either one is an awesome fun choice. 🙏🤗💖
@@isotechimages.9130 Oh no.... I am glad you did not Cancel. It is overall, a fantastic lens and I am glad I did not send it back. It has disadvantages for me that would not matter to others such as the placement of the focus ring - something I use for little critters in the bushes. It is a sharp lens. I think some of the other reviews just dont know how to process an image. LOL. Hey, as long as I get at least ONE good shot, I am happy. 🙏🤗💖
Peter - thank you!! I have thought about it like Gavin Hardcastle does for his landscapes. But.... it sounds like work. Have thought about workshops too but .... it sounds like work. 🙏💖🤗
Thanks Jonny and greetings from the UK. Loving your approach to photography and to life. It’s not all about technically perfect images (though that helps!). It’s about getting out there, enjoying nature and exploring. As you say, life is short so get out your camera and have fun! 📸
Thank you, thank you, thank you from here in rainy southern California - it used to be sunny here a LOT! LOL. I just love being out there and appreciate just being able to do it. Live for today, live right now. 🙏🤗💖
Thank you, thank you!!! I am going to keep mine for the short minimum focus distance. When spring and summer get here, the butterflies and dragonflies that I love shooting will be out. The lens I will be reaching for it the 100-500, with the 1.4 extender, and maybe even some 3rd party extension tubes to get even closer! It may be a bit greedy, but I think the 100-500 will be perfect for me for that purpose!! 🙏🤗💖
Well, I thought the combo 100-500, with the 1.4 ext. was sharper, but now after this vid I’m not sure. I’m temped to pick one up. So, I suppose you are keeper yours. Excellent work. Really enjoyed.
Thank you, thank you!!! I am keeping it for sure. The more I use it, the more I really love the zoom. I think if you really zoom in, the 100-500 with the 1.4 at F10 may be just a hair sharper, but that could be light, distance, or other factors. The 200-800 has that amazing zoom, the 100-500 is lighter and has a shorter minimum focus distance - advantages and disadvantages. In summer, I will be shooting the dragonflies with the 100-500. In truth, I don think you would go wrong with either set up!!! I LOVE the zoom. 🙏🤗💖
Thank you, thank you!!! You cant go wrong with either - they are both pretty awesome. Going out tomorrow to place that is supposed to have eagles and I am taking the 200-800. The more I use it, the more I really enjoy shooting it. That zoom is AWESOME!!! 🙏🤗💖
Very nice. Still wating for my 200-800. Only been 7 weeks now. I have the 100-500 w/1.4 ext. I think the extra reach, F9 and full range make the 200-800 a better choice. That said however having the ability to have 100mm and L series weather proofing is an obvious advantage too.
Advantages and disadvantages - the problems we have in our modern world. LOL I really love having the full zoom on this new lens, but I also really like the low weight and short minimum focus distance on the 100-500. Really cant go wrong with either set up!! 🙏🤗💖
I have both. They both are the same in sharpness. But the 200-800 has a bit more purple fringing when the background is strong white (e.g. stormy sky) due to less coating ( I guess). But I am using the 200-800 more now. If you are ready to buy either one, and you are interested in small birds, get the 200-800.
Amen!!! The coatings they use on the newer or higher end lenses make a huge difference. I love the full zoom on the 200-800! I LOVe the short minimum focus distance of the 100-500......🙏🤗💖
Hi John, nice comparison! For me, the 100-500 plus 1.4 or 2.0 extender is the winner upfront. I do birds mostly, but I like the minimum distance to butterflies etc. which is a lot better on the 100-500 than on the 200-600. I use to walk a lot shooting what I can find and so the weight is important to me. And with the 2.0 I have a reach to 640(?) - 1000mm with sharp results. I carry those extenders with me but usually pick the combo with the terrain I am in (and the light conditions). I wonder how the 100-500 with 2.0 compares to the 200-800? Because using the 1.4 you have to crop the 100-500 a bit, but this is the other way around using the 100-500 with 2.0.
The 100-500 with the 1.4 or stand alone is an AWESOME set up. In summer, I will be using that to shoot the butterflies, dragonflies and such because of that MFD. I think overall, it is a sharper lens over the 200-800. The advantage to the 100-500 -weight, sharp and that MFD. Both are awesome. 🙏🤗💖
Jonny I just sent this vid to my friend Sam Rino he has a good tube and Instagram following , he shoots much of same gear as you and has 2-800 on order, he may show up in comment very good man✌✌
Super video, John. Every image you’ve shown taken with the R5 and the 200-800 looks superb. I have the 100-500 plus 1.4ex and I have ordered a 200-800 as I’m going to trade the 100-500 as I don’t need both. A few small things on what you said - You only loose 1/3 of a stop of light between F9 and F10, not a stop as you said, although I do think you know the difference. On the zoom flexibility with the extender attached to the 100-500 you are restricted to 420 to 700 and not 320 as you said. Small little details but for those who don’t know could be confusing. I hope you don’t mind me commenting in this way as I do find your videos are very hands on and very informative.
You are correct on all of it. I was looking at the lens as an afterthought when commenting on the zoom restriction and that FULL zoom is something I LOVE about the new 200-800. F/9 F10 F/11 - when mentioning those apertures to inexperienced photographers or old school photographers that think in old terms as I once did, that seems unusable at any of those apertures. Thank you for pointing that out. I am envious of those that can plan when they go out - what, when, where and they have a script prepared. I go out by the seat of my pants with an idea and I shoot. What you see is my excitement and thoughts as they come up...... and, all my excited mistakes. As long as I get to have fun and share.... I feel fortunate. 🙏🤗💖
@@JonnyPink65 Thank you, John. I really enjoy your presentations. You seem to love what you do and you love sharing your experiences which has helped me in deciding to get the 200-800 and I thank you for that insight and the real world honest information you provide. You seem to be a man that enjoys life and you live for each day one at a time. You are right and I wish and your family good health and long life.
