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.
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.
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.
Great info!
Thanks
@@MannyDeida Great lens.
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