The RF 200-800mm can also take 1.4x extender with a reasonable good image quality. With 2x extender, you will notice the degradation in image quality. I noticed a minor Chromatic aberration (blue fringing) in a few pictures from Raw files. The jpeg file does not have it. when I use the latest LR profile to process it, it still does not remove it. The R100-500mm does not have this.
Yeah - that's because the RF100-500 is an L lens. Its going to be interesting to see what folks will give up for a few hundred millimeters of focal length. I won't be trading mine in any time soon.
@@msmith2016 One thing I won't be giving up is the additional $800 for the L lens. Photography is the study of compromise. You compromise your wallet, your image, your physical health(size), your marriage (though that is related to the wallet), you flexibility (1 large lens, vs zoom, vs ultra zoom, etc)... these are all personal choices, and no single answer applies to everyone. For me, the cost of the 200-800 is at the high end of what I can pull off, but the other side of that compromise is the faster focus speed vs my sigma 150-600(c).
Hello,the image quality is good and thanks for the info about the comparison and i think for my next upgrade i take the 100-500mm.Greetings from the Netherlands and just subscribed/
Thank you!! Either way you will have a great lens. For pure wildlife, 200-800mm may be better because you get 200-800mm range without dealing with the extender limitation. 100-500mm is great for multiple purposes - landscape, wildlife and macro. It is light and small. If I am traveling not for wildlife, I would take 100-500mm.
Hallo Fabian, vielen Dank für das wirklich sehr informative Video. Der Vergleich war sehr interessant. Vielleicht noch mein Senf, da die meisten Hobby- Wildlifefotografen das Sigma 150-600 haben was meiner Meinung immer noch ein Top Objektiv ist muss man schon die Vorteile des 200-800 erwähnen: Mehr Brennweite, besser AF, besser Wetterschutz, besser Stabi vor allem mit einem IBIS 🤟 Einen guten Rutsch und ein gesundes und glückliches neues Jahr an alle!!!!!! ❤
Yes, faster and accurate AF, excellent image stabilization are common characteristics of a canon lens. The best feature is the 200-800mm ideas range for wildlife photography. Happy new year!!
@@artisticpicture i bought the lens, and deciding on the body, usually its other way round. But here in canada, lot of camera store are saying there is a long waiting list.
@@nk-oi3ooit is a very good lens to buy if you do not have RF100-500mm+1.4x already. They are very similar in performance but the later is 420-700mm instead of 200-800mm.
The RF 200-800mm can also take 1.4x extender with a reasonable good image quality. With 2x extender, you will notice the degradation in image quality. I noticed a minor Chromatic aberration (blue fringing) in a few pictures from Raw files. The jpeg file does not have it. when I use the latest LR profile to process it, it still does not remove it. The R100-500mm does not have this.
Yeah - that's because the RF100-500 is an L lens. Its going to be interesting to see what folks will give up for a few hundred millimeters of focal length. I won't be trading mine in any time soon.
@@msmith2016 I would give RF100-500mm, light and sharp. Can use with extenders. Only downside is range limit with extenders
@@msmith2016 One thing I won't be giving up is the additional $800 for the L lens. Photography is the study of compromise. You compromise your wallet, your image, your physical health(size), your marriage (though that is related to the wallet), you flexibility (1 large lens, vs zoom, vs ultra zoom, etc)... these are all personal choices, and no single answer applies to everyone.
For me, the cost of the 200-800 is at the high end of what I can pull off, but the other side of that compromise is the faster focus speed vs my sigma 150-600(c).
Hello,the image quality is good and thanks for the info about the comparison and i think for my next upgrade i take the 100-500mm.Greetings from the Netherlands and just subscribed/
Thank you!! Either way you will have a great lens. For pure wildlife, 200-800mm may be better because you get 200-800mm range without dealing with the extender limitation. 100-500mm is great for multiple purposes - landscape, wildlife and macro. It is light and small. If I am traveling not for wildlife, I would take 100-500mm.
Hallo Fabian, vielen Dank für das wirklich sehr informative Video. Der Vergleich war sehr interessant. Vielleicht noch mein Senf, da die meisten Hobby- Wildlifefotografen das Sigma 150-600 haben was meiner Meinung immer noch ein Top Objektiv ist muss man schon die Vorteile des 200-800 erwähnen:
Mehr Brennweite, besser AF, besser Wetterschutz, besser Stabi vor allem mit einem IBIS 🤟
Einen guten Rutsch und ein gesundes und glückliches neues Jahr an alle!!!!!! ❤
Yes, faster and accurate AF, excellent image stabilization are common characteristics of a canon lens. The best feature is the 200-800mm ideas range for wildlife photography. Happy new year!!
@@artisticpicture Thank you! 👍
Was the reach good? Or you think this would work better with R7?
The reach is good for R5, you can use crop mode if more is needed. It also works in R7, but for low light, I prefer R5.
@@artisticpicture i bought the lens, and deciding on the body, usually its other way round. But here in canada, lot of camera store are saying there is a long waiting list.
@@nk-oi3ooit is a very good lens to buy if you do not have RF100-500mm+1.4x already. They are very similar in performance but the later is 420-700mm instead of 200-800mm.
❤I ONLY WORK & LOVE IT WITH A NIKON D 90 AND A TAMRON 70 - 300 ❤🎉😊😊🎉❤ !!!!! BERNIE GERMANY BOLLYWOOD LOVER 😊😊😊
Amazing
Thank you!!