Thank you, thank you. They are both great set ups and I dont think you can go wrong with either. The 200-800 has that wonderful full zoom range. The 100-500 with the extender is lighter and has a shorter minimum focus distance. Advantages and disadvantages!! 🙏🤗💖
Both lenses are producing fantastic images. To me, the 100-500L looks just a bit sharper and the colors a little better. Honestly, I'd be happy with either. I currently have the 100-500L and the 1.4x extender. I use this combo on both my R7 and R6markII. The AF on the R6 is significantly better, but it's nice having both as an option. I think I'll rent the 200-800 down the road to get a better idea for myself, but right now I'm very happy with the 100-500.
I agree with you 100% about the sharpness. I dont think most would notice it, but I did use pretty much the same settings and masks for almost all the developing. The 200-800 does have the advantage though of the zoom. I have not printed any of the images with the 200-800 but I would guess it would still be amazing. For close ups though... the 100-500 is a better way to go. 🙏🤗💖
Live life to the full. Well i certainly took that on. Sold my Hospitality business/Home. Treated myself to a 100-500 + 1.4, for the front end of an R6 mkii. Love the combo BUT i would appreciate your input on adding an R5, just to get more MP on target. Big holiday coming up in Vancouver and Alaska. A 2nd body would be a nicecoption. R5 or R6ii x2 🤷♂️
@@patmurphy6318 My personal recommendation if you want more options is to take a 1.4 extender. As far as a second body...... I REALLY love my R5. When you can fill the frame even partway, there is so much information to crop into. The last gig I did - a wedding for my wifes friend last minute when their photographer dropped out - I used two R5s I can not speak on the R6ii, but I personally want as large as a sensor as I can get! 🙏🤗💖
@JonnyPink65 Thanks for coming back to me. Looks like a rental on an R5 to confirm my choice. 200-800 looks an amazing piece of kit but I have a dodgy shoulder and the weight concerns me. The fact that it appears to be made of Unobtanium in the UK ia another reason to stick with the 100-500+1.4tc 😁
They both look great. I have the EF100-400 II so the 100-500 really doesn't appeal to my ROI other than the RF mount. I also have the 400 F2.8. Only use the 1.4x extender. Hate the 2x. Hoping that once the 200-800 finally starts showing up in stock, I'll be able to pick one up. Who knows how long that'll be though... SMH
I have the EF 100-400 II, just recived my 200-800 2 weeks ago, waited 1 and half month from order in late November. I have to say in some of my shots the RF is a bit sharper then the 100-400mm, the lens is on back order for 4-6 month in Europe !!
Nice 'in the field' real use comparison. Very helpful. A well known website has indoor, controlled, lab shots comparing the 2 lenses, with and without extenders on both (R5 photos of black and white charts with detailed lettering and images). Canon's DPP software sharpness set to 1 (0-10 scale) when posting the resulting images. The Canon RF 1-5 looked slightly sharper to me (eyeball comparison of results), even with an extender added to the 1-5, compared to the RF 2-8. However, I don't think that is even relevant once post processing software is fully used to smartly sharpen images from both cameras (i.e. the difference between lab results versus 'real world use'). Looking at your 'real world use' photos (nice ones BTW!), I had a really hard time seeing any difference. Maybe the contrast and color was ever so slightly better with the 1-5 +1.4x compared to the 2-8, but I had a really hard time telling the difference, and I'm not sure I'd be able to blindly tell which photo came from which setup. Thanks again for sharing. Very informative. Kind regards
Thank you, thank you. I agree - to my eyes the 100-500 with 1.4 is a hair sharper, but that is something that is almost unnoticeable. If you print it, you would not see a difference. Each has advantages and disadvantages in the field. The everyday photographer that goes out and has fun would be happy with either and will be able to get great shots with both. 🙏🤗💖
Amazing video.. I am a new wildlife photography enthusiast and I am so thankful you are posting videos like this. I hope you dont mind me seeking a bit of advise.. I currently have a Canon R5, an RF `15-35 F2.8, the RF 100-500 F/4 and ordered the RF 24-105 f2/8. I strictly do wildlife photography ( I have two safari planned out in 2025 and one in 2026 ) and often visit Montana looking for wolves.. I am considering selling the RF 100-500 for the RF 200-800... ( When it becomes available ). Would you consider this a wise move? I have invested quite a bit of cash and would like to have a set up I am happy with for a long time.. so once I make my decision, I am done purchasing anything :)
Ask away!!! I can not tell you what would be the best lens or set up that will work for you, but I can tell you what my preferences are based on how I want to shoot. First let me say that for wildlife I want as much reach as I can get to a point - for me my favorite focal length is about 800mm. I LOVE the 100-500 either by itself on the R7 or with the 1.4 extender on the R5 giving me 700mm at an F10. I personally think that it is still just a wee bit sharper than the 200-800. However, you lose most of the zoom that way so the advantage then goes to the 200-800. It is a fantastic lens and you should be able to get it before your trip. Having said all that, I like the 200-800 on the R5 and the R3 but no so much on the R7. I have fun just buying gear so I have more than I need, but for me, my favorites are the EF 17-40 for video, the EF 100mm for macro, and then if I had to only chose one of my long lenses, it would be the 200-800. But again, no set up will ever be perfect. I have been using my 600 F4 with a 1.4 extender giving me 840mm at F5.6 and it is perfect if I am not walking too too far. So to make a long answer more confusing..... LOL..... for wildlife, for me, it would be the 200-800 on your R5. That zoom is AWESOME. Next if that were not available would be the 100-500 with the 1.4 extender. I am always open to questions so ask away. I do rent a lot of gear to try as well - just fun to go out and shoot! 🙏🤗💖
I will have to give that a go on the R5. I know others have done it. I have shot this on the R7, but I actually prefer it on the R5. The 100-500 is amazing on the R7 even with the 1.4!!!🙏🤗💖
