If size and weight were no object I'd go for the 200-800 in a heartbeat, but as they are more imprtant than an extra 100m at the long end, but 100mm less at the short end, I'll stick with the 100-500 and 1.4x. Thanks for a really well presented and balanced review Jan. I've waited a while for such a review and wasn't disappointed. Have a great 2024.
Not that long ago I was delighted with my 70-300L, then the Sigma 150-600 was fantastic for reach but had such a poor keeper rate, and later the 100-500 Canon was a dream come true, but now 200-800 is looking to be my next addition...thanks for the great review.
What video did you just watch?? LOL If you have the 100-500mm, i would just buy a TC, the 100-500mm range is already better, and equal when adding a TC up to 700mm.
Thanks Jan! I will keep my 100-500 and add a 1.4 for 3 reasons , Portability , Versatility, and Close focus. In addition to Birds I do a lot of landscape photography and the 100-500 is way more useful to me.
RF 200-800mm lens is a very tempting. I've given some serious consideration and decided to stay with my RF 100-500mm lens and 1.4x converter. Looking forward to 200-500mm F4 when it comes out.
The reviewer I trust and appreciate. Thank you Jan. If I were starting out I would most definitely opt for the 200-800mm. This not being the case, coupled to my appreciation for smaller size and light weight equipment, dictates that I continue with the 100-500 & 1.4 when required, my well appreciated « heavy » 600 f/4 when in the appropriate circumstances. Thank you for a most objective and well documented review.
Please tell us more about your 600 f/4 dream lens, is it worth abandoning the idea of this 200-800mm to lay down another 10k for the 600mm f4 or even the 400mm 2.8 for a sharper image?
Thanks, Jan this has convinced me to stay with my 100-500 + 1.4 Extender (just) it was very tempting to buy yet another lens but really I can’t warrant the cost 🤷🏼♂️
I couldn’t agree more, the weight of the RF 100-500 is the sweet spot for me. I typically image in the desert (at elevation) and 3 lbs versus 4.5lbs makes all the difference in the world. It’s the perfect size for travel too.
I finally got to shoot my 200-800 on my R8 on Christmas day. I was hoping for an eagle or an osprey in flight along the Niagara Parkway, but had to settle for some swimming mallards and merganzers. When it came to birds in flight I wasn't having any luck on the parkway, so I went to a beach and captured the one bird here in Niagara that will always fly for you...the common gull. They are a great subject, both for learning how to shoot birds in flight, as they aren't shy at all, but also for testing new lens/camera combos. You can always find them here in the Great Lakes region! If anything, they are too habituated to people, and they ran into fairly long minimum-focus distance. But overall the results were very impressive and a huge improvement over my 7DII with the EF 100-400 (original, not the Mark II). Can't wait to use it more!
Great analysis! I never saw the value in upgrading from my EF 100-400mm II to the RF 100-500 mm. However, I just got the 200 - 800 mm and absolutely love the reach. My kit will include both the EF 100-400 and the 200-800 mm. I may add the 1.4 extender at some point.
That’s such a good combo! The 100-400 is an awesome lens but doesn’t like TCs as much as RF, and the 200-800 will give you amazing reach at excellent quality. I’ve been amazed at how good the RF lenses are with TCs; you won’t regret a 1.4 if you go that route.
Your videos on the 200-800mm have been very helpful. I have the R5, but have continued to use my EF glass - 100-400mm MII, 300mm f/2.8 MII, 500 f/4 MII. I've decided to get some native RF glass, but wasn't 100% sure I'd be satisfied with the 100-500 as that much better than my 100-400 to justify the $3K since I have the 500 prime. I think that the 200-800 is the perfect compromise for me, it gets me over to some native RF glass, gives me reach with a hand-holdable lens that I've never had, and gives me the versatility of the zoom lens. As much as I'd love to upgrade my primes to the RF 400 & 600, it's very difficult for an amateur to justify even one of those lenses, much less both when I already have the 300 & 500, which function better on my R5 than they did on my 1DxMII.
Jan, I’m a 61 year old woman and weight is a consideration, as I want to enjoy the experience! I shoot the R5 100-500. I have the 1.4 tc, that I use infrequently for waterfowl. I just don’t love the weight of carrying that combo all the time and I lose the 100mm option for macro type shots. I believe the weight of the 100-500 with the 1.4 tc is similar to having the 200-800, and I wouldn’t like that! That said, I’ve recently programmed a button on the R5 to switch from full frame to crop easier. If I understand the spec, that allows you to be at 800 mm and 17 MP. I think I’ve got stuck in my head previously that this was not enough MP! However, I’ve seen several videos recently that show these photos would produce very good quality large prints. I’d love to see you do a video on this topic and printing those 17 MP images.
Thanks for this comparison Jan I've just bought an R6 mark ii to replace my 1DX ii and I see now why people bang on about changing to mirrorless: the AF and tracking are freakishly good. I'm currently still using my EF 100-400mm ii zoom alongside my 300mm f/2.8 & 400mm f/2.8 and also using 1.4x and 2x extenders. All these lenses work much better with my new camera but I'm considering buying an RF 100-500 or RF 200-800mm and selling my 100-400 I'll probably buy the 200-800 as it's a lot cheaper than the 100-500 plus a 1.4x extender. One comparison that would be interesting is comparing the R5 and RF 100-500 with the R6 ii and RF 200-800 as the extra reach/magnification of 800mm over 500mm is effectively a 1.6x crop and if you crop the R5's 45 mp by 1.6x (i.e. divide it by 1.6x1.6 = 2.56) you get 17.5 mp which is a lot less than the R6ii's 24 mp. I'll miss my 100-400's great close up semi-macro performance and wide field of view at 100mm vs 200mm but I can always use my iphone for that. Cheers Noel Auckland New Zealand
Thank you Jan for sharing ! My first tests of the RF200-800 with my R7 are rather encouraging! All the autofocus settings still need to be fine-tuned! The difference with my Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is significant!
The image quality is better! The Rf 200-800 is completely silent on video unlike the Sigma 150-600 which is very noisy! the autofocus is much more responsive, however, it still sometimes happens that the autofocus has difficulty finding its target with the RF200-800, this does not revolutionize the R7 either! But overall the difference is really significant since it is rarer to have a series where 1 image out of 2 is blurred...I am going to sell my 150-600 to only use the RF200-800 knowing that the 320mm extra is very useful to me!@@honeybadger1656
Excellent, just the type of comparison review I was waiting for. And now it's decided, I need the 100-500 for my R7 and the 200-800 for the R8. Just need to convince the good lady to release some funds, wish me luck!
You can’t have too many lenses-I’ll keep them both and enjoy the flexibility. But it’s going to be harder and harder to convince myself to drag my EF600/f4 along. Great video, and very timely. Thanks, Jan.
What a very good summary! you can see and feel your experience in this bird field photography! 🙂 Also I like your part about the 100 and 200 minimum focus of both. .....This is so much underestimated in use. I would far more love to have this 100-500 lens above the 200-800 lens because of the more interesting photo's I will make are more a mix of cultural and nature photography. Most of the more interesting pictures are made than on the shorter end of such a lens. That's also why I call both lenses more amateur lenses because I consider there the 70-200 4.0 a more professional one, or off course the 2.8. Completing it than with having one longer lens you can afford to take with you in size and weight. I fully agree about your claim that F9-11 on long ends is not so much a problem anymore. But only on the LONG ends! It absolutely matters at the short ends. I like the 70-200 4.0 therefor far more for me with a long lens in reserve. F11 600mm rf ? 🙂 Greetings from the Netherlands again, Onno Nugteren Photographer and Filmmaker.
This is the video I was waiting for! The comparison shots were fantastic! I have the 100-500 and a 2x teleconverter. The 200-800 is tempting... I'm not sure if I can justify it , but 1600 with the 2x seems like it would be fun!
