One thing to keep in mind is that the 100-500 is 7.1 at 500mm. The 200-800 is f8 at 500, BUT, it's 7.1 at 455mm. That's pretty darn close if you are comparing. Plus you have the option of going to 600, 700 and 800, and it costs less. Of course, the 100-500 is an L lens, with everything that implies, better coatings and better weatherproofing (though the 200-800 DOES have some weatherproofing. I already had an EF 100-400 4.5-5.6, so the one to five wasn't a big priority. But I jumped on the two to eight. In decent light it's an awesome lens. No, it doesn't need noontime light. I shoot with it from sunup to sundown on clear days. It's only a stop and a third slower at 800 than the $16,000.00 800 f5.6!
If you just looking for reach, the 200-800 is probably the better choice when you have a full frame camera, like a R6 or R6II. If you want a versatile lens than the 100-500 is the better option.
@@ceesnabuursfauna2115 agree with you. And like I said in the video, the 200-800 is more affordable and that’s the reason is so popular now. Thanks for commenting.
If your "just looking for reach" you shouldn't be using a full frame camera in the first place. I'm glad to have "upgraded" from my R5, to my R7's 2 years ago. Great decision. I never looked back.
@@Chris_Wolfgram I use the R7 with the RF100-500. That is fine in good light. This combination gives me very good picture's, but it is important to keep the exposure always as far as possible to the right (without clipping), because the dynamic range is not as good as on my R6. In low light it is more a challenge, but using some creativity it can make also nice pic's. BIF is not as good as when using my R6. Overall the R7 with the RF100-500 is my go to combo.
Why did you agree with him when his comment is incorrect. The 100-500mm is less versatile, as it has a 400 range, whereas the 200-800mm has a 600mm range and it therefore a more versatile lens. If you want to shoot in the 100-200mm range then get the 100-500mm, but don't claim it is more versatile because it isn't. @@MannyDeida
I have the 200-800, no question when canon designed this they had birders in mind. Maybe one day I may get the 100-500 as well coz for general shooting it’s definitely a more versatile lens. But the little 100-400 with a 1.4x would makes a great everyday carry kit which is another option I’m considering.
Agreed with you. This lens is a great option for bird photography without braking your bank account :) Thats what I like about canon, they have so many affordable options. Thanks for the comment.
Watched a fair few of videos of the 200-800 to see people’s opinions. I wonder why canon used a black hood as surely a white hood would not generate any heat in front of lens on hot days, every small advantage is needed when working with zooms 400 -600- 800 and heat haze and misty days will also affect the quality of one’s image. Yes it’s still on my bucket list as relatively cheap compared to canons L lens
I have it and an R6 MKII. I couldn't agree more. Great clarity. I will receive a new R3 tomorrow. Goal is even more clarity with R3's claimed better auto focus. We'll see.
Well said Manny, I have this lens and Love the performance, I use it on my R8 and occasionally on my wife’s R7 and wow! if you need extra reach, apsc trumps tc all day..
And Lord knows I need the extra reach 🙂 Love / hate my R7's ! They have so many issues, but until they make an improved R7 Mk II, I just really don't have a choice.
@@MannyDeida Ya' know honestly, I have my Max ISO set to 3200. So my images are always super clean, right out of DXO Pure RAW. Rarely do I need to use any additional noise removal or sharpening. I know most folks follow the train of thought > darker conditions = higher ISO. I go with darker conditions = slower shutter, plus I always use a tripod regardless of all else. I'm not really much of a fast action, or BIF kind of guy anyway. The stuff I'd be likely to shoot in super low light would be like Owls or Nighthawks, which will often sit dead still for multiple second exposures with a tripod and timer :) I'm more interested in a much improved AF and EAF. Stickier, and better in low light / contrast.
For myself, the 200-800 is the Holy Grail of small bird photography. I used the 800 F11 for almost 2 yrs and took well over 200K photos with them. Great, sharp lenses. Just no versatility, and the 19.6 ft MFD was just too much. My first mirrorless camera was the R5. It was a great camera in many respects, but being a Full Frame model, I never had enough reach. After renting an R7 and loving it, I bought one. Then the R5 just set on the dresser collecting dust. Finally I sold it and bought a second R7. Great decision, and i never looked back. BTW, I rented the 100-500, as i fully intended on buying it. But i hated it. It was "never" long enough, and it was a PITA with teleconverters. JMPO, but if you are "always" having to use teleconverters, then your lens just isn't long enough. Anyway, thinking about buying a second 200-800. It's kind of crazy to be doing cross country birding trips, and hinging everything upon a single lens. I mean, I still have two 800 F11's, but after using the 200-800 for 4 months, I don't think I could go back. My work can be seen on my photo page, link on my channel.
I don't see any point in buying 100-500 when you have 200-800. Although it's not an L lens, it shoots just as well. And instead of 100-500, it's better to buy 100-400, it's lighter and the quality is also good.
go to Canon Service, tell them you are willing to PAY for them to lubricate the gears to loosen the lens so that it behave like a PULL PUSH ZOOM. entirely put the lens at a different level.
