Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM

[Mr Roboto]

 

[Mr Roboto]

An uncropped shot using the tiny R100 with this lens
(definitely not a balanced combo lol)

 

[Mr Roboto]

Look out below!

 

[LoneRider]

 

[Dejan317]

Hey Guys,

I just got my new R6 mk3 and looking for a new RF lens for it.
I use my EF 500 f4 IS most of the time, but for my second lens I cant decide which one to take.. 100-500 or 200-800

which one would you take?

thx

 

[Jan1977]

Hey Guys,

I just got my new R6 mk3 and looking for a new RF lens for it.
I use my EF 500 f4 IS most of the time, but for my second lens I cant decide which one to take.. 100-500 or 200-800

which one would you take?

thx

Hard to advise you on which one to take, as it is really dependent on what you shoot and how you shoot. The 800mm is preferable if 500mm will not get you close enough. The 200-800 is however much larger, so if you prefer a lighter option, the 100-500 might be preferable. The difference between 100 and 200mm only matters in specific circumstances, but can be quite noticeable, so if you would like the wider end of the zoom that may be important.
For more closeup like shots (for example some insects on flowers) a lens like the 100-500 is more useful than the 200-800 in my opinion, but you can get nice shots with the 200-800 as well.

And there is of course the price, since the 100-500 is more expensive. If you go for the 200-800 you might even also get the RF 100-400. That will give you some of the benefits the 100-500 would given you otherwise. (Light weight option, better for insect closeups, 100mm field of view).

I have all of the lenses and like each of them. If I had to drop 1 lens, it would be the RF100-400 since the 100-500 covers it. I use my 200-800 more often than my 100-500, but that is because I use these lenses most for birds, where the 800mm is really useful. But I do shoot a lot of sports and although I usually use other lenses for that, the 100-500 can be a substitute and is more useful than the 200-800. So if I had to pick between my 100-500 and 200-800 I most likely would keep my 100-500, because the 100-500 is most suited for what I shoot most.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Hey Guys,

I just got my new R6 mk3 and looking for a new RF lens for it.
I use my EF 500 f4 IS most of the time, but for my second lens I cant decide which one to take.. 100-500 or 200-800

which one would you take?

thx

I agree with @Jan1977

I also had the EF500 f/4. Two questions for you:
1) Are you finding that you are often cropping your images and/or using a teleconverter?
2) If not the above, is the weight and bulk of the EF500 the major reasons why you are looking for a 2nd lens?

I replaced my EF500 with the 200-800 because I was "yes" to both of the above.
But I do very much miss the f/4 aperture.

 

[Cap'n Fishy]

I was using mine last week for butterflies. I usually use the EF 100-400 II plus x1.4, as it gives much better magnification at closest focusing. However, I was trying to photograph holly blues, which were sitting up high in a holly tree. So, they were outside the closest focusing of the 200-800 plus x1.4, so I was better with it at 1120 mm than I was with the 100-400 combo at 560 mm.

After a first day with the EF set-up at 560 mm, I went back wth the RF set-up at 1120 mm. The butterflies counteracted this move by sitting up even higher in the tree! So, ultimately, both sets of photos required massive crops, and don't really lend themselves to comparison. However, here are a couple with each...

EF 100-400 II plus x1.4 @ 560 mm...

Female...

Male...

RF 200-800 plus x1.4 TC @ 1120 mm...

Female...

Male...

 

[Dejan317]

Hey Jan,

Thx for your reply.
I shoot birds and other animals as well, but mostly birds. I use my 500+1.4 all the time.
So extra 100mm would be nice

Q wise which one is better?

 

[Jan1977]

Hey Jan,

Thx for your reply.
I shoot birds and other animals as well, but mostly birds. I use my 500+1.4 all the time.
So extra 100mm would be nice

Q wise which one is better?

I can't really tell which has the better image quality. Based on reviews and the like and the 100-500 is the better one from the Q wise perspective.