Hi Jan, thanks for an interesting comparison report between these lenses. Without going into too many reasons why, im curious to know how the 200-800 would match up to a combination of 100-500 and 800 f11 in the field when the longer focal length is needed? I feel the 200-800 is rather bulky compared to the 100-500 and wouldn't consider one in addition to the smaller L lens.
Another well-informed comparison and video, thank you! For me considering budget and lightweight the RF800mm f11 and RF100-400mm both cost less than either of those big telephotos and are so enjoyable to carry and shoot with in the field! I never have any problems with a lack of image quality and with the R7 and R8 I'm getting all the reach I need.
What a fantastic review. I moved from a Sigma 150-600 because of it's drawbacks to the 100-500 and love the Canon zoom. I love its size and almost macro close focusing. I love the 100-500 for landscape and sports. I know we always want more reach and I'm tempted by the 200-800 but wildlife is not my main subject so for now I'll try to get closer to my subjects in the UK and keep using my 100-500.
Great review! I agree it’s not either or, it’s both! Of course if the budget is there. I’m shooting with the R5 and the 100-500 handheld. The weight and versatility are unbeatable. I have the 1.4 tc, but I don’t use it much because I then want the monopod too! The 200-800 is definitely interesting. For me, it would have limited field use due to the weight, and minimal focus. I would love to have the 200-800 for ducks that migrate through in the winter months. They tend to stay pretty far from shore and are skittish. I’m holding out to see what new camera bodies canon will release in 2024 before spending any more on gear! I think 2024 will be a big year for Canon!
Jan, very through and straightforward review. Thank you for sharing. Like someone else below said, if I didn't already have the 100-500, I would be on the waiting list for the 200-800. I shot with the R7 body so reach at 500 has never really been a problem. I do shoot a lot of "environmental" type wildlife shots so the wide end is good for me. In fact, at 100mm on the R7 effective angle of view is about 160, and that can be too tight for the wider environmental shots. I still may end up with a 200-800 but going to hold my wallet closed a little longer. The itch for the 200-800 is definitely there just not sure if I gain enough with it to keep both lenses and giving up the 100-500 doesn't seem wise to me right now. Again, thanks for your review. I liked how you presented the two.
I could definitely see the option of a lighter weight kit.....R5 + 200-800 + smaller tripod (monopod?) and flex shooter pro head....The weight savings here would be pretty nice!
That 100-400 vs 100-500 transition at 1:10 was so cool! As someone who travels a lot, my 100-500L with the 2x is a wonderful combo and I use my 500 f/4L II when at home and size is not a problem. Nice to see more options from Canon and great content from you!
Great comprehensive review Jan! The IQ between the 2 configurations is too close to make the call! But overall compactness and having the 100-500 + 1.4x already makes it a no-brainer. I would get the 200-800 just to put the 1.4x on for the insane ~1800mm FOV on the R7.
One point I would like to add to Jan’s fantastic review, the 200-800mm lens with TCs is the best for LUNAR Photography. Personally I already have RF 100-500 but no regret whatsoever.🎉
Have the 100 to 500 Cannon lens since it was introduced. I’m a birdwatcher first so the flexibility of this land in the field is fantastic.. you cited the problem of caring, a large lens with a tripod that works where there is bodies of waters, marshes, etc. .. would love to see more about your post processing and RUclips RUclips video to see if it’s worth purchasing,,, buffalo, John
Hello Jan, I was in Namibia last month. I found for birds that the 100-500 with 1.4x was excellent for birds but not suitable for mammals because of the minimum 420mm focal length. Since I knew what our targets would be every day I could plan what to set up. I few times I did have to change from one to the other to get usable photos. I was impressed with the sharpness of the 100-500 with the 1.4x extender. Early morning and late afternoon shots were very high ISO but Lightroom Enhance did a good job with them. I can't justify two lenses and would not want to give up the 100-500 range so will stay with it for now.
Great review Jan. And as always with some spectacular photos. I have to say that the 200-800 is very tempting. Great reach, very good sharpnes and to a very good price. Wishing you a great week, with a lot of fun, and wonderful photos. Cheers, Bjoern
Hi Jan, what do you think about the difference between R5+200-800 and R7+100-500 since the latter combo has an advantage of a bit larger aperture of F7.1 ?
You lose the aperture advantage when you crop to get the same reach. I mean the DOF at f7.1for R7 will act like f10-f11 on R5. And noise performance will depend on the sensor quality. R5 has more pixel area so it’s supposed to be cleaner. I guess it will be a wash. I have the R7+100-500 combo and I am happy with it
What to choose ? I use Sigma 150 - 600 (with Canon R5) so the answer is obvious 😉 But the flexibility of RF 100 - 500 is really tempting. Thank you for the good material. Greetings from France !
I have the 500mm prime, Mk1 300mm prime, 100-500 RF lenses and shoot with the R5. I had to economise on space/weight when travelling to the Falkland Islands a few years back when I was shooting with the 1DX. I completed some research and decided to take the 100-400mm along with the 300mm f2.8 and times 2 and 1.4 teleconverters. I have astonishingly sharp images with the 300mm and the teleconverters. Recently I have been using my R5 with the 300mm with converters. Blown away by the quality; and the hand held capability is a dream! Simply place this set up on a monopod for portability - and what a low cost and impressive outcome!
Thank you Jan for your honest opinion. It's truly appreciated! I don't own the 100-500mm but I do own the 200-800mm and I'm very satisfied so far. The 100-500mm always seemed to be out of my budget and still is until they announced the 200-800mm. Now I sold my R6 for the R5 Black Friday sale with battery grip for the an amazing $2999 price. Now i'm broke but happy that I have a great setup! Thank you for this comparison, you made me feel like I made a good choice.
@@milvusotisIf you can afford it, I would highly recommend it. First impressions is the feel of the R5 over the R6. Feels better in the hand. The 45mp over the 20mp, plus the details in the photos. Big difference in eye tracking wildlife on the R5. Seems to track better. I wasn’t going to upgrade until I saw the price had dropped $900 with a free canon battery grip. I couldn’t resist
Great review. I have both lenses and both the R5 and the R7. Your review mirrors my experience. I normally go out with the RF100-500 on the R5 and the RF200-800 on the R7 and have a 1.4x with me just in case. I like having the flexibility of having 100mm to 1280mm when I am out. Since days and bird activity differs from day to day, some days I take most pictures with one setup over the other. In either case I know I am going to get good pictures.
I’m certainly happy with the 200-800 compared to the Sigma 150 -600 sport. I h improved keeper rate and the lighter package is better on my dodgy wrists. I think down the track I would be looking to add a lens that is more open for rain forest shooting.
I’d been trying to decide between getting the 100-500 or the 200-800 and after watching your video, I decided to get the 100-500. So far I love it! I already had the RF 1.4 extender, so I will be using that some of the time. But it came down to the versatility. I live in Colorado so I do a lot of mountain hiking and the 100-500 fits in my backpack while not adding too much weight. Plus I like to take photos of a variety of subjects. Maybe a moose, then a small bird like a chickadee, then a little pika, then a wildflower…..and this setup seemed more appropriate. Plus, it’d a long time waiting on back orders to get the 200-800 and in meantime I would miss a lot of pictures. So I’m happy with my decision and thank you for helping me make it. Someday maybe I’ll also get the 200-800 since it seems to be a fantastic lens, but for now I’m happy.
Great summary between the 100-500 and 200-800 Canon RF lenses. Could you do an overview between the Sigma 150-600 vs the Canon RF 200-800. I have a R7 body and recently bought the Sigma 150-600 mainly for birding and wildlife photography. But with the option of the 200-800 and I now torn as to what to do. I have had several instances of missed opportunity since the Sigma was just slow is focusing and latching onto the subject.