RF100-500 is one of the most popular RF lens. At the same time, it is the worst lens Canon had ever made. It's a half-finished product. It should be Internal zoom F6.3 TC support at full focal length range Of course compared with RF 70-200/2.8, it's nothing. It doesn't even support TC with a lame external zoom.
Really. You know this because you own the RF100-500 ? No, of course you dont. I have owned the RF 100-500 since it was released, and it lives on my R5mkii. Yes, the teleconverter thing can be a pita, but that is all for the negatives. Maintains full 500mm @ mfd (Sony 200-600 is closer to 360mm at mfd when it should be 600mm) Nearly one 1kg lighter with the lens foot off than the Sony 200-600 Sharp as sharp as sharp - no complaints. Re the f7.1, I usually stop down to f9 @ 500mm to have more of the subject in focus. Combined with the r5mkii, this is an unbeatable combination; light, sharp and class leading af. Internal zoom ? Meh, meaningless.
yeah totally. thats why its one of their most popular lenses ever because its soooo bad. it should not have been internal zoom or 6.3. its have been way bigger for basically very very little benefit. its already 6.3 out to 472mm. just zoom out 28mm if you have to have 6.3. They basically made a ef 100-400 that weighs less and has a better tc built in already. its a tiny bit less reach, but sharper and faster aperture, than the ef 100-400 with a 1.4. The external zoom is fantastic for travel and weight. Ive absolutely abused the crap out of my 100-500 the past 2+ years and its still flawless. It'd be nice to have full zoom range with tc but if you think youd use a tc that much just get the 200-800
One thing to keep in mind is that the 100-500 is 7.1 at 500mm. The 200-800 is f8 at 500, BUT, it's 7.1 at 455mm. That's pretty darn close if you are comparing. Plus you have the option of going to 600, 700 and 800, and it costs less. Of course, the 100-500 is an L lens, with everything that implies, better coatings and better weatherproofing (though the 200-800 DOES have some weatherproofing. I already had an EF 100-400 4.5-5.6, so the one to five wasn't a big priority. But I jumped on the two to eight. In decent light it's an awesome lens. No, it doesn't need noontime light. I shoot with it from sunup to sundown on clear days. It's only a stop and a third slower at 800 than the $16,000.00 800 f5.6!
True. Excellent explanation. Thank you so much for sharing.
“Only a stop and a third slower” bro what
If you just looking for reach, the 200-800 is probably the better choice when you have a full frame camera, like a R6 or R6II. If you want a versatile lens than the 100-500 is the better option.
@@ceesnabuursfauna2115 agree with you. And like I said in the video, the 200-800 is more affordable and that’s the reason is so popular now. Thanks for commenting.
If your "just looking for reach" you shouldn't be using a full frame camera in the first place. I'm glad to have "upgraded" from my R5, to my R7's 2 years ago. Great decision. I never looked back.
@@Chris_Wolfgram I use the R7 with the RF100-500. That is fine in good light. This combination gives me very good picture's, but it is important to keep the exposure always as far as possible to the right (without clipping), because the dynamic range is not as good as on my R6. In low light it is more a challenge, but using some creativity it can make also nice pic's. BIF is not as good as when using my R6. Overall the R7 with the RF100-500 is my go to combo.
Why did you agree with him when his comment is incorrect. The 100-500mm is less versatile, as it has a 400 range, whereas the 200-800mm has a 600mm range and it therefore a more versatile lens. If you want to shoot in the 100-200mm range then get the 100-500mm, but don't claim it is more versatile because it isn't. @@MannyDeida
Cheers my friend, I love your honesty and I have one in the box upstairs waiting for me.
@@mr.mephistopheles2497 That’s awesome. You won’t regret it.
I have the 200-800, no question when canon designed this they had birders in mind. Maybe one day I may get the 100-500 as well coz for general shooting it’s definitely a more versatile lens. But the little 100-400 with a 1.4x would makes a great
everyday carry kit which is another option I’m considering.
Agreed with you. This lens is a great option for bird photography without braking your bank account :) Thats what I like about canon, they have so many affordable options. Thanks for the comment.
Watched a fair few of videos of the 200-800 to see people’s opinions. I wonder why canon used a black hood as surely a white hood would not generate any heat in front of lens on hot days, every small advantage is needed when working with zooms 400 -600- 800 and heat haze and misty days will also affect the quality of one’s image. Yes it’s still on my bucket list as relatively cheap compared to canons L lens
You have a really good point, Wouldn't have cost them anything to make it white. I 100% agree. Thanks for sharing!
I have it and an R6 MKII. I couldn't agree more. Great clarity. I will receive a new R3 tomorrow. Goal is even more clarity with R3's claimed better auto focus. We'll see.
I will guess it will perform great on the R3. Thanks.
Well said Manny, I have this lens and Love the performance, I use it on my R8 and occasionally on my wife’s R7 and wow! if you need extra reach, apsc trumps tc all day..