I want to buy the extender rf 1.4 X but if it works like on the rf 100-500mm which can only work at 300mm with the impossibility to unzoom to 200 on the rf 200-800mm ,I will not buy it. I want to get all of the reach from 280-1120mm X 1.6 because of the R7 multiplication. And I want to know if pictures are soft or sharp. Sorry for my English, I hope you understand 😊
@@PB-qd1il I understand you perfectly!! First, there is NO perfect set up. The 100-500 with the 1.4 extender I think works better on the R7 over the 200-800 - just my opinion. They both work awesome on the R5. Both are equally sharp - the 1.4 does not change the sharpness in any way and it does not change the minimum focus distance, at least not noticeably. When you use the 1.4, you do lose most of your zoom with the 100-500 though, and you have full zoom with the 200-800 without an extender. At some point in going longer with the focal distance, you do start to lose sharpness no matter what you use because of the air temperature and atmospheric haze of shimmer. If you are shooting only the R7, my preference is the 100-500 with the 1.4 extender. But that is just me based on what I want from a photo and camera set up. We all shoot different so you have to find what works for you. Years ago, when everyone was shooting the Nikon D500 for wildlife, I bought one..... and HATED it. Just not for me. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Neither is better, neither is worse! 🙏🤗💖
The rf100-500 will be better than the rf200-800 on the r7.right?? Does it ever feel that rf100-500 is short on r7?? For bird photography (all types of birds)😊
I think it all depends on you. On the R7, I think that it is the perfect lens and give me my favorite focal length of 800mm with the full zoom range, and the best short minimum focal distance. The subject fills the frame so you get every bit of the juicy detail the sensor offers. Again, this is just my opinion based on how and what I want to shoot. I think that once you get into the 1100+ focal range (I have done it many times), you do start to get atmospheric wobble in some shots especially on warmer days. For many, the RF 100-400 or faster EF 100-400 is a better option. There is not perfect set up out there no matter who the maker is. But on the R7, it is my favorite lens by far. 🙏💖🤗
I don’t think you can go wrong with either setup, I have both. The RF 200-800 suffers from chromatic aberration a lot more than the RF 100-500. I have seen it with bright days if I have a white subject towards the edge. However is it bad enough that you need to spend over $1000 more to buy the RF 100-500 plus a 1.4x? No. The minimum focus distance is better on the RF 100-500 but 10’ at 800mm is still pretty amazing. Love the hummingbird pictures.
That would be tough, but probably the 100-500 as an over all. I really love the minimum focus distance for what I do and it is SOOOOOOO sharp. It works amazing on the R5 and R7 even with the 1.4 extender. Because it is smaller, to get to the focus ring works better for the way I shoot. When spring is here and the dragonflies are out, that is the lens I will grab 99% of the time. I REALLY love the full zoom though and reach of the 200-800 and it does have a lower price. That is a tough call....... If all you shoot is distance..... probably the 200-800. Really a tough call. 🙏💖🤗
Awesome images, great thoughts. Thanks for this great video! My current kit is the R7, with the 500 f4 mki, the sigma 150-600C and the RF100-400. One day I'll probably upgrade the bigma to the 200-800, but I decided to wait a few years. First, because I'm pretty happy with what I have. That 500 f4 I paid 2100$ was a godsend, I'm so happy with it. But the main thing that talked me out of it is, I wanna pair that 200-800 with a FF camera. I almost went R8, but to be honest, there are things I want Canon to fix first. Biggest thing being, the poor pre-capture implementation. Until then, I'm not upgrading my body or getting a 2nd one. And if I don't get a FF, I dont need this 200-800. That's how I successfully talked me out of my GAS lol, for now. I'm focusing on the birds until then. That 200-800 is a beauty, it'll be mine one day, but it can wait. Cheers, thanks again for the great video.
Thank you, thank you!!! I had the 500 F4 and used it with the 1.4 extender and i LOVED it. It is a beast of lens. My problem with gas is I act impulsively - ah well. The R7 is awesome and the lenses you have work perfectly. If it all makes you happy, that is the best set up in the world. 🙏🤗💖
@@markrigg6623 I disagree. I try to work within the limitations of the gear I am using to get the best out of it that I can. Even my top of the line R3 and 600 F4 is not perfect. Everything has limitations and we as the creators have to work around and with that! Not perfect I agree but I do really like it as a camera body tool! 🤗💖
@@markrigg6623 You may be correct or we may just look at it differently. I don't look at the technical, just what works and that I get to have fun with. 💖🤗
Well lens choice is personal based on how we each shoot. On the R7, I personally prefer the 100-500 with or without the 1.4 extender on the R7. I think it is just a little sharper. I have been able to get some great results with the 200-800 on the R7 though. My personal preference - the 100-500. 🙏💖🤗
@@JonnyPink65 it's becoming a headache for me (I am interested mostly in air shows, hence my interest in lenses at 600+ mm focal length). At the moment, I am using the R7 with the EF 100-400L II and the EF 400/5.6L, often with the 1.4x II extender. But even the combination with the extender is not near enough for solo air displays, and I have to severely crop the image. So, I am eyeing either the 200-800 or the 800/11
@@JonnyPink65 interestingly, the availability of the 200-800 is quite bad, with most stores claiming no delivery before June (and the price is almost triple of the fixed 800/11). Will see if the situation changes in the summer
@@alcosound It is a new lens so that makes sense. The other option that is more expensive is the 100-500 and you can add a1.4 extender to give you a 700mm at F10. It has less zoom with the extender on but is sharper. But past that, the 800 F11 is a fantastic lens. I still use mine quite a bit!! 💖
Really nice test. But all of these are made under excellent conditions at excellent bright places. I would like to have a comparison under "dark european" conditions or at the "blue hour". Is there enough light for birding?