This was such a helpful comparison, thank you. I use the Rf 100-500mm as my main lens because a use I love the wider shots that include the environment that the animal is in. sometimes add the 1.4x if needed. I also have the 800mm prime, very light, and could use the converter on that lens as well, I use this a lot for small birds that I can’t get close to. I can’t see myself buying this lens, but for someone starting out in wildlife , it’s a great affordable choice. 😊
Good insights and a really good video. I tortured myself a few times and used my EF 70 - 200 mm 2.8 IS with a 2x extender and RF adapter on an EOS-R. Approximately 1,900 grams and 38 cm in total length. The RF 200 - 800 mm is here at 2,050 grams and 31 - 41 cm. Despite trained arm and shoulder muscles, the fatigue factor is very high. Therefore, the RF 200 - 800 is only an alternative for me for predominantly stationary use, also because of the non-removable tripod collar. E.g. observing the moon. Since I bought the EF 70 - 200 2.8 IS in 2005, I have only carried it in a Colt pouch that is attached to my belt. Even with 2 additional batteries in the front pocket, it's no problem for me. For the RF 100 500 mm I could use a much shorter bag, a big improvement.
@@jan_wegener I see the focus issues you have had with the r7 from day one. Mine doesn’t have those hunting issues at all. Either I got a good copy or yours has issues. I use it with the ef300 f/2.8 is ii. With the 1.4x teleconverter. Going to get your masterclass program shortly.
Thank you for an excellent review of both lenses. I own the 100-500 and think I'll hang onto that for the time being. I do find the fact that it won't retract fully with a teleconverter on very frustrating, but that is my only criticism of it right now. However, I might rent the 200-800 in the future to try it out. Thanks, again!
I'm glad you mentioned the minimum focus distance of the 100-500. It's one aspect of the lens that's often overlooked, but can prove to be extremely useful in the field. While it isn't a substitute for a dedicated 1:1 macro lens, being able to shoot
thank you! im getting my first telephoto lens for my R7. Since im not looking to own too many lenses, as I'm more of a hobbyist, the 200-800 seems perfect for me.
By the way Jan, I want to thank you for your outstanding videos. I’ve learned so much from camera settings to editing. I’m a lifelong photographer but still have much to learn.
Thanks for the fantastic review Jan. You have aided and abetted this newish hobby of mine with your vast video catalogue featuring all facets of photography. Duade also had a hand in this as did a few others. I shoot with an R7 and RF100-500 almost exclusively. I ended up purchasing the 100-500 after deciding I would not purchase the 200-800 as I normally hike or bike with the camera and lens for many hours at a time. After watching this video and comparing the images I'm going to go the 1.4x TC route. I figure the only time I need that extra reach is for the ducks and geese in the marshes and a used kayak or canoe off of Kijiji is the cheaper option. Thanks again for all your videos and taking the time to share your expertise.
Wow - great and very thorough review! Thanks. I'll stick to the 100-500mm + 1.4x TC because it's just small enough to put in a backpack and take hiking (or even on my bike). I'm also really horrible to my gear and frequently use it in damp and or dusty conditions so the better weather sealing is important to me. However if I was buying a telephoto lens now it would be an almost impossible decision. A few friends either already have it or are seriously considering it so it will be really interesting to see it in real life.
Thanks Jan, excellent review as always. I have the 100-500 & 2x on a R5 so I’ll probably stick with that, but you’ve answered exactly the question that I was wondering about! Even though I use my current lens mostly at the long end for wildlife photography, what it really comes down to is just how good that lens is with the 2x while retaining the ability to capture something wide at 100mm. Of course, this will not stop me trying to justify the 200-800 😊…
Thank you for the comparison. I'm waiting for the 200-800 lens to ship/arrive. I was interested to hear of auto focus trouble with the R7. I almost sent the R7 back thinking it was me, but decided to stick it out as I like the extra reach of the crop sensor. But sometimes the missed shots drive me a little crazy and I use the R5 instead and just crop the photo. Excellent shots by the way.
One thing you didn’t mention was price. The 100-500mm with a 1.4 teleconverter is currently $3200 US. The 200-800mm is $1900 US. To me that is significant. I haven’t switched over to the RF system yet but I’m leaning towards the 200-800mm lens when I do. I can still use all my L series EF lenses with an adapter, including my 100-400mm F4. I realize the newer RF lenses are sharper but my finances are not unlimited and I’m not a pro photographer. I think I will be more than satisfied with the 200-800mm lens. Great video BTW.
Very interesting results, and I have a thought about the lack of coatings giving the highlight bleed. I own the RF100-500 and love it. But after seeing your video examples, I’m actually considering the RF200-800 as maybe a primary lens for wildlife video. I’m not a fan of the highlight bleed on stills, but for video in your examples it actually produces a nice highlight roll-off, and takes away some of the digital sharpness… which to my eye is very pleasing. It also produces a very subtle bloom effect around highlights, but not quite 1/8th most filter strength, but maybe 1/16th? Kinda gives a weird “fake dynamic range” boost to the image with that soft roll off, if that makes sense? Looks pleasing to my eyes anyways!
Fantastic review, Jan! Thanks very much for this. So many great images from in the field. Based on the images you showed, and comparisons by other RUclipsrs, I'd say the 2-8 is ever so slightly sharper compared to the 1-5 +1.4x when the photographer is the same distance from the subject. However, I could see the slight amount of fringing in the photo you showed which was taken with the 2-8 (and in another review as well). So a tradeoff there in regards to IQ between the 2 lenses. Perhaps the slight fringing can also be removed in post? Sometimes I run into wild birds that are very approachable, or land near me unexpectedly, but most of the time I need the longer end of the zoom, so my 1.4x lives on my 1-5 lens (which means that the 1-5+1.4x is too much reach at times because of its lack of ability to retract the zoom all the way). For the RARE occasions I run into when 200mm is too much reach, I always have my RF 70-200 f4 and RF 24-70 f2.8 in my backpack at my disposal because I also enjoy photographing landscapes when I'm out hiking around. Thanks again. Kind regards.
Great review, as always, touching the most important, actually ALL points for a wildlife photographer. Please don't mind if I suggest you something: to nickname the lenses to "one-to-five-hundred" and "two-to-eight-hundred", or "one-to-five" or "shorter"/"longer". I think it would be easier for you to refer to these lenses and for me as a non-native English speaker to understand you better. Thank you for this review on the most wanted tele zoom lenses.
Thank you for the great advice…Enjoy your videos they are very informative,most of all you have a way of explaining it well.. looking forward to seeing more of your videos in the coming year of 2024..
Thank you Jan I especially liked your point about the minimum distance. Focus between the 100 to 500 mm versus 200 to 800 mm. Thank you so much for doing this review and bringing up all the important points to consider. It’s kinda hard to believe that you actually have to step back from your subject to get the shot you want and always in the past because I have a 100 to 400 mm with a 1.4 converter I was always doing telefoot . But always enjoying the challenge of getting better and better photos with better and better technique..
Hi ,some observations compared to my RF 800mmf11 with 24mpix R8 body : sharpness at 800mm is identical - RF 200-800mm has better colors and slightly better bokeh. On the other hand 800mm f11 is much lighter to carry handheld ,and with R8 and R6 mark ll the AF area is very good. Still I use a lot more RF 200-800mm ,Zoom is so flexible.. Thanks Jan
I already own the wonderful RF 100-500 lens (partially on your recommendation after watching some of your initial videos about it) and I must say it has been excellent for me. I shoot primarily landscape, and my bag has the RF 14-35L, the RF 24-105 f/4 L, and the RF 100-500L, giving me 14 to 500mm inclusive. I find that I can now also shoot some wildlife with the RF 100-500 as well, which is also of interest to me. Using the 100-500 with a teleconverter is cumbersome though, so I am not thinking to go in that direction. So if I continue to get more serious about the wildlife shooting I could imagine perhaps a 200-800 in the future. But as you say, I would see that as an additional lenses and not as an RF 100-500 replacement. I like the fact that I can fit all 3 lenses into my existing bag, even if the RF 100-500 ism mounted on camera, something that would not be at all possible with the 200-800. Your very extensive comparisons in the video were extremely helpful inb really nailing down the performance and handling differences between these lenses for wildlife shooting. As always, another great job!