The reason I can't really tell, is I have not done a comparison between the 2 lenses. It is not my cup of tea to do those comparisons and to large extent I feel the comparisons are too theoretical.

My gut feeling says that in the joined focal range the 100-500 is slightly better, but they are different lenses and with longer focal lengths in uncontrolled environments, the circumstances and environmental conditions can have an important role as well.
I never shoot both lenses together for the same subjects from a similar standpoint. A cropped frame from the RF200-800 with 1.4x extender at 1120 might not be the best Q wise, but a crop taken from 500 would certainly look worse. So practically comparison would only be relevant when shot between 200-500mm, but that is not the way I shoot. I put the lens on the camera for what I intent to shoot. So for birding I usually just take the 200-800 (often with extender) because I know I will prefer to zoom over 500 mm anyway.
If I have both lenses with me in nature I use the 200-800 for birds and the 100-500 for closer by subjects like butterflies and other insects. If my intention is to do butterflies and insects, I leave the 200-800 at home.

From a quality perspective both lenses can give plenty of keepers with nice image quality. The 100-500 likely gives a slightly higher number of 'keepers' but the 200-800 will already provide more keepers than I will actually use.

The 100-500 does influence image quality indirectly due to it being a bit better/ easier manageable in hand holding scenarios and having slightly better AF. But if the 200-800 is aimed at the target and focus is locked, image quality is good to a point that there is no need for (theoretical) better image quality.

So in conclusion the 100-500 will be better Q wise in theory, but in real practice the difference should not be the decider between the lenses. The decision should be based on using scenario and focal range and build aspects like weight.

 

[Mike_d]

I can't really tell which has the better image quality. Based on reviews and the like and the 100-500 is the better one from the Q wise perspective.

The reason I can't really tell, is I have not done a comparison between the 2 lenses. It is not my cup of tea to do those comparisons and to large extent I feel the comparisons are too theoretical.

My gut feeling says that in the joined focal range the 100-500 is slightly better, but they are different lenses and with longer focal lengths in uncontrolled environments, the circumstances and environmental conditions can have an important role as well.
I never shoot both lenses together for the same subjects from a similar standpoint. A cropped frame from the RF200-800 with 1.4x extender at 1120 might not be the best Q wise, but a crop taken from 500 would certainly look worse. So practically comparison would only be relevant when shot between 200-500mm, but that is not the way I shoot. I put the lens on the camera for what I intent to shoot. So for birding I usually just take the 200-800 (often with extender) because I know I will prefer to zoom over 500 mm anyway.
If I have both lenses with me in nature I use the 200-800 for birds and the 100-500 for closer by subjects like butterflies and other insects. If my intention is to do butterflies and insects, I leave the 200-800 at home.

From a quality perspective both lenses can give plenty of keepers with nice image quality. The 100-500 likely gives a slightly higher number of 'keepers' but the 200-800 will already provide more keepers than I will actually use.

The 100-500 does influence image quality indirectly due to it being a bit better/ easier manageable in hand holding scenarios and having slightly better AF. But if the 200-800 is aimed at the target and focus is locked, image quality is good to a point that there is no need for (theoretical) better image quality.

So in conclusion the 100-500 will be better Q wise in theory, but in real practice the difference should not be the decider between the lenses. The decision should be based on using scenario and focal range and build aspects like weight.

In the comparisons I've seen, the 100-500 is sharper up to 500mm and about even with the 200-800 with the 1.4x TC.

 

[Cap'n Fishy]

I already had 560 mm with the EF 100-400 II + x1.4. I wanted longer for bird shots. I didn't like the idea of the restricted focal range and non-compaction of the 100-500 when the x1.4 was added - just to get an extra 140 mm reach. However, the 200-800 with or without the x1.4 was perfect. I love having the 100-400 (+/- x1.4) plus 200-800 (+/- x1.4) for the 2 jobs of 'tele-close' and 'tele-far'.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Shift Change

 

[Mr Roboto]