Very true. I was using the 200-800 in Washington in super cloudy conditions. You have to keep the shutter speed really low. I dont think the 200-800 is a low light lens. I have heard others online talking about the AF struggling under low light conditions like what was happening to me. I did comment on that in one of my past videos but I did show the images. 🙏🤗💖
John I look at your comparison between the 100 - 500 with the 1.4 doing the Hummigbirds versus the 200 of 800 the sharpness is very obvious and that is the 100 - 500 with the 1.4 is a lot better . Like you even stated here John with Canon you need to buy a 600 F4 ( to buy A GOOD 600 MM LENS ) we'll look at the competition like Nikon they have a 600 6.3 lens that weighs 2.9 pounds and it cost $4700 which is not a whole lot money for 600 prime lens , so why can't Canon do this ????? I'll tell you why it is because they don't want to spend the money ( to develop good lenses ) they think everybody that buys their camera's nowadays is only a consumer we are not consumers we are people that are PASSIONATE about our photography and willing to spend the money and Canon can't seem to understand that .
Well, I agree with that and Canon sure does get my money. LOL I bought my EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens new but I did trade in a bunch of my old gear to really offset the price and make it affordable for me. I used to and started with Nikon... and Sony. Until the A6700, I really did not care for the color in the raw files. With Nikon, after I switched with the R5 came out and I was blown away, I did try going back with the Z9 and was dismally disappointed in the autofocus so I sold it. Yes Nikon has great lenses but none of the new ones were available so it did not matter how amazing they are if you cant get them. As a package and one the whole, Canon has all the performance and sharpness that I want - even at the high prices and no 3rd party alternatives. 🙏🤗💖
John, what can I say EXCELLENT!!!. I think the 200-800 is sharper. The 100-500 is a great lense but with the 1.4 on that's alot of glass that squirrel head on shot, perfect. I like the 200-800 you are delivering fantastic images L or not. SUPERB BROTHER. I just can't say enough. Thanks for taking us alongPEACE.
Thank you, thank you!! Here is what I have discovered doing lens and camera body comparison - NOTHING IS PERFECT LOL There are times when any one depending on light, focus or distance - any one at any time can be pin sharp. I have been surprised, disappointed, impressed and excited with different set ups.... as long as it is fun!! 🙏🤗💖
All of your photos look great. Thank you for the comparison. I have the 100 to 500 RF lens and the 1.4 teleconverter. I have a 200 to 800 mm lens on backorder. I think both lenses in your video look great. I've seen enough videos on the 200 800 lens to see that it's a great lens.
Fantastic images! You’ve successfully demonstrated the capabilities of the 200-800 in field conditions! In most cases, the extra reach in the focal ranges 500 to 800 mm is invaluable in bird photography.
Thank you!!! I noticed a couple of things when shooting and then when processing. When shooting the 200-800, I really LOVE the zoom. When I shoot the 100-500 with the 1.4 extender, that zoom is gone but the images just seem the slightest bit sharper to my eyes. That was something I noticed when watching it for mistakes prior to publishing. Either way, they are both really, really fun to shoot!!! 🙏🤗💖
I’ve seen two reviews that thought the RF 200-800 was soft at 800mm. Your images were definitely sharp at 800mm. I believe the soft reviews didn’t account for atmospheric deterioration. The vast majority of reviews were positive like yours. Your opinion was very helpful, thanks.
Thank you!!! I have shot all of my zooms at the max about 90% of the time LOL. I do see slight difference between the two, but I think most would not notice. I used the same settings and masks on each when processing to make it as fair as possible. But the subject placement and light make a difference as well. A studio with controlled settings would be the only way to be 100%. Either one is an awesome fun choice. 🙏🤗💖
I almost cancelled my pre order when l saw those reviews but glad l didn't as not soft at all.
@@isotechimages.9130 Oh no.... I am glad you did not Cancel. It is overall, a fantastic lens and I am glad I did not send it back. It has disadvantages for me that would not matter to others such as the placement of the focus ring - something I use for little critters in the bushes. It is a sharp lens. I think some of the other reviews just dont know how to process an image. LOL. Hey, as long as I get at least ONE good shot, I am happy. 🙏🤗💖
@@JonnyPink65 great work John👍
In my opinion it is the operator. And just maybe some people are shooting on a tripod and not shutting the IS off.
Awesome comparison mate. You should release a book of your hummingbird photos, you have so many amazing captures John!😍
Peter - thank you!! I have thought about it like Gavin Hardcastle does for his landscapes. But.... it sounds like work. Have thought about workshops too but .... it sounds like work. 🙏💖🤗
I think that is a wonderful idea, the humming bird book would be the best. But you are correct mega tons of work.