Es ist unglaublich, was du an Vogelarten da aus kurzer Distanz vor die Linse bekommen kannst. Danke für den Test. Ich überlege aktuell, mein 100-500 gegen das 200-800 zu tauschen. Bin noch unentschieden.
Excellent study of these two lenses Jan. I own both of these, but as a bird photographer i tend to go for the 200-800 purely because of the extra reach. Yes theres a difference in weight, size and smoothness, but the picture qaulity i feel is negligable. ps. the weight is something you get used to.
Have been waiting for your review as I have a 200-800 on order. Was debating whether to go for the 100-500, but for my specific needs, the 200-800 looks the best option - thank you
Thank you Jan for your great informative review. I've recently moved over to the R6MkII from the 5DMkiv. Over the last few weeks I've been looking to upgrade my EF100-300, and Sigma 150 - 600 S and after your review i think I'm settled for the 100 - 500, it just gives you that bit more in terms of flexibility and the weight/size of the lens is a big factor. When out walking most of the day i found my 5DMiv sigma lens more of a workout rather than an enjoyable day out shooting! Your review has certainly convinced me that the 100-500 is the way to go for my needs. Thank you!.
A great, well balanced comparison which is very much appreciated. For me, I will stick with the 100-500mm and invest in a 1.4x. I do a mixture of bird and landscape photography and the 100-500mm provides me much more flexibility. Thank you again for the excellent review.
Thank you very much for this video. It is so precise that it almost looks like a laboratory. You have addressed every aspect that a photographer should take into account. Thanks for the effort and time. Greetings from Chile.
Hi Jan, happy new year. I hope you are on hi ground as you have copped a bit of weather since you brought this video out. Watch out for ticks and leeches in the humid weather. Keep safe.
Great review as always Jan. Thank you. I've recently wanted to add a zoom to my bag and trialed my friends 100-500 for a weekend shoot and loved it. The 200-800 came out and I purchased to review and have since sold it as I found (as you do) that not having the option to zoom out to 100 and take in a nice environment shot left me disapointed. I will work towards the 100-500 which will fit better in my bag and work well with the 400 f2.8 I use regularly. Thanks for all you do for the photographic community mate. :)
Thank you Jan, excellent practical review as usual. I think I'll keep my 100-500 as main lens, the 200-800 is too long and heavy, better take my 500 f/4 when weight and room in the bag are not a problem. As you know, birds in France are not as tame as in Australian, and of course I need an extra range. But it's usually the combo R7 100-500 which is the most versatile and good enough, despite a lot of autofocus issues on a lot of pictures. Anyway, there is usually some very sharp pictures, may be one out of 15, and I'm happy with that. But when subjects are close enough, R6 and 100-500 are even better indeed. I've got more issues with my recently bought 1.4 RF converter. I have to work on it, previous test with a friend's extender were pretty good, even in the heat of July. May be an issue with mine. Anyway, birds are not the only wonders in Nature, and when it comes to lizards, for instance, the short minimum focus of the 100-500 is a great advantage, and reversely, it would be a great loss with the 200-800. And happy new year, you're already in 2024, and not me !
Would love to see you do a bit of analysis for us rookies of one of your earlier statements, about zoom with noise being better then less zoom without noise and why one is better than the other! Good video
I guess you’d get noise in either case, even when you compare 6.3 to F9 it’s just one stop of iso. But ultimately a lens that gives you a lot more reach will beat a lens that’s shorter and you’d have to crop more most of the time even if it has a slower fstop
Thank you for this in-depth analysis of these two lenses. You answered my question as to whether one of these would be a good replacement for my sigma 150-600 sport. I am currently leaning toward the 200-800
I have been waiting for this review to basically be a decisive factor. I initially watched the review on my phone before I got home. I then got home and watched it on my Samsung s95b. Immediately I had a final decision. You might not notice it and it might pass you by unless you scale up with watching the review. THE RF 100-500 is noticeably sharper, and the images handle the edits much better than that of the 200-800. I paused the video on my 65 inch tv at 14:33 and I had to be honest. With the teleconverter at 700 the RF 100-500 is sharper and captures much more “RAW” for post production. The 200-800 is impressive for not being an L series and the reason for that while negligible is quite evident.
The advantage to the 100-500mm is that you have the option to make it smaller and lighter backpack over the 200-800mm as well as better low light performance 😊
awesome review! you answered all my questions! I love my rf 100-500, but after watching this review, I believe I will be adding the rf 200-800mm to my lens lineup!
Still undecided but months yet before 200-800 due to arrive in UK. Whichever one, it will be used mainly with an R6 (Mk 1) so I need to research performance on that body; other than that, the extra reach is obviously appealing but it's also ease of use and portability in the field (often cold and wet ones!) Plenty of good points and food for thought, Jan. Thanks and have a good 2024
I’ve been shooting with a Sigma 150-600 on my R6. It’s been a solid combo, but seeing the 200-800 become available made me wonder if this would be worth the upgrade. Your comparisons between the two lenses and example images you shared are incredibly helpful! Thank you so much!
I agree with Raylo.Isold my 100-400mm is ii and 2 converters (1.4x& 2x) and purchased rf 200-800mm. I am happy with it, as I do not require to attach the converters.The only problem with rc 200-800 is, it gives too much vignetting effect @600mm and 800mm.That require to be removed in post processing.
So verdict on 200-800 on R7 is still not clear 😢 not even on 100-500.. crazy but i request you Jan to make a dedicated video on only R7 with 200-800 it will great support from your end for all R7 users, as far i have seen both the videos from you on 200-800 i feel this one is made for good lighting condition and for full frame lens(as you mentioned in this video too).. i am really in dilemma which one to buy for my R7 and in future if i upgrade to R5 M2(on roadmap) or R6 M2….
If size and weight were no object I'd go for the 200-800 in a heartbeat, but as they are more imprtant than an extra 100m at the long end, but 100mm less at the short end, I'll stick with the 100-500 and 1.4x. Thanks for a really well presented and balanced review Jan. I've waited a while for such a review and wasn't disappointed. Have a great 2024.
Thank you, you too!
Not that long ago I was delighted with my 70-300L, then the Sigma 150-600 was fantastic for reach but had such a poor keeper rate, and later the 100-500 Canon was a dream come true, but now 200-800 is looking to be my next addition...thanks for the great review.
As far as image quality and colours, the ef70-300l is imo the most underrated lens
@@Scott_Bishellthat was my first L lens and I loved it.
What video did you just watch?? LOL If you have the 100-500mm, i would just buy a TC, the 100-500mm range is already better, and equal when adding a TC up to 700mm.
Maybe if you wait a bit longer there will be a 100-1000mm 2.8 soon 😅
@@MrWiseinheartat 100k (grams and dollars)
Thanks Jan! I will keep my 100-500 and add a 1.4 for 3 reasons , Portability , Versatility, and Close focus. In addition to Birds I do a lot of landscape photography and the 100-500 is way more useful to me.
Yes if you use the wide end a lot the 100-500 is an easy choice
The 1.4 extender is often a right pain, loosing 100-300 owing to the design is extremely annoying, hire one first before buying
I agree Rodney. Same for me.
RF 200-800mm lens is a very tempting. I've given some serious consideration and decided to stay with my RF 100-500mm lens and 1.4x converter. Looking forward to 200-500mm F4 when it comes out.
Are there any rumours pointing to such a lens?
The reviewer I trust and appreciate. Thank you Jan. If I were starting out I would most definitely opt for the 200-800mm. This not being the case, coupled to my appreciation for smaller size and light weight equipment, dictates that I continue with the 100-500 & 1.4 when required, my well appreciated « heavy » 600 f/4 when in the appropriate circumstances. Thank you for a most objective and well documented review.
Please tell us more about your 600 f/4 dream lens, is it worth abandoning the idea of this 200-800mm to lay down another 10k for the 600mm f4 or even the 400mm 2.8 for a sharper image?
Thanks, Jan this has convinced me to stay with my 100-500 + 1.4 Extender (just) it was very tempting to buy yet another lens but really I can’t warrant the cost 🤷🏼♂️
I think the weight and size of RF 100-500 is just in the sweet spot. Anything heavier than that can be hard to handhold (for me).