I used it ones on a R7 and ohh my God, it was great. Having 1,280mm is mine blowing. Thanks
And Lord knows I need the extra reach 🙂 Love / hate my R7's ! They have so many issues, but until they make an improved R7 Mk II, I just really don't have a choice.
There's rumors about the R7 Mrk II coming out in 2025. Hopefully they will fix those issues specially on the high ISO capabilities. Thanks
@@MannyDeida Ya' know honestly, I have my Max ISO set to 3200. So my images are always super clean, right out of DXO Pure RAW. Rarely do I need to use any additional noise removal or sharpening. I know most folks follow the train of thought > darker conditions = higher ISO. I go with darker conditions = slower shutter, plus I always use a tripod regardless of all else. I'm not really much of a fast action, or BIF kind of guy anyway. The stuff I'd be likely to shoot in super low light would be like Owls or Nighthawks, which will often sit dead still for multiple second exposures with a tripod and timer :)
I'm more interested in a much improved AF and EAF. Stickier, and better in low light / contrast.
For myself, the 200-800 is the Holy Grail of small bird photography.
I used the 800 F11 for almost 2 yrs and took well over 200K photos with them. Great, sharp lenses. Just no versatility, and the 19.6 ft MFD was just too much.
My first mirrorless camera was the R5. It was a great camera in many respects, but being a Full Frame model, I never had enough reach. After renting an R7 and loving it, I bought one. Then the R5 just set on the dresser collecting dust. Finally I sold it and bought a second R7. Great decision, and i never looked back.
BTW, I rented the 100-500, as i fully intended on buying it. But i hated it. It was "never" long enough, and it was a PITA with teleconverters. JMPO, but if you are "always" having to use teleconverters, then your lens just isn't long enough.
Anyway, thinking about buying a second 200-800. It's kind of crazy to be doing cross country birding trips, and hinging everything upon a single lens. I mean, I still have two 800 F11's, but after using the 200-800 for 4 months, I don't think I could go back.
My work can be seen on my photo page, link on my channel.
The R7 with the 200-800 is defenetly a beast. I used it ones and loved it. R7 will be my next purchase for sure. Thanks for sharing.
I guess I didn't subscribe yet.. but I did now!
Thanks for your support.
I don't see any point in buying 100-500 when you have 200-800. Although it's not an L lens, it shoots just as well. And instead of 100-500, it's better to buy 100-400, it's lighter and the quality is also good.
@@Alexander_Kushnarev-117 Image quality it’s definitely great on the 200-800. Thanks for sharing.
@MannyDeida I am owner 200-800 and 100-400. I use R7.
@ 100-400 is an excellent lens as well. Thanks for sharing.
Great info!
Thanks
@@MannyDeida Great lens.
Thanks
go to Canon Service, tell them you are willing to PAY
for them to lubricate the gears to loosen the lens so that it behave like a PULL PUSH ZOOM.
entirely put the lens at a different level.
Thanks for the info.
Halfway through and all I've heard what's wrong with it bye.
"I get it, sometimes things just don’t click. Thanks for giving it a try, and I’ll keep working on making content that’s better for everyone!"
RF100-500 is one of the most popular RF lens. At the same time, it is the worst lens Canon had ever made. It's a half-finished product.
It should be
Internal zoom
F6.3
TC support at full focal length range
Of course compared with RF 70-200/2.8, it's nothing. It doesn't even support TC with a lame external zoom.
Really. You know this because you own the RF100-500 ? No, of course you dont.
I have owned the RF 100-500 since it was released, and it lives on my R5mkii.
Yes, the teleconverter thing can be a pita, but that is all for the negatives.
Maintains full 500mm @ mfd (Sony 200-600 is closer to 360mm at mfd when it should be 600mm)
Nearly one 1kg lighter with the lens foot off than the Sony 200-600
Sharp as sharp as sharp - no complaints.
Re the f7.1, I usually stop down to f9 @ 500mm to have more of the subject in focus.
Combined with the r5mkii, this is an unbeatable combination; light, sharp and class leading af.
Internal zoom ? Meh, meaningless.
I own it from Jan 2022. It is half finished lens and can take good photo too.
@@fredlar9421 I’ll be honest, I’m not a big fan of the external zoom either. Thanks for sharing.
yeah totally. thats why its one of their most popular lenses ever because its soooo bad.
it should not have been internal zoom or 6.3. its have been way bigger for basically very very little benefit. its already 6.3 out to 472mm. just zoom out 28mm if you have to have 6.3. They basically made a ef 100-400 that weighs less and has a better tc built in already. its a tiny bit less reach, but sharper and faster aperture, than the ef 100-400 with a 1.4. The external zoom is fantastic for travel and weight. Ive absolutely abused the crap out of my 100-500 the past 2+ years and its still flawless.
It'd be nice to have full zoom range with tc but if you think youd use a tc that much just get the 200-800
Worse lens Canon ever made? Lost any credibility you may have had with that statement!