Great vid 👍🏻 those hummingbirds are simply stunning
Thank you, thank you!!! 🙏🤗💖
Thanks Jonny and greetings from the UK. Loving your approach to photography and to life. It’s not all about technically perfect images (though that helps!). It’s about getting out there, enjoying nature and exploring. As you say, life is short so get out your camera and have fun! 📸
Thank you, thank you, thank you from here in rainy southern California - it used to be sunny here a LOT! LOL. I just love being out there and appreciate just being able to do it. Live for today, live right now. 🙏🤗💖
Very helpful, Jonny. Still waiting on my 200-800. I'm thinking my 100-500 will go bye bye. Stay well and enjoy! Thank you!
Thank you, thank you!!! I am going to keep mine for the short minimum focus distance. When spring and summer get here, the butterflies and dragonflies that I love shooting will be out. The lens I will be reaching for it the 100-500, with the 1.4 extender, and maybe even some 3rd party extension tubes to get even closer! It may be a bit greedy, but I think the 100-500 will be perfect for me for that purpose!! 🙏🤗💖
Lovely hummingbirds. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you, thank you!! 🙏🤗💖
Well, I thought the combo 100-500, with the 1.4 ext. was sharper, but now after this vid I’m not sure. I’m temped to pick one up. So, I suppose you are keeper yours. Excellent work. Really enjoyed.
Thank you, thank you!!! I am keeping it for sure. The more I use it, the more I really love the zoom. I think if you really zoom in, the 100-500 with the 1.4 at F10 may be just a hair sharper, but that could be light, distance, or other factors. The 200-800 has that amazing zoom, the 100-500 is lighter and has a shorter minimum focus distance - advantages and disadvantages. In summer, I will be shooting the dragonflies with the 100-500. In truth, I don think you would go wrong with either set up!!! I LOVE the zoom. 🙏🤗💖
Thanks John! Amazing video. My selection would be 200-800.
Thank you, thank you!!! You cant go wrong with either - they are both pretty awesome. Going out tomorrow to place that is supposed to have eagles and I am taking the 200-800. The more I use it, the more I really enjoy shooting it. That zoom is AWESOME!!! 🙏🤗💖
Yes sir in your hands excellent.
Very nice. Still wating for my 200-800. Only been 7 weeks now. I have the 100-500 w/1.4 ext. I think the extra reach, F9 and full range make the 200-800 a better choice. That said however having the ability to have 100mm and L series weather proofing is an obvious advantage too.
Advantages and disadvantages - the problems we have in our modern world. LOL I really love having the full zoom on this new lens, but I also really like the low weight and short minimum focus distance on the 100-500. Really cant go wrong with either set up!! 🙏🤗💖
I have both. They both are the same in sharpness. But the 200-800 has a bit more purple fringing when the background is strong white (e.g. stormy sky) due to less coating ( I guess). But I am using the 200-800 more now. If you are ready to buy either one, and you are interested in small birds, get the 200-800.
Amen!!! The coatings they use on the newer or higher end lenses make a huge difference. I love the full zoom on the 200-800! I LOVe the short minimum focus distance of the 100-500......🙏🤗💖
@@JonnyPink65 better to have both.
@@kennethlui2268 I agree 100%! 💖
I am about to add a hi quality filter to my 200-800 to see if it combats the apparent lack of coatings thatthe lens may have
@@248horns possible but I have no idea which that would be.
Hi John, nice comparison! For me, the 100-500 plus 1.4 or 2.0 extender is the winner upfront. I do birds mostly, but I like the minimum distance to butterflies etc. which is a lot better on the 100-500 than on the 200-600. I use to walk a lot shooting what I can find and so the weight is important to me. And with the 2.0 I have a reach to 640(?) - 1000mm with sharp results. I carry those extenders with me but usually pick the combo with the terrain I am in (and the light conditions).
I wonder how the 100-500 with 2.0 compares to the 200-800? Because using the 1.4 you have to crop the 100-500 a bit, but this is the other way around using the 100-500 with 2.0.
The 100-500 with the 1.4 or stand alone is an AWESOME set up. In summer, I will be using that to shoot the butterflies, dragonflies and such because of that MFD. I think overall, it is a sharper lens over the 200-800. The advantage to the 100-500 -weight, sharp and that MFD. Both are awesome. 🙏🤗💖
Jonny I just sent this vid to my friend Sam Rino he has a good tube and Instagram following , he shoots much of same gear as you and has 2-800 on order, he may show up in comment very good man✌✌
Fantastic!!! Thank you, thank you. 🙏💖🤗
Super video, John. Every image you’ve shown taken with the R5 and the 200-800 looks superb. I have the 100-500 plus 1.4ex and I have ordered a 200-800 as I’m going to trade the 100-500 as I don’t need both.
A few small things on what you said -
You only loose 1/3 of a stop of light between F9 and F10, not a stop as you said, although I do think you know the difference.
On the zoom flexibility with the extender attached to the 100-500 you are restricted to 420 to 700 and not 320 as you said. Small little details but for those who don’t know could be confusing. I hope you don’t mind me commenting in this way as I do find your videos are very hands on and very informative.