The weight isn't that big of an issue. You'll get used to it
Agreed
I couldn’t agree more, the weight of the RF 100-500 is the sweet spot for me. I typically image in the desert (at elevation) and 3 lbs versus 4.5lbs makes all the difference in the world. It’s the perfect size for travel too.
I finally got to shoot my 200-800 on my R8 on Christmas day. I was hoping for an eagle or an osprey in flight along the Niagara Parkway, but had to settle for some swimming mallards and merganzers. When it came to birds in flight I wasn't having any luck on the parkway, so I went to a beach and captured the one bird here in Niagara that will always fly for you...the common gull. They are a great subject, both for learning how to shoot birds in flight, as they aren't shy at all, but also for testing new lens/camera combos. You can always find them here in the Great Lakes region! If anything, they are too habituated to people, and they ran into fairly long minimum-focus distance. But overall the results were very impressive and a huge improvement over my 7DII with the EF 100-400 (original, not the Mark II). Can't wait to use it more!
Great analysis! I never saw the value in upgrading from my EF 100-400mm II to the RF 100-500 mm. However, I just got the 200 - 800 mm and absolutely love the reach. My kit will include both the EF 100-400 and the 200-800 mm. I may add the 1.4 extender at some point.
Thanks for sharing
That’s such a good combo! The 100-400 is an awesome lens but doesn’t like TCs as much as RF, and the 200-800 will give you amazing reach at excellent quality. I’ve been amazed at how good the RF lenses are with TCs; you won’t regret a 1.4 if you go that route.
Some of the best and in depth analysis on RUclips. Thanks Jan.
thanks for putting so much effort and detail into these videos. they are extremely high quality and thorough.
Your videos on the 200-800mm have been very helpful. I have the R5, but have continued to use my EF glass - 100-400mm MII, 300mm f/2.8 MII, 500 f/4 MII. I've decided to get some native RF glass, but wasn't 100% sure I'd be satisfied with the 100-500 as that much better than my 100-400 to justify the $3K since I have the 500 prime. I think that the 200-800 is the perfect compromise for me, it gets me over to some native RF glass, gives me reach with a hand-holdable lens that I've never had, and gives me the versatility of the zoom lens. As much as I'd love to upgrade my primes to the RF 400 & 600, it's very difficult for an amateur to justify even one of those lenses, much less both when I already have the 300 & 500, which function better on my R5 than they did on my 1DxMII.
Drink when you hear "millimeter lens"
Already drunk
I wouldn't survive
Dang it. I can’t watch this video anymore without hearing this extensively.
I keyworded "mm lens" in the transcript and he said it 97 times lol
Dude… now I cannot overhear it 😂
Jan, I’m a 61 year old woman and weight is a consideration, as I want to enjoy the experience! I shoot the R5 100-500. I have the 1.4 tc, that I use infrequently for waterfowl. I just don’t love the weight of carrying that combo all the time and I lose the 100mm option for macro type shots. I believe the weight of the 100-500 with the 1.4 tc is similar to having the 200-800, and I wouldn’t like that! That said, I’ve recently programmed a button on the R5 to switch from full frame to crop easier. If I understand the spec, that allows you to be at 800 mm and 17 MP. I think I’ve got stuck in my head previously that this was not enough MP! However, I’ve seen several videos recently that show these photos would produce very good quality large prints. I’d love to see you do a video on this topic and printing those 17 MP images.
Thanks for this comparison Jan
I've just bought an R6 mark ii to replace my 1DX ii and I see now why people bang on about changing to mirrorless: the AF and tracking are freakishly good.
I'm currently still using my EF 100-400mm ii zoom alongside my 300mm f/2.8 & 400mm f/2.8 and also using 1.4x and 2x extenders. All these lenses work much better with my new camera but I'm considering buying an RF 100-500 or RF 200-800mm and selling my 100-400
I'll probably buy the 200-800 as it's a lot cheaper than the 100-500 plus a 1.4x extender.
One comparison that would be interesting is comparing the R5 and RF 100-500 with the R6 ii and RF 200-800 as the extra reach/magnification of 800mm over 500mm is effectively a 1.6x crop and if you crop the R5's 45 mp by 1.6x (i.e. divide it by 1.6x1.6 = 2.56) you get 17.5 mp which is a lot less than the R6ii's 24 mp.
I'll miss my 100-400's great close up semi-macro performance and wide field of view at 100mm vs 200mm but I can always use my iphone for that.
Cheers
Noel
Auckland
New Zealand
For me the ideal setup is having the 70-200 and the 200-800 with the extenders when needed. Thanks for the informative video.
Thank you Jan for sharing ! My first tests of the RF200-800 with my R7 are rather encouraging! All the autofocus settings still need to be fine-tuned! The difference with my Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is significant!
Yes compared to the Sigmas with the AF pulsing issues in the R cameras it should be a big difference
Is the image quality better in your opinion? I have the 150-600 but am really struggling with the keeper rates and focus problems.
The image quality is better! The Rf 200-800 is completely silent on video unlike the Sigma 150-600 which is very noisy! the autofocus is much more responsive, however, it still sometimes happens that the autofocus has difficulty finding its target with the RF200-800, this does not revolutionize the R7 either! But overall the difference is really significant since it is rarer to have a series where 1 image out of 2 is blurred...I am going to sell my 150-600 to only use the RF200-800 knowing that the 320mm extra is very useful to me!@@honeybadger1656
Excellent, just the type of comparison review I was waiting for. And now it's decided, I need the 100-500 for my R7 and the 200-800 for the R8. Just need to convince the good lady to release some funds, wish me luck!
Really good. I’ve been waiting on this video for some and you did not disappoint. Nice of you to throw in the EF 100-400 for good measure.
You can’t have too many lenses-I’ll keep them both and enjoy the flexibility. But it’s going to be harder and harder to convince myself to drag my EF600/f4 along. Great video, and very timely. Thanks, Jan.
Same here!
What a very good summary! you can see and feel your experience in this bird field photography! 🙂
Also I like your part about the 100 and 200 minimum focus of both. .....This is so much underestimated in use.
I would far more love to have this 100-500 lens above the 200-800 lens because of the more interesting photo's I will make are more a mix of cultural and nature photography.
Most of the more interesting pictures are made than on the shorter end of such a lens.
That's also why I call both lenses more amateur lenses because I consider there the 70-200 4.0 a more professional one, or off course the 2.8.
Completing it than with having one longer lens you can afford to take with you in size and weight.
I fully agree about your claim that F9-11 on long ends is not so much a problem anymore.
But only on the LONG ends! It absolutely matters at the short ends.
I like the 70-200 4.0 therefor far more for me with a long lens in reserve. F11 600mm rf ? 🙂
Greetings from the Netherlands again, Onno Nugteren Photographer and Filmmaker.
This is the video I was waiting for! The comparison shots were fantastic! I have the 100-500 and a 2x teleconverter. The 200-800 is tempting... I'm not sure if I can justify it , but 1600 with the 2x seems like it would be fun!
f/18??? Whoa!
Hi Jan, thanks for an interesting comparison report between these lenses. Without going into too many reasons why, im curious to know how the 200-800 would match up to a combination of 100-500 and 800 f11 in the field when the longer focal length is needed? I feel the 200-800 is rather bulky compared to the 100-500 and wouldn't consider one in addition to the smaller L lens.
Another well-informed comparison and video, thank you! For me considering budget and lightweight the RF800mm f11 and RF100-400mm both cost less than either of those big telephotos and are so enjoyable to carry and shoot with in the field! I never have any problems with a lack of image quality and with the R7 and R8 I'm getting all the reach I need.
What a fantastic review. I moved from a Sigma 150-600 because of it's drawbacks to the 100-500 and love the Canon zoom. I love its size and almost macro close focusing. I love the 100-500 for landscape and sports. I know we always want more reach and I'm tempted by the 200-800 but wildlife is not my main subject so for now I'll try to get closer to my subjects in the UK and keep using my 100-500.
Great review! I agree it’s not either or, it’s both! Of course if the budget is there. I’m shooting with the R5 and the 100-500 handheld. The weight and versatility are unbeatable. I have the 1.4 tc, but I don’t use it much because I then want the monopod too! The 200-800 is definitely interesting. For me, it would have limited field use due to the weight, and minimal focus. I would love to have the 200-800 for ducks that migrate through in the winter months. They tend to stay pretty far from shore and are skittish. I’m holding out to see what new camera bodies canon will release in 2024 before spending any more on gear! I think 2024 will be a big year for Canon!
agree that it is not great time for spending money
Jan, very through and straightforward review. Thank you for sharing. Like someone else below said, if I didn't already have the 100-500, I would be on the waiting list for the 200-800. I shot with the R7 body so reach at 500 has never really been a problem. I do shoot a lot of "environmental" type wildlife shots so the wide end is good for me. In fact, at 100mm on the R7 effective angle of view is about 160, and that can be too tight for the wider environmental shots. I still may end up with a 200-800 but going to hold my wallet closed a little longer. The itch for the 200-800 is definitely there just not sure if I gain enough with it to keep both lenses and giving up the 100-500 doesn't seem wise to me right now. Again, thanks for your review. I liked how you presented the two.
I could definitely see the option of a lighter weight kit.....R5 + 200-800 + smaller tripod (monopod?) and flex shooter pro head....The weight savings here would be pretty nice!
That 100-400 vs 100-500 transition at 1:10 was so cool! As someone who travels a lot, my 100-500L with the 2x is a wonderful combo and I use my 500 f/4L II when at home and size is not a problem. Nice to see more options from Canon and great content from you!
Thanks!
Superbe! Thank you and wishing you a photo-rich 2024! Not too difficult with so many great animals so “close” to where you are… Take Care, Max
Thank you! You too!
Thanks Jan, you've just answered the question that has been bugging me since I pre-ordered the 200-800. Just need the lens now!
Great comprehensive review Jan! The IQ between the 2 configurations is too close to make the call! But overall compactness and having the 100-500 + 1.4x already makes it a no-brainer. I would get the 200-800 just to put the 1.4x on for the insane ~1800mm FOV on the R7.
Having the 100-500 with the R5 is a great combo. I ordered the 200-800 also, though.
One point I would like to add to Jan’s fantastic review, the 200-800mm lens with TCs is the best for LUNAR Photography. Personally I already have RF 100-500 but no regret whatsoever.🎉
Have the 100 to 500 Cannon lens since it was introduced. I’m a birdwatcher first so the flexibility of this land in the field is fantastic.. you cited the problem of caring, a large lens with a tripod that works where there is bodies of waters, marshes, etc. .. would love to see more about your post processing and RUclips RUclips video to see if it’s worth purchasing,,, buffalo, John
Hello Jan, I was in Namibia last month. I found for birds that the 100-500 with 1.4x was excellent for birds but not suitable for mammals because of the minimum 420mm focal length. Since I knew what our targets would be every day I could plan what to set up. I few times I did have to change from one to the other to get usable photos. I was impressed with the sharpness of the 100-500 with the 1.4x extender. Early morning and late afternoon shots were very high ISO but Lightroom Enhance did a good job with them. I can't justify two lenses and would not want to give up the 100-500 range so will stay with it for now.
So what lens would you recommend for mammals in Africa?
Great review Jan. And as always with some spectacular photos. I have to say that the 200-800 is very tempting. Great reach, very good sharpnes and to a very good price.
Wishing you a great week, with a lot of fun, and wonderful photos.
Cheers, Bjoern
Hi Jan, what do you think about the difference between R5+200-800 and R7+100-500 since the latter combo has an advantage of a bit larger aperture of F7.1 ?
You lose the aperture advantage when you crop to get the same reach. I mean the DOF at f7.1for R7 will act like f10-f11 on R5. And noise performance will depend on the sensor quality. R5 has more pixel area so it’s supposed to be cleaner.
I guess it will be a wash. I have the R7+100-500 combo and I am happy with it
Looking to rent the 200-800 with an R7 and hopefully upgrade from the sigma 150-600 with my 80D. This video was helpful, thank you!
What to choose ? I use Sigma 150 - 600 (with Canon R5) so the answer is obvious 😉 But the flexibility of RF 100 - 500 is really tempting. Thank you for the good material. Greetings from France !
SImply excellent and exhaustive review with personal inputs... as usual. Big thanks
Glad you liked it
Thank you very much for this review Jan. I saw Port Fairy in your video too! A little cold at times but an awesome place to live.
It’s a lovely little town
I have the 500mm prime, Mk1 300mm prime, 100-500 RF lenses and shoot with the R5. I had to economise on space/weight when travelling to the Falkland Islands a few years back when I was shooting with the 1DX. I completed some research and decided to take the 100-400mm along with the 300mm f2.8 and times 2 and 1.4 teleconverters. I have astonishingly sharp images with the 300mm and the teleconverters. Recently I have been using my R5 with the 300mm with converters. Blown away by the quality; and the hand held capability is a dream! Simply place this set up on a monopod for portability - and what a low cost and impressive outcome!
Amazing comparison! Thank you! But I'm still not ready to choose between these two 😅 They both are so amazing....
Thank you Jan for your honest opinion. It's truly appreciated! I don't own the 100-500mm but I do own the 200-800mm and I'm very satisfied so far. The 100-500mm always seemed to be out of my budget and still is until they announced the 200-800mm. Now I sold my R6 for the R5 Black Friday sale with battery grip for the an amazing $2999 price. Now i'm broke but happy that I have a great setup! Thank you for this comparison, you made me feel like I made a good choice.
That's my big dilemma, should I upgrade to R5? I use R6 + 100-500 + TC2x. What are your first impressions of the upgrade?
@@milvusotisIf you can afford it, I would highly recommend it. First impressions is the feel of the R5 over the R6. Feels better in the hand. The 45mp over the 20mp, plus the details in the photos. Big difference in eye tracking wildlife on the R5. Seems to track better. I wasn’t going to upgrade until I saw the price had dropped $900 with a free canon battery grip. I couldn’t resist
Awesome
Great review. I have both lenses and both the R5 and the R7. Your review mirrors my experience. I normally go out with the RF100-500 on the R5 and the RF200-800 on the R7 and have a 1.4x with me just in case. I like having the flexibility of having 100mm to 1280mm when I am out.
Since days and bird activity differs from day to day, some days I take most pictures with one setup over the other. In either case I know I am going to get good pictures.
I’m certainly happy with the 200-800 compared to the Sigma 150 -600 sport. I h improved keeper rate and the lighter package is better on my dodgy wrists. I think down the track I would be looking to add a lens that is more open for rain forest shooting.
I am next in line for the RF 200-800 at my camera store. I will be keeping both lenses. i'm excited!
I’d been trying to decide between getting the 100-500 or the 200-800 and after watching your video, I decided to get the 100-500. So far I love it! I already had the RF 1.4 extender, so I will be using that some of the time. But it came down to the versatility. I live in Colorado so I do a lot of mountain hiking and the 100-500 fits in my backpack while not adding too much weight. Plus I like to take photos of a variety of subjects. Maybe a moose, then a small bird like a chickadee, then a little pika, then a wildflower…..and this setup seemed more appropriate. Plus, it’d a long time waiting on back orders to get the 200-800 and in meantime I would miss a lot of pictures. So I’m happy with my decision and thank you for helping me make it. Someday maybe I’ll also get the 200-800 since it seems to be a fantastic lens, but for now I’m happy.
Great summary between the 100-500 and 200-800 Canon RF lenses. Could you do an overview between the Sigma 150-600 vs the Canon RF 200-800. I have a R7 body and recently bought the Sigma 150-600 mainly for birding and wildlife photography. But with the option of the 200-800 and I now torn as to what to do. I have had several instances of missed opportunity since the Sigma was just slow is focusing and latching onto the subject.