You are correct on all of it. I was looking at the lens as an afterthought when commenting on the zoom restriction and that FULL zoom is something I LOVE about the new 200-800. F/9 F10 F/11 - when mentioning those apertures to inexperienced photographers or old school photographers that think in old terms as I once did, that seems unusable at any of those apertures. Thank you for pointing that out. I am envious of those that can plan when they go out - what, when, where and they have a script prepared. I go out by the seat of my pants with an idea and I shoot. What you see is my excitement and thoughts as they come up...... and, all my excited mistakes. As long as I get to have fun and share.... I feel fortunate. 🙏🤗💖
@@JonnyPink65 Thank you, John. I really enjoy your presentations. You seem to love what you do and you love sharing your experiences which has helped me in deciding to get the 200-800 and I thank you for that insight and the real world honest information you provide.
You seem to be a man that enjoys life and you live for each day one at a time. You are right and I wish and your family good health and long life.
@@fintanmctiernan8284 It is my absolute please to be able to share!! The best of everything to you and your family as well. 🤗💖
Love John Knowles . Looks like you had something to do with the production. By the way still can't make up mind which is best
Thank you, thank you. They are both great set ups and I dont think you can go wrong with either. The 200-800 has that wonderful full zoom range. The 100-500 with the extender is lighter and has a shorter minimum focus distance. Advantages and disadvantages!! 🙏🤗💖
Both lenses are producing fantastic images. To me, the 100-500L looks just a bit sharper and the colors a little better. Honestly, I'd be happy with either. I currently have the 100-500L and the 1.4x extender. I use this combo on both my R7 and R6markII. The AF on the R6 is significantly better, but it's nice having both as an option. I think I'll rent the 200-800 down the road to get a better idea for myself, but right now I'm very happy with the 100-500.
I agree with you 100% about the sharpness. I dont think most would notice it, but I did use pretty much the same settings and masks for almost all the developing. The 200-800 does have the advantage though of the zoom. I have not printed any of the images with the 200-800 but I would guess it would still be amazing. For close ups though... the 100-500 is a better way to go. 🙏🤗💖
Live life to the full. Well i certainly took that on. Sold my Hospitality business/Home. Treated myself to a 100-500 + 1.4, for the front end of an R6 mkii. Love the combo BUT i would appreciate your input on adding an R5, just to get more MP on target. Big holiday coming up in Vancouver and Alaska. A 2nd body would be a nicecoption. R5 or R6ii x2 🤷♂️
@@patmurphy6318 My personal recommendation if you want more options is to take a 1.4 extender. As far as a second body...... I REALLY love my R5. When you can fill the frame even partway, there is so much information to crop into. The last gig I did - a wedding for my wifes friend last minute when their photographer dropped out - I used two R5s I can not speak on the R6ii, but I personally want as large as a sensor as I can get! 🙏🤗💖
@JonnyPink65 Thanks for coming back to me. Looks like a rental on an R5 to confirm my choice. 200-800 looks an amazing piece of kit but I have a dodgy shoulder and the weight concerns me. The fact that it appears to be made of Unobtanium in the UK ia another reason to stick with the 100-500+1.4tc 😁
@@patmurphy6318 Stick with what you know and what you have!!! 🙏🤗💖
They both look great. I have the EF100-400 II so the 100-500 really doesn't appeal to my ROI other than the RF mount. I also have the 400 F2.8. Only use the 1.4x extender. Hate the 2x. Hoping that once the 200-800 finally starts showing up in stock, I'll be able to pick one up. Who knows how long that'll be though... SMH
I have the EF 100-400 II, just recived my 200-800 2 weeks ago, waited 1 and half month from order in late November. I have to say in some of my shots the RF is a bit sharper then the 100-400mm, the lens is on back order for 4-6 month in Europe !!
I still have my EF 100-400 EF Vi. One thing about the new RF lenses is that they are sharp. You have some great lenses. 🙏🤗💖
@@rumbleforce2 The new RF lenses are really sharp on the R bodies!! 🙏🤗💖
Good job, John. 👍👍👍
Thank you, thank you, thank you!! 🙏🤗💖
Nice 'in the field' real use comparison. Very helpful. A well known website has indoor, controlled, lab shots comparing the 2 lenses, with and without extenders on both (R5 photos of black and white charts with detailed lettering and images). Canon's DPP software sharpness set to 1 (0-10 scale) when posting the resulting images. The Canon RF 1-5 looked slightly sharper to me (eyeball comparison of results), even with an extender added to the 1-5, compared to the RF 2-8. However, I don't think that is even relevant once post processing software is fully used to smartly sharpen images from both cameras (i.e. the difference between lab results versus 'real world use'). Looking at your 'real world use' photos (nice ones BTW!), I had a really hard time seeing any difference. Maybe the contrast and color was ever so slightly better with the 1-5 +1.4x compared to the 2-8, but I had a really hard time telling the difference, and I'm not sure I'd be able to blindly tell which photo came from which setup. Thanks again for sharing. Very informative. Kind regards
Thank you, thank you. I agree - to my eyes the 100-500 with 1.4 is a hair sharper, but that is something that is almost unnoticeable. If you print it, you would not see a difference. Each has advantages and disadvantages in the field. The everyday photographer that goes out and has fun would be happy with either and will be able to get great shots with both. 🙏🤗💖
Amazing video.. I am a new wildlife photography enthusiast and I am so thankful you are posting videos like this. I hope you dont mind me seeking a bit of advise.. I currently have a Canon R5, an RF `15-35 F2.8, the RF 100-500 F/4 and ordered the RF 24-105 f2/8. I strictly do wildlife photography ( I have two safari planned out in 2025 and one in 2026 ) and often visit Montana looking for wolves.. I am considering selling the RF 100-500 for the RF 200-800... ( When it becomes available ). Would you consider this a wise move? I have invested quite a bit of cash and would like to have a set up I am happy with for a long time.. so once I make my decision, I am done purchasing anything :)
Ask away!!! I can not tell you what would be the best lens or set up that will work for you, but I can tell you what my preferences are based on how I want to shoot. First let me say that for wildlife I want as much reach as I can get to a point - for me my favorite focal length is about 800mm. I LOVE the 100-500 either by itself on the R7 or with the 1.4 extender on the R5 giving me 700mm at an F10. I personally think that it is still just a wee bit sharper than the 200-800. However, you lose most of the zoom that way so the advantage then goes to the 200-800. It is a fantastic lens and you should be able to get it before your trip. Having said all that, I like the 200-800 on the R5 and the R3 but no so much on the R7. I have fun just buying gear so I have more than I need, but for me, my favorites are the EF 17-40 for video, the EF 100mm for macro, and then if I had to only chose one of my long lenses, it would be the 200-800. But again, no set up will ever be perfect. I have been using my 600 F4 with a 1.4 extender giving me 840mm at F5.6 and it is perfect if I am not walking too too far. So to make a long answer more confusing..... LOL..... for wildlife, for me, it would be the 200-800 on your R5. That zoom is AWESOME. Next if that were not available would be the 100-500 with the 1.4 extender. I am always open to questions so ask away. I do rent a lot of gear to try as well - just fun to go out and shoot! 🙏🤗💖
Hey John, can you put the 1.4X extender on the RF 200-800 and make some shooting with it on your R7 and on your R5 Please ?