This was such a helpful comparison, thank you. I use the Rf 100-500mm as my main lens because a use I love the wider shots that include the environment that the animal is in. sometimes add the 1.4x if needed. I also have the 800mm prime, very light, and could use the converter on that lens as well, I use this a lot for small birds that I can’t get close to. I can’t see myself buying this lens, but for someone starting out in wildlife , it’s a great affordable choice. 😊
Appreciate your candid review. You made the case for me to buy 200-800mm as I was on the fence.
Good insights and a really good video.
I tortured myself a few times and used my EF 70 - 200 mm 2.8 IS with a 2x extender and RF adapter on an EOS-R. Approximately 1,900 grams and 38 cm in total length.
The RF 200 - 800 mm is here at 2,050 grams and 31 - 41 cm. Despite trained arm and shoulder muscles, the fatigue factor is very high. Therefore, the RF 200 - 800 is only an alternative for me for predominantly stationary use, also because of the non-removable tripod collar. E.g. observing the moon.
Since I bought the EF 70 - 200 2.8 IS in 2005, I have only carried it in a Colt pouch that is attached to my belt. Even with 2 additional batteries in the front pocket, it's no problem for me. For the RF 100 500 mm I could use a much shorter bag, a big improvement.
One of the best reviews I have seen. Well done. Great comparisons and well thought summaries of these lens’s. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@jan_wegener I see the focus issues you have had with the r7 from day one. Mine doesn’t have those hunting issues at all. Either I got a good copy or yours has issues. I use it with the ef300 f/2.8 is ii. With the 1.4x teleconverter. Going to get your masterclass program shortly.
I plan to start wearing ear buds without being connected to anything to keep people from bothering me when I'm using a longer, bigger lens.
😂
Thank you for an excellent review of both lenses. I own the 100-500 and think I'll hang onto that for the time being. I do find the fact that it won't retract fully with a teleconverter on very frustrating, but that is my only criticism of it right now. However, I might rent the 200-800 in the future to try it out. Thanks, again!
I'm glad you mentioned the minimum focus distance of the 100-500. It's one aspect of the lens that's often overlooked, but can prove to be extremely useful in the field. While it isn't a substitute for a dedicated 1:1 macro lens, being able to shoot
Well said
thank you! im getting my first telephoto lens for my R7. Since im not looking to own too many lenses, as I'm more of a hobbyist, the 200-800 seems perfect for me.
By the way Jan, I want to thank you for your outstanding videos. I’ve learned so much from camera settings to editing. I’m a lifelong photographer but still have much to learn.
That’s great to hear, thank you
hmmmm...I have the 100-500 and the 1.4, so think I might stick with this...thanks for vid
Thanks for the fantastic review Jan. You have aided and abetted this newish hobby of mine with your vast video catalogue featuring all facets of photography. Duade also had a hand in this as did a few others. I shoot with an R7 and RF100-500 almost exclusively. I ended up purchasing the 100-500 after deciding I would not purchase the 200-800 as I normally hike or bike with the camera and lens for many hours at a time. After watching this video and comparing the images I'm going to go the 1.4x TC route. I figure the only time I need that extra reach is for the ducks and geese in the marshes and a used kayak or canoe off of Kijiji is the cheaper option. Thanks again for all your videos and taking the time to share your expertise.
Wow! What a great review. Very thorough, and a lot to think about. The best choice is obvious: both!
Thank you kindly!
With cameras the best choice always seems to be the most expensive one too 🙈
Wow - great and very thorough review! Thanks. I'll stick to the 100-500mm + 1.4x TC because it's just small enough to put in a backpack and take hiking (or even on my bike). I'm also really horrible to my gear and frequently use it in damp and or dusty conditions so the better weather sealing is important to me. However if I was buying a telephoto lens now it would be an almost impossible decision. A few friends either already have it or are seriously considering it so it will be really interesting to see it in real life.
Thanks Jan, excellent review as always. I have the 100-500 & 2x on a R5 so I’ll probably stick with that, but you’ve answered exactly the question that I was wondering about! Even though I use my current lens mostly at the long end for wildlife photography, what it really comes down to is just how good that lens is with the 2x while retaining the ability to capture something wide at 100mm. Of course, this will not stop me trying to justify the 200-800 😊…
Thank you for the comparison. I'm waiting for the 200-800 lens to ship/arrive. I was interested to hear of auto focus trouble with the R7. I almost sent the R7 back thinking it was me, but decided to stick it out as I like the extra reach of the crop sensor. But sometimes the missed shots drive me a little crazy and I use the R5 instead and just crop the photo. Excellent shots by the way.
Thanks for sharing!
One thing you didn’t mention was price. The 100-500mm with a 1.4 teleconverter is currently $3200 US. The 200-800mm is $1900 US. To me that is significant. I haven’t switched over to the RF system yet but I’m leaning towards the 200-800mm lens when I do. I can still use all my L series EF lenses with an adapter, including my 100-400mm F4. I realize the newer RF lenses are sharper but my finances are not unlimited and I’m not a pro photographer. I think I will be more than satisfied with the 200-800mm lens. Great video BTW.
Very interesting results, and I have a thought about the lack of coatings giving the highlight bleed.
I own the RF100-500 and love it. But after seeing your video examples, I’m actually considering the RF200-800 as maybe a primary lens for wildlife video.
I’m not a fan of the highlight bleed on stills, but for video in your examples it actually produces a nice highlight roll-off, and takes away some of the digital sharpness… which to my eye is very pleasing. It also produces a very subtle bloom effect around highlights, but not quite 1/8th most filter strength, but maybe 1/16th? Kinda gives a weird “fake dynamic range” boost to the image with that soft roll off, if that makes sense? Looks pleasing to my eyes anyways!
Fantastic review, Jan! Thanks very much for this. So many great images from in the field. Based on the images you showed, and comparisons by other RUclipsrs, I'd say the 2-8 is ever so slightly sharper compared to the 1-5 +1.4x when the photographer is the same distance from the subject. However, I could see the slight amount of fringing in the photo you showed which was taken with the 2-8 (and in another review as well). So a tradeoff there in regards to IQ between the 2 lenses. Perhaps the slight fringing can also be removed in post? Sometimes I run into wild birds that are very approachable, or land near me unexpectedly, but most of the time I need the longer end of the zoom, so my 1.4x lives on my 1-5 lens (which means that the 1-5+1.4x is too much reach at times because of its lack of ability to retract the zoom all the way). For the RARE occasions I run into when 200mm is too much reach, I always have my RF 70-200 f4 and RF 24-70 f2.8 in my backpack at my disposal because I also enjoy photographing landscapes when I'm out hiking around. Thanks again. Kind regards.
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks Jan, very thorough review. I'll be keeping my 100-500 but can see an argument for adding to my lens with the 200-800. Cheers.
Great review, as always, touching the most important, actually ALL points for a wildlife photographer. Please don't mind if I suggest you something: to nickname the lenses to "one-to-five-hundred" and "two-to-eight-hundred", or "one-to-five" or "shorter"/"longer". I think it would be easier for you to refer to these lenses and for me as a non-native English speaker to understand you better. Thank you for this review on the most wanted tele zoom lenses.
Thank you for the great advice…Enjoy your videos they are very informative,most of all you have a way of explaining it well.. looking forward to seeing more of your videos in the coming year of 2024..
Thank you Jan I especially liked your point about the minimum distance. Focus between the 100 to 500 mm versus 200 to 800 mm. Thank you so much for doing this review and bringing up all the important points to consider. It’s kinda hard to believe that you actually have to step back from your subject to get the shot you want and always in the past because I have a 100 to 400 mm with a 1.4 converter I was always doing telefoot . But always enjoying the challenge of getting better and better photos with better and better technique..