I will have to give that a go on the R5. I know others have done it. I have shot this on the R7, but I actually prefer it on the R5. The 100-500 is amazing on the R7 even with the 1.4!!!🙏🤗💖
I want to buy the extender rf 1.4 X but if it works like on the rf 100-500mm which can only work at 300mm with the impossibility to unzoom to 200 on the rf 200-800mm ,I will not buy it. I want to get all of the reach from 280-1120mm X 1.6 because of the R7 multiplication.
And I want to know if pictures are soft or sharp. Sorry for my English, I hope you understand 😊
@@PB-qd1il I understand you perfectly!! First, there is NO perfect set up. The 100-500 with the 1.4 extender I think works better on the R7 over the 200-800 - just my opinion. They both work awesome on the R5. Both are equally sharp - the 1.4 does not change the sharpness in any way and it does not change the minimum focus distance, at least not noticeably. When you use the 1.4, you do lose most of your zoom with the 100-500 though, and you have full zoom with the 200-800 without an extender. At some point in going longer with the focal distance, you do start to lose sharpness no matter what you use because of the air temperature and atmospheric haze of shimmer. If you are shooting only the R7, my preference is the 100-500 with the 1.4 extender. But that is just me based on what I want from a photo and camera set up. We all shoot different so you have to find what works for you. Years ago, when everyone was shooting the Nikon D500 for wildlife, I bought one..... and HATED it. Just not for me. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Neither is better, neither is worse! 🙏🤗💖
The rf100-500 will be better than the rf200-800 on the r7.right??
Does it ever feel that rf100-500 is short on r7?? For bird photography (all types of birds)😊
I think it all depends on you. On the R7, I think that it is the perfect lens and give me my favorite focal length of 800mm with the full zoom range, and the best short minimum focal distance. The subject fills the frame so you get every bit of the juicy detail the sensor offers. Again, this is just my opinion based on how and what I want to shoot. I think that once you get into the 1100+ focal range (I have done it many times), you do start to get atmospheric wobble in some shots especially on warmer days. For many, the RF 100-400 or faster EF 100-400 is a better option. There is not perfect set up out there no matter who the maker is. But on the R7, it is my favorite lens by far. 🙏💖🤗
Well done Jonny! 😀
Thank you Chris!!! 🙏🤗💖
I don’t think you can go wrong with either setup, I have both.
The RF 200-800 suffers from chromatic aberration a lot more than the RF 100-500. I have seen it with bright days if I have a white subject towards the edge. However is it bad enough that you need to spend over $1000 more to buy the RF 100-500 plus a 1.4x? No.
The minimum focus distance is better on the RF 100-500 but 10’ at 800mm is still pretty amazing.
Love the hummingbird pictures.
Amen on all of it. The coatings on the L lenses makes a huge difference in fringing and cost. 🙏🤗💖
which of the 2 lens you like better? If you could only have 1 of these, which lens would you choose and why?
That would be tough, but probably the 100-500 as an over all. I really love the minimum focus distance for what I do and it is SOOOOOOO sharp. It works amazing on the R5 and R7 even with the 1.4 extender. Because it is smaller, to get to the focus ring works better for the way I shoot. When spring is here and the dragonflies are out, that is the lens I will grab 99% of the time. I REALLY love the full zoom though and reach of the 200-800 and it does have a lower price. That is a tough call....... If all you shoot is distance..... probably the 200-800. Really a tough call. 🙏💖🤗
nice comparison...fun
Thank you, thank you!!! 🙏🤗💖
Awesome images, great thoughts. Thanks for this great video!
My current kit is the R7, with the 500 f4 mki, the sigma 150-600C and the RF100-400.
One day I'll probably upgrade the bigma to the 200-800, but I decided to wait a few years.
First, because I'm pretty happy with what I have. That 500 f4 I paid 2100$ was a godsend, I'm so happy with it.
But the main thing that talked me out of it is, I wanna pair that 200-800 with a FF camera. I almost went R8, but to be honest, there are things I want Canon to fix first.
Biggest thing being, the poor pre-capture implementation. Until then, I'm not upgrading my body or getting a 2nd one. And if I don't get a FF, I dont need this 200-800.
That's how I successfully talked me out of my GAS lol, for now. I'm focusing on the birds until then. That 200-800 is a beauty, it'll be mine one day, but it can wait. Cheers, thanks again for the great video.
Thank you, thank you!!! I had the 500 F4 and used it with the 1.4 extender and i LOVED it. It is a beast of lens. My problem with gas is I act impulsively - ah well. The R7 is awesome and the lenses you have work perfectly. If it all makes you happy, that is the best set up in the world. 🙏🤗💖
The R7 is anything but awesome, with the exception of its sensor.
@@markrigg6623 I disagree. I try to work within the limitations of the gear I am using to get the best out of it that I can. Even my top of the line R3 and 600 F4 is not perfect. Everything has limitations and we as the creators have to work around and with that! Not perfect I agree but I do really like it as a camera body tool! 🤗💖
@JonnyPink65 If you sold cameras for a living like I do you'd think differently.!!
@@markrigg6623 You may be correct or we may just look at it differently. I don't look at the technical, just what works and that I get to have fun with. 💖🤗
I am wondering, which would be a better match for my R7? This dense sensor must be extremely picky with lenses...
Well lens choice is personal based on how we each shoot. On the R7, I personally prefer the 100-500 with or without the 1.4 extender on the R7. I think it is just a little sharper. I have been able to get some great results with the 200-800 on the R7 though. My personal preference - the 100-500. 🙏💖🤗
@@JonnyPink65 it's becoming a headache for me (I am interested mostly in air shows, hence my interest in lenses at 600+ mm focal length).
At the moment, I am using the R7 with the EF 100-400L II and the EF 400/5.6L, often with the 1.4x II extender. But even the combination with the extender is not near enough for solo air displays, and I have to severely crop the image. So, I am eyeing either the 200-800 or the 800/11
@@alcosound My recommendation then between the two lenses - the 200-800 and you have the option of the zoom making it so much more versatile. 💖🤗
@@JonnyPink65 interestingly, the availability of the 200-800 is quite bad, with most stores claiming no delivery before June (and the price is almost triple of the fixed 800/11). Will see if the situation changes in the summer
@@alcosound It is a new lens so that makes sense. The other option that is more expensive is the 100-500 and you can add a1.4 extender to give you a 700mm at F10. It has less zoom with the extender on but is sharper. But past that, the 800 F11 is a fantastic lens. I still use mine quite a bit!! 💖
Nice review. ITS not one stop f9 to f10 around quarter stop.one stop would be f12.6
3rd stop, but you are correct. No real difference at that distance - F/9, F/10 or F/11 🙏🤗💖
Really nice test. But all of these are made under excellent conditions at excellent bright places. I would like to have a comparison under "dark european" conditions or at the "blue hour". Is there enough light for birding?
Very true. I was using the 200-800 in Washington in super cloudy conditions. You have to keep the shutter speed really low. I dont think the 200-800 is a low light lens. I have heard others online talking about the AF struggling under low light conditions like what was happening to me. I did comment on that in one of my past videos but I did show the images. 🙏🤗💖
John I look at your comparison between the 100 - 500 with the 1.4 doing the Hummigbirds versus the 200 of 800 the sharpness is very obvious and that is the 100 - 500 with the 1.4 is a lot better .
Like you even stated here John with Canon you need to buy a 600 F4 ( to buy A GOOD 600 MM LENS ) we'll look at the competition like Nikon they have a 600 6.3 lens that weighs 2.9 pounds and it cost $4700 which is not a whole lot money for 600 prime lens , so why can't Canon do this ?????
I'll tell you why it is because they don't want to spend the money ( to develop good lenses ) they think everybody that buys their camera's nowadays is only a consumer we are not consumers we are people that are PASSIONATE about our photography and willing to spend the money and Canon can't seem to understand that .
Well, I agree with that and Canon sure does get my money. LOL I bought my EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens new but I did trade in a bunch of my old gear to really offset the price and make it affordable for me. I used to and started with Nikon... and Sony. Until the A6700, I really did not care for the color in the raw files. With Nikon, after I switched with the R5 came out and I was blown away, I did try going back with the Z9 and was dismally disappointed in the autofocus so I sold it. Yes Nikon has great lenses but none of the new ones were available so it did not matter how amazing they are if you cant get them. As a package and one the whole, Canon has all the performance and sharpness that I want - even at the high prices and no 3rd party alternatives. 🙏🤗💖
John, what can I say EXCELLENT!!!. I think the 200-800 is sharper. The 100-500 is a great lense but with the 1.4 on that's alot of glass that squirrel head on shot, perfect. I like the 200-800 you are delivering fantastic images L or not. SUPERB BROTHER. I just can't say enough. Thanks for taking us alongPEACE.
Thank you, thank you!! Here is what I have discovered doing lens and camera body comparison - NOTHING IS PERFECT LOL There are times when any one depending on light, focus or distance - any one at any time can be pin sharp. I have been surprised, disappointed, impressed and excited with different set ups.... as long as it is fun!! 🙏🤗💖
All of your photos look great. Thank you for the comparison. I have the 100 to 500 RF lens and the 1.4 teleconverter. I have a 200 to 800 mm lens on backorder. I think both lenses in your video look great. I've seen enough videos on the 200 800 lens to see that it's a great lens.
Thank you, thank you!!! It is a fantastic lens for sure. Cant go wrong with either set up! 🙏🤗💖