Hi ,some observations compared to my RF 800mmf11 with 24mpix R8 body : sharpness at 800mm is identical - RF 200-800mm has better colors and slightly better bokeh. On the other hand 800mm f11 is much lighter to carry handheld ,and with R8 and R6 mark ll the AF area is very good. Still I use a lot more RF 200-800mm ,Zoom is so flexible.. Thanks Jan
I already own the wonderful RF 100-500 lens (partially on your recommendation after watching some of your initial videos about it) and I must say it has been excellent for me. I shoot primarily landscape, and my bag has the RF 14-35L, the RF 24-105 f/4 L, and the RF 100-500L, giving me 14 to 500mm inclusive. I find that I can now also shoot some wildlife with the RF 100-500 as well, which is also of interest to me. Using the 100-500 with a teleconverter is cumbersome though, so I am not thinking to go in that direction. So if I continue to get more serious about the wildlife shooting I could imagine perhaps a 200-800 in the future. But as you say, I would see that as an additional lenses and not as an RF 100-500 replacement. I like the fact that I can fit all 3 lenses into my existing bag, even if the RF 100-500 ism mounted on camera, something that would not be at all possible with the 200-800.
Your very extensive comparisons in the video were extremely helpful inb really nailing down the performance and handling differences between these lenses for wildlife shooting. As always, another great job!
Thanks for sharing and glad you liked the video
Es ist unglaublich, was du an Vogelarten da aus kurzer Distanz vor die Linse bekommen kannst.
Danke für den Test. Ich überlege aktuell, mein 100-500 gegen das 200-800 zu tauschen. Bin noch unentschieden.
Great video as always, Jan. Would love to hear your thoughts on the 100-500 with a 2x @ 1000mm vs the 200-800 with a 1.4x at 1120mm.
Ha! There’s one I could’ve done. Id see an Edge with the 200-800 in that case, even though it’s gonna be somewhat close
Be aware you'd be comparing a 600-1000 (f11-f14) with a 280-1120 (f9-f13) (which still has f10 @600mm)
I got 'em both - and am keeping 'em both!
same :)
Excellent study of these two lenses Jan. I own both of these, but as a bird photographer i tend to go for the 200-800 purely because of the extra reach. Yes theres a difference in weight, size and smoothness, but the picture qaulity i feel is negligable. ps. the weight is something you get used to.
Thanks for all these interesting videos in 2023 from down under and all the best for 2024!
Same to you! Thanks!
I wonder if using a very good uv filter with nice coatings could compensate the issue with the glare of the 200-800???
This video is exactly what we were expecting. You nailed it again Jan!
Thank you!
Have been waiting for your review as I have a 200-800 on order. Was debating whether to go for the 100-500, but for my specific needs, the 200-800 looks the best option - thank you
Excellently put together video my friend! Thanks 👏
Thank you very much!
Thank you Jan for your great informative review. I've recently moved over to the R6MkII from the 5DMkiv. Over the last few weeks I've been looking to upgrade my EF100-300, and Sigma 150 - 600 S and after your review i think I'm settled for the 100 - 500, it just gives you that bit more in terms of flexibility and the weight/size of the lens is a big factor. When out walking most of the day i found my 5DMiv sigma lens more of a workout rather than an enjoyable day out shooting! Your review has certainly convinced me that the 100-500 is the way to go for my needs. Thank you!.
A great, well balanced comparison which is very much appreciated. For me, I will stick with the 100-500mm and invest in a 1.4x. I do a mixture of bird and landscape photography and the 100-500mm provides me much more flexibility. Thank you again for the excellent review.
Thanks for sharing!
Thank you very much for this video. It is so precise that it almost looks like a laboratory. You have addressed every aspect that a photographer should take into account. Thanks for the effort and time. Greetings from Chile.
Glad it was helpful!
Hi Jan, happy new year. I hope you are on hi ground as you have copped a bit of weather since you brought this video out. Watch out for ticks and leeches in the humid weather. Keep safe.
Thanks! Still in Melbourne atm, so just cold here 😂
@@jan_wegener better stay there! 😎
Great review as always Jan. Thank you. I've recently wanted to add a zoom to my bag and trialed my friends 100-500 for a weekend shoot and loved it. The 200-800 came out and I purchased to review and have since sold it as I found (as you do) that not having the option to zoom out to 100 and take in a nice environment shot left me disapointed. I will work towards the 100-500 which will fit better in my bag and work well with the 400 f2.8 I use regularly. Thanks for all you do for the photographic community mate. :)
Thanks for sharing! 😀
Awesome video! Looks like we came to very similar conclusions
Thank you Jan, excellent practical review as usual. I think I'll keep my 100-500 as main lens, the 200-800 is too long and heavy, better take my 500 f/4 when weight and room in the bag are not a problem. As you know, birds in France are not as tame as in Australian, and of course I need an extra range. But it's usually the combo R7 100-500 which is the most versatile and good enough, despite a lot of autofocus issues on a lot of pictures. Anyway, there is usually some very sharp pictures, may be one out of 15, and I'm happy with that. But when subjects are close enough, R6 and 100-500 are even better indeed. I've got more issues with my recently bought 1.4 RF converter. I have to work on it, previous test with a friend's extender were pretty good, even in the heat of July. May be an issue with mine. Anyway, birds are not the only wonders in Nature, and when it comes to lizards, for instance, the short minimum focus of the 100-500 is a great advantage, and reversely, it would be a great loss with the 200-800.
And happy new year, you're already in 2024, and not me !
Would love to see you do a bit of analysis for us rookies of one of your earlier statements, about zoom with noise being better then less zoom without noise and why one is better than the other! Good video
I guess you’d get noise in either case, even when you compare 6.3 to F9 it’s just one stop of iso.
But ultimately a lens that gives you a lot more reach will beat a lens that’s shorter and you’d have to crop more most of the time even if it has a slower fstop
Thank you for this in-depth analysis of these two lenses. You answered my question as to whether one of these would be a good replacement for my sigma 150-600 sport. I am currently leaning toward the 200-800
Glad it was helpful!
I have been waiting for this review to basically be a decisive factor. I initially watched the review on my phone before I got home. I then got home and watched it on my Samsung s95b. Immediately I had a final decision. You might not notice it and it might pass you by unless you scale up with watching the review. THE RF 100-500 is noticeably sharper, and the images handle the edits much better than that of the 200-800. I paused the video on my 65 inch tv at 14:33 and I had to be honest. With the teleconverter at 700 the RF 100-500 is sharper and captures much more “RAW” for post production. The 200-800 is impressive for not being an L series and the reason for that while negligible is quite evident.
The advantage to the 100-500mm is that you have the option to make it smaller and lighter backpack over the 200-800mm as well as better low light performance 😊
awesome review! you answered all my questions! I love my rf 100-500, but after watching this review, I believe I will be adding the rf 200-800mm to my lens lineup!
Glad it was helpful!
Still undecided but months yet before 200-800 due to arrive in UK. Whichever one, it will be used mainly with an R6 (Mk 1) so I need to research performance on that body; other than that, the extra reach is obviously appealing but it's also ease of use and portability in the field (often cold and wet ones!) Plenty of good points and food for thought, Jan. Thanks and have a good 2024
I’ve been shooting with a Sigma 150-600 on my R6. It’s been a solid combo, but seeing the 200-800 become available made me wonder if this would be worth the upgrade. Your comparisons between the two lenses and example images you shared are incredibly helpful! Thank you so much!
THERE IT IS!
I agree with Raylo.Isold my 100-400mm is ii and 2 converters (1.4x& 2x) and purchased rf 200-800mm. I am happy with it, as I do not require to attach the converters.The only problem with rc 200-800 is, it gives too much vignetting effect @600mm and 800mm.That require to be removed in post processing.
There’s no lens profiles available atm. When they are that will probably be gone
So verdict on 200-800 on R7 is still not clear 😢 not even on 100-500.. crazy but i request you Jan to make a dedicated video on only R7 with 200-800 it will great support from your end for all R7 users, as far i have seen both the videos from you on 200-800 i feel this one is made for good lighting condition and for full frame lens(as you mentioned in this video too).. i am really in dilemma which one to buy for my R7 and in future if i upgrade to R5 M2(on roadmap) or R6 M2….